On rank-critical matrix spaces
Yinan Li, Youming Qiao

TL;DR
This paper provides a complete characterization of rank-critical matrix spaces over large fields, including conditions for their decomposition and the rank-criticality of their direct sums, advancing understanding in linear algebra and matrix theory.
Contribution
It introduces a necessary and sufficient condition for rank-criticality of matrix spaces over large fields and analyzes their decomposition and direct sum properties.
Findings
Characterization of rank-critical matrix spaces over large fields
Decomposition of rank-critical spaces into compression and primitive parts
Rank-criticality of block-diagonal sums depends on primitivity
Abstract
A matrix space of size is a linear subspace of the linear space of matrices over a field . The rank of a matrix space is defined as the maximal rank over matrices in this space. A matrix space is called rank-critical, if any matrix space which properly contains it has rank strictly greater than that of . In this note, we first exhibit a necessary and sufficient condition for a matrix space to be rank-critical, when is large enough. This immediately implies the sufficient condition for a matrix space to be rank-critical by Draisma (Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 38(5):764--776, 2006), albeit requiring the field to be slightly larger. We then study rank-critical spaces in the context of compression and primitive matrix spaces. We first show that every rank-critical matrix space can be decomposed into a…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Topics in Algebra · Matrix Theory and Algorithms · Tensor decomposition and applications
On rank-critical matrix spaces
Yinan Li Centre for Quantum Software and Information, University of Technology Sydney, Australia ([email protected]).
Youming Qiao Centre for Quantum Software and Information, University of Technology Sydney, Australia ([email protected]).
Abstract
A matrix space of size is a linear subspace of the linear space of matrices over a field . The rank of a matrix space is defined as the maximal rank over matrices in this space. A matrix space is called rank-critical, if any matrix space which properly contains it has rank strictly greater than that of .
In this note, we first exhibit a necessary and sufficient condition for a matrix space to be rank-critical, when is large enough. This immediately implies the sufficient condition for a matrix space to be rank-critical by Draisma (Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 38(5):764–776, 2006), albeit requiring the field to be slightly larger.
We then study rank-critical spaces in the context of compression and primitive matrix spaces. We first show that every rank-critical matrix space can be decomposed into a rank-critical compression matrix space and a rank-critical primitive matrix space. We then prove, using our necessary and sufficient condition, that the block-diagonal direct sum of two rank-critical matrix spaces is rank-critical if and only if both matrix spaces are primitive, when the field is large enough.
1 Results
1.1 A necessary and sufficient condition for a matrix space to be
rank-critical
Let be a field, and let be the linear space of matrices over . A matrix space is a linear subspace of , denoted as . For we denote its rank, kernel, and image, by , , and , respectively. The rank of a matrix space , denoted as , is defined as . is singular, if . is called rank-critical, if for any with , . Every has a natural action on matrix spaces in , by sending to . Two matrix spaces are equivalent if they are in the same orbit of this action.
Our first result is a necessary and sufficient condition for a matrix space to be rank-critical. To state it, we introduce some notation. For , . For two subspaces , and , and . Note that the as in does not refer to the inverse of and is not necessarily invertible.
The central notion in our condition is the following. Define the rank neutral set of as
[TABLE]
The elements of are called the rank neutral elements of . Note that for , .
Theorem 1**.**
*Let and suppose . Then , and is rank-critical if and only if . Furthermore, given with the natural action on matrix spaces, if is stable under , then is also stable under . *
We deduce the sufficient condition for a matrix space to be rank-critical by Draisma (2006), which plays a key role there to prove that the images of certain Lie algebra representations are rank-critical. The key notion in Draisma’s condition is the set of rank neural directions of ,
[TABLE]
Clearly, . Furthermore if a group action is present as described in Theorem 1, then is also a stable set under the action of . Therefore the following result by Draisma follows immediately from Theorem 1.
Corollary 2** ((Draisma, 2006, Proposition 3)).**
*Let and suppose . Then , and if then is rank-critical. Furthermore, given with the natural action on matrix spaces, if is stable under under , then is also stable under . *
We note the following differences between Corollary 2 and (Draisma, 2006, Prop. 3), though such differences are mostly superficial. On one hand, Corollary 2 requires the field to be slightly larger than needed in (Draisma, 2006, Prop. 3): there it only requires . On the other hand, Corollary 2 deals with matrix spaces that are not necessarily square, and handles a more general group action.
