Let $X_0$ be a trace-one positive definite matrix, i.e. $X_0>0$, $\mathrm{tr}(X_0)=1$. Let $A>0$ and consider the following iteration $$ X_{k+1} = X_k^{1/2}AX_k^{1/2},\quad k\geq 0,\quad (\star) $$ where $X_k^{1/2}$ denotes the (principal) square root of $X_k$.

My question: Is it true that if there exists $X_0$ as above such that $(\star)$ is trace-preserving starting from $X_0$, i.e. $\mathrm{tr}(X_{k+1})=\mathrm{tr}(X_{k})=1$ for all $k\geq 0$, then $A=I$?

If $X_0$ and $A$ are scalars this is clearly true. Moreover, it is easy to see that $A$ cannot be such that $A> I$ or $A< I$, but I cannot quite prove that $A$ must be the identity.

Thanks for your help.

Addendum 1. Note that by applying to $(\star)$ an orthogonal change of basis $T$ which diagonalizes $A$, we can rewrite $(\star)$ as $$ \tilde{X}_{k+1}= \tilde{X}_k^{1/2} D \tilde{X}_k^{1/2} \quad (\star\star) $$ where $\tilde{X}_k:=T^\top X_k T$ and $D:=T^\top AT>0$ is diagonal.

Addendum 2. A "simpler" version of this question was answered in the affirmative here.

Addendum 3. My attempts so far were based on working with the "simplified" dynamics $(\star\star)$. Namely, consider the partition $D=\left[\begin{smallmatrix}D_1 & 0 \\ 0 & D_2\end{smallmatrix}\right]$ with $D_1>I_{n_1}$ and $D_2<I_{n_2}$ (in the other cases, e.g. $D_1> I_{n_1}$, $D_2=I_{n_2}$, it is easy to show that $\mathrm{tr}(\tilde{X}_1)\neq 1$). Now by partitioning $\tilde X_0^{1/2}$ and $\tilde X_1$ accordingly to the block decomposition of $D$, we get $$ \tilde{X}_1=\begin{bmatrix}(\tilde X_1)_{11} & (\tilde X_1)_{12} \\ (\tilde X_1)_{12}^\top & (\tilde X_1)_{22}\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}(\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{11}D_1(\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{11} + (\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{12}D_2(\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{12}^\top & (\ast) \\ (\ast)^\top & (\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{12}^\top D_1(\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{12} + (\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{22}D_2(\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{22} \end{bmatrix}, $$ with the constraint $\mathrm{tr}(\tilde X_0)=1$ which now reads as $$ \mathrm{tr}\left((\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{11}(\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{11} + (\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{12}(\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{12}^\top\right)+\mathrm{tr}\left((\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{12}^\top (\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{12} + (\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{22}(\tilde X_0^{1/2})_{22}\right)=1. $$ Now my conjecture is that $\mathrm{tr}(\tilde X_2)\neq 1$ for all $\tilde{X_0}>0$, $\mathrm{tr}(\tilde{X_0})=1$, (indeed, it is easy to find examples for which $\mathrm{tr}(\tilde X_1)= 1$). My idea is to use the same block decomposition for $\tilde X_2$ and then exploit some "trace inequalities" applied to the diagonal blocks. However I didn't manage to conclude anything so far.

Addendum 4. A more general version of this question which I suspect hold true (actually, for the $2\times 2$ case, it does hold true) is the following one:

Is it true that if there exists $X_0\ge 0$, $\mathrm{tr}(X_0)=1$, such that $(\star)$ is trace-preserving starting from $X_0$, i.e. $\mathrm{tr}(X_{k+1})=\mathrm{tr}(X_{k})=1$ for all $k\geq 0$, then $X_{k+1}=X_k^{1/2}AX_k^{1/2}=X_k$ for all $k\geq 0$?

