2
$\begingroup$

Let $z$ denote a unit vector. Fix a finite collection of positive semidefinite matrices $\mathcal{P}$. Define the function and set $$ f_{\mathcal{P}}(X) = \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}} z^T X(PX + I)^{-1} z, \quad \mbox{and} \quad \mathcal{X} = \{X \succeq 0,~\mathrm{trace}(X) = 1\}. $$ Above, $X \succeq 0$ means that $X$ is a real, symmetric, and positive semidefinite matrix.

I am interested in the following quantities, $$ f^\star_{\mathcal{P}} = \sup_{X \in \mathcal{X}} f_{\mathcal{P}}(X) \quad \mbox{and} \quad X^\star_{\mathcal{P}} = \mathrm{argmax}_{X \in \mathcal{X}} f_{\mathcal{P}}(X). $$ By continuity and compactness, the supremum is attained and both quantities are well-defined.

In the case $|\mathcal{P}| = 1$, I am able to directly compute this. I obtain $$ f^\star_{\mathcal{P}} = z^T(I + P)^{-1} z \quad \mbox{and} \quad X^\star_{\mathcal{P}} = \frac{(I+P)^{-1} zz^T (I + P)^{-1}}{z^T (I+P)^{-2} z}. $$ Above, $\mathcal{P} = \{P\}$. However, my proof does not generalize to $|\mathcal{P}| > 1$. I am wondering if there is a more clever way to obtain this result.

$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ I should add, even a solution in the case $|\mathcal{P}| = 2$ would be helpful. $\endgroup$
    – Drew Brady
    Commented May 17 at 21:43
  • $\begingroup$ This is an interesting problem, there are many ways to look at it. It might help if you say more on what you tried so far and why it failed. You may know things others don't know and vice versa. $\endgroup$ Commented May 27 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ Well, as I mentioned above, the only case I could make progress on was the case of $|\mathcal{P}| = 1$. In that case, it is clear from the upper bound argument it has no hope of generalizing to cardinality larger than 1. (Simply because the inequality $z^T X (PX + I)^{-1} z \preceq z^T (P + I)^{-1}z $ is not very strong for $X \in \mathcal{X}$, in the sense that it holds for any direction $z$.) $\endgroup$
    – Drew Brady
    Commented May 27 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ Did you mean $\le$? $\endgroup$ Commented May 27 at 20:10
  • $\begingroup$ How did you come up with $X^\star_{\mathcal{P}}$? $\endgroup$ Commented May 27 at 20:14

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

We will derive the necessary and sufficient conditions for a local maximum of the functional $$ g(L) := \sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}} z^T L L^T(P L L^T + I)^{-1} z = z^T L(L^T P L + I)^{-1} L^T z,$$ where $L$ is a real $n\times n$ matrix with $\mathrm{trace}(L L^T) = 1$ (you essentially proved the above equality in the comments, the equations simplify somewhat further by using this).

The main trick is to view $L$ as a vector in $\mathbb R ^{n^2}$ lying on the $(n^2-1)$-dimensional unit sphere. The special orthogonal group $SO(n^2)$ acts transitively on this sphere, so if we fix some vector $v \in \mathbb R ^{n^2}$ on the unit sphere then we can instead of $g$ maximize the functional on $SO(n^2)$ given by $$ h(R):=\sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}} z^T [Rv]([Rv]^T P [Rv] + I)^{-1} [Rv]^T z,$$ where $R \in SO(n^2)$ and where the square brackets turn a column vector of length $n^2$ in a $n\times n$ matrix (say row by row starting at the upper left corner). Since the Lie algebra of $SO(n^2)$ is the set of $n^2\times n^2$ skew-symmetric matrices (see for example 'Introduction to smooth manifolds' by John Lee), the necessary and sufficient conditions for a local maximum $R$ become $$\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}h(e^{tA}R)=0,$$ $$\left.\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\right|_{t=0}h(e^{tA}R)\le 0,$$ for any $n^2\times n^2$ skew-symmetric matrix $A$. We will work out the first order conditions and leave working out the second order conditions to the interested reader.

Let $\overline{E}_{ab}$ be a $n^2\times n^2$ elementary matrix (so zeros everywhere except at position $ab$ where it is $1$). Because the first order conditions are linear in $A$ we only need to consider $$A_{pqrs}:=\overline{E}_{((p-1)n+q)((r-1)n+s)}-\overline{E}_{((r-1)n+s)((p-1)n+q)}$$ in them, for $1\le p,q,r,s \le n$. We can compute that $$[A_{pqrs}Rv]= E_{pr}[Rv]E_{sq}-E_{rp}[Rv]E_{qs}$$ (where $E_{ij}$ is a $n\times n$ elementary matrix).

We get \begin{align*} \left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}h(e^{tA_{pqrs}}R)=\sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}} & z^T [A_{pqrs}Rv]([Rv]^T P [Rv] + I)^{-1} [Rv]^T z + z^T[Rv]([Rv]^T P [Rv] + I)^{-1} [A_{pqrs}Rv]^T z \\& - z^T[Rv]([Rv]^T P [Rv] + I)^{-1} ([A_{pqrs}Rv]^T P [Rv]+[Rv]^T P [A_{pqrs}Rv])([Rv]^T P [Rv] + I)^{-1} [Rv]^T z. \end{align*}

Finally writing $L=[Rv]$ and using the above expression for $[A_{pqrs}Rv]$ we can simplify the above to \begin{align*} 0=\sum_{P \in \mathcal{P}} z^T (I- L(L^T P L + I)^{-1} L^T P) (E_{pr}L E_{sq}-E_{rp} L E_{qs})(L^T P L + I)^{-1}L^T z. \end{align*}

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .