1
$\begingroup$

For two Matrices $A,B \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ the Hadamard Product is defined as $(A \circ B)_{i,j} = A_{i,j}B_{i,j}$.

For a proof of convergene I require an upper (and ideally a lower) bound on \begin{align} \sum_{i>k}^{\min(m,n)}{\sigma_i^2(A \circ B)} \end{align} for Matrices with $|A_{i,j}| < 1$ and $|B_{i,j}| < 1$ for all $i,j$ and an arbitrary $1 \leq k < \min(m,n)$

From tests with randomly generated matrices I suspect that the following strong pointwise property, that could be used for a good upper bound, holds:

\begin{align} \sigma_i(A \circ B) < \text{max}(\sigma_i(A),\sigma_i(B)) \end{align}

Generally a decrease in the singular values is expected due to the well known fact that $\lVert A \rVert_F = \sqrt{\sum_i{\sigma_i^2(A)}}$ and by definition $\lVert A \circ B \rVert_F < \min(\lVert A \rVert_F,\lVert B \rVert_F)$, but this does not imply either of the inequalities stated above.

Is there some known upper bound I could use for this problem? Does someone see a proof or counterargument to the strong bound I provided?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Obviously false even for the norm: take $A=B=\begin{bmatrix}1&1\\-1&1\end{bmatrix}$. Computers spoiled us entirely: we run hundreds of random tests on 10 by 10 instead of thinking for 5 minutes about 2 by 2 :-( $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Jun 5, 2018 at 14:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems that the inequalities in your question (both for the singular values and for the Frobenius norm) do not scale correctly: If $A = B = t I$ (where $I$ is the $n\times n$-identity matrix and $t \in [0,\infty)$), then the singular values and the Frobenius norm of $A$ and $B$ grow linearly in $t$, while the singular values and the Frobenius norm of $A \circ B$ grow quadratically in $t$. Maybe you forgot a square root somewhere? $\endgroup$
    – Jochen Glueck
    Jun 5, 2018 at 15:13
  • $\begingroup$ As i presumed $|A_{i,j}|,|B_{i,j}|<1$ this does not matter since for $t<1$ obviously $t^2<t$ holds. @fedja is right that this does not work for their example, though I wonder if this only happens for some null subset of $\mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$. I would still be interested in a good upper bound for the first sum. $\endgroup$
    – Jabor
    Jun 5, 2018 at 15:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would still be interested in a good upper bound for the first sum. Define "good". In other words, state precisely what quantities you know, in terms of which the estimate should be given. $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Jun 5, 2018 at 15:47
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Apparently, I overlooked your condition on the entries of $A$ and $B$ (still, the scaling behaviour of the inequalities seems strange to me, but this might be due to the fact that I don't have much experience with Hadamard products). Considering your question on whether @fedja's counterexample only occurs on a nullset: By a perturbation argument, the same problem occurs on an open neighbourhood of fedja's matrices (and this neighbourhood intersects the set of matrices which fulfil your condition on the entries in a nonempty open set). $\endgroup$
    – Jochen Glueck
    Jun 5, 2018 at 15:56

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

Here is something related: enter image description here

Doubtlessly, reading the article will shed more light on your question.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The result of this paper by X. Zhan is stronger than the mentioned paper. $\endgroup$
    – Mahdi
    Jun 5, 2018 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ Why embed a screenshot of the paper rather than simply linking to it? $\endgroup$
    – j.c.
    Jun 5, 2018 at 19:08
  • $\begingroup$ @j.c. What, precisely, is your objection? $\endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    Jun 5, 2018 at 20:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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