In (Draisma, 2006), Draisma asked the question to investigate the “discrepancy between rank-criticality and .” Our result may be used as a guide to answer this question: it is now enough to investigate the discrepancy between and . Of course, since the condition in the definition of is linear, in practice it is usually easier to work with . In fact, we are not aware of an explicit example of rank-critical spaces for which the fails.
1.2 Rank-critical matrix spaces and primitive matrix spaces
Atkinson and Lloyd (1981) introduced the notion of primitive matrix spaces. Recall that a matrix space of size is non-degenerate, if and . A matrix space is
- •
row-primitive, if ;
- •
column-primitive, if ;
- •
pre-primitive, if is row-primitive and column-primitive;
- •
primitive, if is non-degenerate, row-primitive, and column-primitive.
Note that the zero space in is also a pre-primitive matrix space.
Another interesting family of matrix spaces is the following. Given and , let , , and . When , . We call a maximal compression matrix space of parameter . A matrix space is called a compression matrix space, if it is a subspace of a maximal compression matrix space of parameter , and its rank is . The standard maximal compression matrix space of parameter is where is spanned by the first standard basis vector of and is spanned by the last standard basis vector of . We shall denote it for short. Clearly, , where denotes the th entry of . The standard complement of is . Note that is the zero matrix space.
The following structural result regarding matrix spaces of rank bounded from above was first observed by Atkinson and Lloyd (1981).
Theorem 3** ((Atkinson and Lloyd, 1981, Theorem 1)).**
Given a singular matrix space , there exist integers satisfying , and a primitive matrix space , and , such that . Moreover, is equivalent to a matrix space in which each matrix is of the form
[TABLE]
where .
Some remarks are due for this theorem. Firstly, the parameters , , and are not unique for a given . Secondly, the existence of some , , and is easy to prove by induction. The main contribution of Atkinson and Lloyd (1981) was to obtain strong restrictions on the size of a primitive matrix space in terms of its rank. Thirdly, when , then is pre-primitive. On the other hand, if , then is a compression matrix space.
We then study rank-critical matrix spaces in the context of Theorem 3. We first observe that a compression matrix space is rank-critical, if and only if it is a maximal compression matrix space (see e.g. (Draisma, 2006, Example 10)). In general, for any rank-critical matrix space we have the following.
Theorem 4**.**
*Let be a matrix space and let , be matrix spaces as in Theorem 3. Let be the projection of to along , and the projection of to along . Then is rank-critical, if and only if the following hold: (1) , (2) is rank-critical, and (3) , where denotes the direct sum of two subspaces in . *
When is large enough, in Theorem 4, we may replace “rank-critical” with the condition . It is then interesting to consider an analogous statement with instead of .
Theorem 5**.**
Suppose , and let be a matrix space and let , be matrix spaces as in Theorem 3. Let be the projection of to along , and the projection of to along . Then , if and only if the following hold: (1) , (2) , and (3) , where denotes the direct sum of two subspaces in .
Theorem 5 confirms the common wisdom that to find a rank-critical matrix space with , it is enough to focus on primitive matrix spaces.
Finally, we apply the necessary and sufficient condition from Theorem 1 to prove the following result concerning direct sums of rank-critical matrix spaces. Given two matrix spaces and , the (block-diagonal) direct sum of and is a matrix space in , defined as \{\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}A_{1}&0\\ 0&A_{2}\end{array}\right]\in M((m_{1}+m_{2})\times(n_{1}+n_{2}),\mathbb{F}):A_{1}\in{\cal A}_{1},A_{2}\in{\cal A}_{2}\}. By abuse of notation we also denote this by .
Theorem 6**.**
Suppose we are given two rank-critical matrix spaces and , and suppose . is rank-critical if and only if and are primitive.
2 Proofs
2.1 On Theorem 1
2.1.1 The Wong sequences, and some digression
Our condition is achieved via a perspective that is different from Draisma’s as in (Draisma, 2006). Draisma arrived at the sufficient condition from a geometric perspective, by considering tangent spaces at regular points in a linear subspace contained in an affine variety. On the other hand, our condition, , was obtained from an algorithmic perspective. We now introduce some previous results from Ivanyos et al. (2015a) that support the proof of Theorem 1, together with some background information. Some of the material here is more general than strictly needed to prove Theorem 1, as we want to take this chance to advocate a connection between the geometry of matrix spaces and a key algorithmic problem in computational complexity theory.