  • 1
    @FedorPetrov I can show that cycles of any length are impossible if $A\ne I$. Alas, this doesn't help much with the original problem unless $X_j$ are uniformly non-degenerate (which is never true in the interesting case $\det A<1$), so we are still nowhere... – fedja Sep 20 '16 at 4:47
  • 2
    Certainly. Assume $A=diag(a_1,\dots,a_n)$. For a self-adjoint matrix $Z$, let $v(Z)$ be the vector whose coordinates are the diagonal entries of $Z$. Assume $Y^2=XAX$. Then $v(Y^2)=(X\circ X^T)v(A)$ while $v(X^2)=(X\circ X^T)v(I)$ where $Z\circ T$ is the Schur (element-wise) product of $Z$ and $T$. Since $X\circ X^T$ is positive-definite, we get $\langle v(Y^2)-v(X^2),v(A)-v(I)\rangle>0$ if $v(A)\ne v(I)$, so we drift in one direction every time with no chance to return. – fedja Sep 20 '16 at 21:17
  • 1
    @NawafBou-Rabee Yes, we can show that the entire sequence converges to a degenerate operator (degenerate fixed points are plentiful). What's next? – fedja Sep 20 '16 at 21:45
  • 1
    @NawafBou-Rabee As I said from the very beginning, $\det A<1$ is the only interesting case. Note that any power of a positive number is still positive, so no degenerate situations occur in that case. – fedja Sep 20 '16 at 22:41
  • 1
    @NawafBou-Rabee Yeah, but that case is trivial because the trace is not less than the $n$-th root of the determinant (AM-GM), so it just blows up geometrically. – fedja Sep 20 '16 at 23:02
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Actually, you have completely solved it yourself, just didn't dare to acknowledge it. In my notation, you have $(X\circ X^T)v(A)=(Y\circ Y^T)v(I)$ when $Y^2=XAX$. Similarly, $(Z\circ Z^T)v(I)=(Y\circ Y^T)v(A)$ when $Z^2=YAY$. Taking the trace, we must have $$ 1=\langle(X\circ X^T)v(I),v(I)\rangle=\langle(Y\circ Y^T)v(I),v(I)\rangle=\langle(Z\circ Z^T)v(I),v(I)\rangle\,. $$ However, $$ \langle(Y\circ Y^T)v(I),v(I)\rangle=\langle(X\circ X^T)v(A),v(I)\rangle $$ and $$ \langle(Z\circ Z^T)v(I),v(I)\rangle=\langle(Y\circ Y^T)v(A),v(I)\rangle \\ = \langle(Y\circ Y^T)v(I),v(A)\rangle=\langle(X\circ X^T)v(A),v(A)\rangle $$ so $$ \langle(X\circ X^T)(v(A)-v(I)),(v(A)-v(I))\rangle=0 $$ whence $X\circ X^T$ and, thereby, $X$ must be degenerate unless $v(A)=v(I)$, i.e., $A=I$.

This story definitely has a few morals but I'll abstain from spelling them out :-).

First, let me modify the given problem for the sake of simplicity.

Given an $n \times n$ matrix $X_0>0$ with unit trace, i.e., $$ X_0 = \sum_{1 \le i \le n} \lambda_i v_i v_i^T \;, \quad \sum_{1 \le i \le n} \lambda_i = 1 $$ where $\{ \lambda_i \}$ and $\{ v_i \}$ are the positive eigenvalues and orthonormal eigenvectors of $X_0$, respectively. Set $A>0$ to be $$ A = \sum_{1 \le i \le n} \alpha_i v_i v_i^T \tag{$\diamond$} $$ where $\{ \alpha_i \}$ are positive eigenvalues of $A$, and we stress that $A$ has the same eigenvectors as $X_0$. If the solution to the matrix recurrence relation $$ X_{k+1} = X_k^{1/2} A X_k^{1/2} $$ with initial data $X_0$ satisfies $\operatorname{trace}(X_{k})=1$ for all natural numbers $k \ge 0$, then $A=I_n$, i.e., $\alpha_i = 1$ for all $1 \le i \le n$.

Remark. The difference between this formulation and the OP's formulation is that $A$ has the same eigenvectors as the given seed $X_0$. Admittedly, this form of $A$ is restrictive, but it is nicer to work with because, as we will see, it simplifies the subsequent calculations.

For the sake of contradiction, suppose that $A \ne I_n$, i.e., not all $\alpha_i = 1$ for $1 \le i \le n$. Since $$ X_0^{1/2} = \sum_{1 \le i \le n} \sqrt{\lambda_i} v_i v_i^T $$ after one step of the recurrence relation we have that: \begin{align*} X_1 &= \sum_{1 \le i,j \le n} \sqrt{\lambda_i} \sqrt{\lambda_j} (v_i^T A v_j) v_i v_j^T \\ &= \sum_{1 \le i,j,k \le n}\sqrt{\lambda_i} \sqrt{\lambda_j} \alpha_k (v_i^T v_k) (v_k^T v_j) v_i v_j^T \\ &= \sum_{1 \le i,j \le n}\sqrt{\lambda_i} \sqrt{\lambda_j} \alpha_i \delta_{ij} v_i v_j^T \qquad \text{($\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta)}\\ &= \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i \alpha_i v_i v_i^T \end{align*} and the unit trace requirement implies that $$ \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i \alpha_i = 1 \;. $$ Iterating the above calculation $k$ times, we see that the unit trace requirement implies that $\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i \alpha_i^k = 1 $ which, according to our hypotheses, must hold true for any natural number $k \ge 0$. A more transparent way to write this requirement is as: $$ \mathbf{V}^T \boldsymbol{\lambda} = \mathbf{1} \tag{$\star$} $$ where we have introduced an infinite Vandermonde-like matrix and two vectors: $$ \mathbf{V} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \alpha_1 & \cdots & \alpha_1^k & \cdots \\ 1 & \alpha_2 & \cdots & \alpha_2^k & \cdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \cdots \\ 1 & \alpha_n & \cdots & \alpha_n^k & \cdots \end{bmatrix} \;, \quad \boldsymbol{\lambda} = \begin{bmatrix} \lambda_1 \\ \vdots \\ \lambda_n \end{bmatrix} \;, \quad \mathbf{1} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ \vdots \end{bmatrix} $$ If $\alpha_1 = \cdots = \alpha_n = 1$, then the solution set of ($\star$) basically contains all unit trace matrices that are positive definite. (This is the trivial case.) However, if even one of the eigenvalues of $A$ is not equal to one (the case at hand), then the solution set to this infinite (overdetermined) system of equations is empty, and there exists no $X_0$ that satisfies the hypotheses given above, which is a contradiction that is resolved only if $\alpha_1 = \cdots = \alpha_n = 1$ or $A=I_n$.

