7
$\begingroup$

Let $A \in \mathbb R^{n\times n}$ be a positive semi-definite matrix, and let $b \in \mathbb R^n$. For a random vector $x \sim \mathcal N(0, I_{n\times n})$, consider the random matrices $$ B_1 = A + xx^T, \qquad B_2 = A + (x + b)(x + b)^T. $$ Intuitively, it seems likely to me that the following inequality should be satisfied for all $r \geq 0$: $$ \mathbb P[\lambda_{\min}(B_1) ≥ r] \leq \mathbb P[\lambda_{\min}(B_2) ≥ r] \,. $$ However, I have searched the literature (particularly the literature on non-central Wishart distributions) and have not found an answer to this question. Does this follow from classical results, or is it an open question?


EDIT

In fact, the inequality does not hold. Indeed, in the example suggested by @Ben Deitmar, it is the other way around. Consider the case $$ A = \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}, \qquad b = \begin{pmatrix} x \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}. $$

  • For $x = 2$: CDFs

  • For $x = 5$, the difference is even more pronounced:

CDFs

It looks as if, in the limit $x \to \infty$, the random varibale $\lambda_{\min}(B_2)$ tends to 1 in probability. The Julia code, for reproducibility purposes:

using LinearAlgebra
using LaTeXStrings
using Plots

A = [2. 0.; 0. 1.]
b = [5., 0.]

n = 10^5
λ₁, λ₂ = zeros(n), zeros(n)

for i in 1:n
    x = randn(2)
    B₁ = A + x*x'
    B₂ = A + (b + x)*(b + x)'
    λ₁[i] = eigvals(B₁)[1]
    λ₂[i] = eigvals(B₂)[1]
end

λ₁ = sort(λ₁)
λ₂ = sort(λ₂)

plot(λ₁, (1:n)/n, label=L"CDF of $\lambda_{\min}(B_1)$")
plot!(λ₂, (1:n)/n, label=L"CDF of $\lambda_{\min}(B_2)$")
savefig("CDF.png")
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry for my wrong answer, this is more complicated than I first thought. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 19 at 15:19
  • $\begingroup$ No problem! Thank you for having given the problem some thought! $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 19 at 15:36
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't it true that for every fixed vector x, the matrix B_2 - B_1 is positive semidefinite? Then, Weyl's inequality should give a stronger statement than the probabilistic one. I might be missing something (I left academia many years ago) $\endgroup$
    – zouzias
    Commented Sep 19 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ Some simulations with the computer seem to yield a counter-example for $A = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 2 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{array}\right)$ and $b = \left(\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 0\end{array}\right)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 19 at 17:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @zouzias If I'm understanding your question: a counterexample occurs when $x=-b$; $B_2 - B_1$ is not positive semidefinite in that case. $\endgroup$
    – user196574
    Commented Sep 19 at 18:58

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Let $x \sim \mathcal N(0, I_2)$, and for $z \in \mathbb R$, consider the random matrix $$ B_z = A + (x + b_z)(x + b_z)^T. $$ where $$ A = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \qquad b_z = \begin{pmatrix} z \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}. $$ Let us prove that $\lambda_{\min}(B_z)$ tends to 0 in probability as $z \to \infty$, which will prove rigorously that the inequality in the question does not hold.

To this end, let $y_z(x)$ be a unit vector orthogonal to $x + b_z$. Note that since $x$ is a random vector, so is $y_z$. Then $$ \lambda_{\min}(B_z) \leq y_z(x)^T B_z y_z(x) = y_z(x)^TAy_z(x) = \langle y_z(x), e_1 \rangle^2. $$ Clearly, the right-hand side converges to 0 in probability as $z \to \infty$, because in this limit $x + b_z$ aligns with $e_1$. The conclusion the follows.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Glad you found a nice proof. This was a fun problem! Do you have any similar ones? $\endgroup$
    – user196574
    Commented Sep 26 at 4:01
  • $\begingroup$ I do have a similar one, but much harder to answer I think. I will try to post it later today $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1 at 8:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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