A central problem in computational complexity theory is the symbolic determinant identity testing (SDIT) problem, which asks to decide whether a matrix space, given by a linear basis, contains a full-rank matrix. When the underlying field is large enough, SDIT admits a randomized efficient algorithm Lovász (1979). The goal then is to devise a deterministic efficient algorithm, as this implies an arithmetic circuit lower bound that is believed to be beyond current techniques (Carmosino et al., 2015).
In fact, for the purpose of (Carmosino et al., 2015), it is enough to exhibit a polynomial-size witness for the singularity of a matrix space. This problem is wide open, while some helpful structures are known. One such structure is the following. For , and , it is easy to verify that . So . Lovász (1989) observed that if has a basis consisting of rank- matrices, then this upper bound can be achieved at some . This follows from the matroid intersection theorem for linear matroids (Edmonds, 1970).
Furthermore, for and , we call an -shrunk subspace of , if . It is then an interesting question to decide whether a given matrix space possesses an -shrunk subspace for a given . Recently, deterministic polynomial-time algorithms were devised in Garg et al. (2016) over , and Ivanyos et al. (2015b, 2016) over any field. The key algorithmic technique in Ivanyos et al. (2015b, 2016) is the (second generalized) Wong sequences, first used in Fortin and Reutenauer (2004) and then rediscovered in Ivanyos et al. (2015a). They can be viewed as a linear algebraic analogue of the augmenting paths, which were developed to solve the perfect matching problem on bipartite graphs. Given , the Wong sequence of is the following sequence of subspaces of : . It is known that for some , (Ivanyos et al., 2015a, Prop. 7), and has a -shrunk subspace if and only if (Ivanyos et al., 2015a, Lemma 9).
2.1.2 Proof of Theorem 1
We now turn to prove Theorem 1. The reader probably has noticed the similarity between the formulation of the rank neutral set, and Wong sequences introduced above. One more ingredient is to relate Wong sequences to 2-dimensional matrix spaces. For of dimension with , it is known that (see e.g. Atkinson and Stephens (1978)). Combining with the Wong sequences, Ivanyos et al. (2015a) showed the following:
Lemma 7** ((Ivanyos et al., 2015a, Lemma 12)).**
Suppose we are given , and . Then is of maximal rank in , if and only if for , .
Given Lemma 7 it is easy to prove Theorem 1.
Theorem 1, restated
Let and suppose . Then , and is rank-critical if and only if . Furthermore, given with the natural action on matrix spaces, if is stable under , then is also stable under .
Proof.
To start with, note that Lemma 7 immediately implies that .
We first show that implies that is rank-critical. By contradiction suppose there exists a matrix s.t. . Then for any , . Lemma 7 tells us that , so is a proper subset of , a contradiction.
We then prove that if is rank-critical then . Suppose not, then there exists . Let , and . Note that . Because is rank-critical, , so there exists s.t. . Since , by Lemma 7 cannot be from . Take any , and consider , where is a formal variable. As , for all but at most , . As , for all but at most , . Since , there exists some , such that and . In this case, , so by Lemma 7 again, this suggests that , a contradiction.
To see that the statement regarding the group action holds, recall that . ∎
2.2 Proof of Theorem 4
Theorem 4, restated
Let be a matrix space and let , be matrix spaces as in Theorem 3. Let be the projection of to along , and the projection of to along . Then is rank-critical, if and only if the following hold: (1) , (2) is rank-critical, and (3) , where denotes the direct sum of two subspaces in .
Proof.
As is rank-critical if and only if is rank-critical, we focus on in the following.
We first examine the necessary direction. Recall that from Theorem 3, we have satisfying , and a primitive matrix space where and , such that (1) , and (2) every is of the form
[TABLE]
where .
Now is rank-critical. We first show that , which will then establish (1) and (3). Take any , and let . Any is also of the form as in Equation 3, as only adds to the entries. But this gives that . Then by the rank criticality of , .