  • Thanks! The approach is interesting, although restricted to a particular case. – Ludwig Sep 18 '16 at 13:56
  • Does the restriction that $A$ has the same eigenvectors as $X_0$ reduce the practicality of this result? – Nawaf Bou-Rabee Sep 18 '16 at 15:18
  • Unfortunately, yes – Ludwig Sep 18 '16 at 15:19
  • Could you please elaborate? What is the motivation for this question? – Nawaf Bou-Rabee Sep 18 '16 at 15:20
  • 1
    It's a long story, but basically I would like to show that the iteration $(\star)$ has no invariant trajectories in the set of positive definite trace one matrices if $A\neq I$ – Ludwig Sep 18 '16 at 15:29

I sketch here a solution for the $2\times 2$ case. My hope is that the outlined approach can be used to find a general solution.

As noticed in Addendum 1, we can restrict wlog to diagonal positive definite $A$'s $$ A := \begin{bmatrix}d_1 & 0 \\ 0 & d_2\end{bmatrix}. $$ I consider the case $d_1>1$ and $0<d_2<1$, the other cases being trivial. Define $X_0^{1/2}$ as $$ X_0^{1/2} := \begin{bmatrix}a & b \\ b & c\end{bmatrix}. $$ Since $X_0>0$ and hence $X_0^{1/2}>0$ it holds $a>0$, $b>0$, and $ac-b^2>0$. Moreover since $\mathrm{tr}(X_0)=1$, we have that $$ a^2+2b^2+c^2=1. \quad (1) $$ Now after one iteration step we obtain \begin{align} X_1 &= X_0^{1/2}AX_0^{1/2}= \begin{bmatrix} a^2d_1+b^2d_2 & \ast \\ \ast & b^2d_1+c^2d_2\end{bmatrix}. \end{align} Due to the fact that $\mathrm{tr}(X_1)=1$, it follows that $$ a^2d_1+b^2(d_1+d_2)+c^2d_2=1. \quad (2) $$ Let us define $$ X_1^{1/2} := \begin{bmatrix} a_1 & b_1 \\ b_1 & c_1\end{bmatrix} $$ Since $X_1=X_1^{1/2}X_1^{1/2}$, we get \begin{align} a_1^2+b_1^2=a^2d_1+b^2d_2 \ \ \text{ and }\ \ b_1^2+c_1^2=b^2d_1+c^2d_2. \quad(\#) \end{align} Now consider the second iteration step $$ X_2 = X_1^{1/2}AX_1^{1/2}= \begin{bmatrix} a_1^2d_1+b_1^2d_2 & \ast \\ \ast & b_1^2d_1+c_1^2d_2\end{bmatrix}. $$ We have \begin{align} \mathrm{tr}(X_2) &= d_1(a_1^2+b_1^2)+d_2(b_1^2+c_1^2)\\ &\overset{(\#)}{=}a^2d_1+2b^2d_1d_2+c^2d_2^2=1,\quad (3) \end{align} by virtue of $(\#)$ and of the trace constraint $\mathrm{tr}(X_2)=1$. By collecting $(1)$, $(2)$, and $(3)$ we arrive at the following linear system $$ \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2 & 1 \\ d_1 & d_1+d_2 & d_2 \\ d_1^2 & d_1d_2 & d_2^2\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}a^2 \\ b^2\\ c^2\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}1 \\ 1\\ 1\end{bmatrix}. $$ The solution $(\hat{a}^2, \hat{b}^2, \hat{c}^2)$ of the previous system — you can evaluate it manually or using some symbolic toolbox, as I did — is such that $$ \sqrt{\hat a^2 \hat c^2}-\hat b^2 = \frac{|(d_1-1)(d_2-1)|+(d_1-1)(d_2-1)}{(d_1-d_2)^2}=0 $$ since $d_1>1$ and $0<d_2<1$, by assumption. But, in this case, we get that $X_0^{1/2}$ is singular, which is a contradiction since $X_0>0$.

Update. It is possible to generalize the above procedure to the case $$ A = \begin{bmatrix}d_1I_{n_1} & 0\\ 0&d_2I_{n_2}\end{bmatrix} $$ with $d_1>1$ and $0<d_2<1$ scalars. Indeed, by considering the following block decomposition of $X_0^{1/2}$ $$ X_0^{1/2} := \begin{bmatrix}A & B \\ B^\top & C\end{bmatrix}, $$ by replacing $a$, $c$, and $b$ with $\mathrm{tr}(A^2)$, $\mathrm{tr}(C^2)$, and $\mathrm{tr}(B^\top B)$, and by following almost verbatim the above solution we get the desired result.

Your Answer


By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.