We then turn to (2) is rank-critical. Suppose is not, then there exists some satisfying . Then let be
[TABLE]
Clearly, . Now consider . We then have . This contradicts the rank-criticality of , proving that is rank-critical.
To show the sufficiency, our strategy is the following. Let be the matrix space that consists of those submatrices of size in the upper-right corner of . We first prove that is rank-critical, using only the row primitivity of . We then show that as is column-primitive, is also column-primitive. This allows us to conclude that is rank-critical, by applying the column version of the argument which proved the rank criticality of .
We first prove that is rank-critical. To start with, note that , (by ), and (by ). So is singular. Suppose we have , , such that where . As the first rows are free in , w.l.o.g. we can assume the first rows of are [math]. Write as where is of size . We observe that . If not, by the rank-criticality of , we would have , a contradiction. Therefore we can further assume to be of the form . Consider the matrix space . As before, since , it is necessary that . It follows that every column of is in . By the row-primitivity of , has to be the zero matrix. Therefore the whole is the zero matrix, proving that is rank-critical.
We now prove that is column-primitive. As is column-primitive, is also column primitive. Take any . is of the form , and . since is singular. As the first rows are free, by choosing appropriate we can go through all codimension- subspaces of . Now the column-primitivity of follows from that of . ∎
2.3 Proof of Theorem 5
Theorem 5, restated
Let be a matrix space and let , be matrix spaces as in Theorem 3. Let be the projection of to along , and the projection of to along . Then , if and only if the following hold: (1) , (2) , and (3) , where denotes the direct sum of two subspaces in .
Proof.
To start with, note that when and are equivalent, then if and only if . The proof strategy is similar to the proof of Theorem 4, while some changes are required to deal with .
For the sufficiency direction, let be a matrix space that consists of those submatrices of size in the upper-right corner of . We will first show that , using only the row primitivity of . Then by the column version of the argument, we can conclude that , as is also column-primitive as shown in the proof of Theorem 4.
It remains to prove that . Take any . is of the form , where , , and . Clearly, . Since , is a codimension- subspace in , which implies that . Now let be a rank neutral direction of , and put it in the block form , where , , and . By the definition of rank neutral directions, we have
[TABLE]
for all , and satisfying . The first constraint in Equation 4 puts no restriction on and . For the second constraint in Equation 4, as already argued in the last paragraph in the proof of Theorem 4, since the first rows are free, by choosing appropriate we can go over all codimension- subspaces of . This gives that . Then by , we have
[TABLE]
for all , from which we deduce that (a) for any , and (b) as , where the equality follows from the row primitivity of . That then follows.
For the necessary direction, notice that implies , thus conditions (1) and (3) hold by Theorem 4. By contradiction, assume that , so there exists but . It is easy to see that is not an element of but satisfies Equations 4 for all , which implies . Consider then the matrix , and by the column version of the argument, we have but , arriving at a contradiction. ∎
2.4 Proof of Theorem 6
Theorem 6, restated
Suppose we are given two rank-critical matrix spaces and , and suppose . is rank-critical if and only if and are primitive.
We point out that, by the discussion in Section 2.1.1, an equivalent formulation of is
[TABLE]
Proof.
To see the necessity, we prove that if is not primitive, then is not rank-critical. If is not primitive then is not primitive. Furthermore by transforming to an equivalent space, can be arranged to be in the form as the in Theorem 3, with one of or being nonzero. W.l.o.g. assume . Then the first column is also the cause of imprimitivity of ; that is, the first standard basis vector is not in . Now by Theorem 4, for to be rank-critical, it is necessary that the first column is free, while every would have the first column containing some [math]’s. This proves that is not rank-critical.
For the sufficiency direction, by Theorem 1, we turn to prove . That is, for any satisfying ,
[TABLE]
we need to show . Noticing , we denote a given by , where and . Moreover, we have and .
Now, let , where , . By Equation 6 with , for any , , ’s satisfy:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Therefore, and hold for any , . So we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Now by the primitivity of and , we obtain and .
We then need to show that for , . By the assumption , we turn to show that for , , that is, , and , . This can be seen by an induction on , once we notice the following: if , , then . ∎
Acknowledgement
We thank Jan Draisma and Gábor Ivanyos for helpful discussions though email correspondences. Y. Q. was supported by the Australian Research Council DECRA DE150100720 during this research.
References
- Atkinson and Lloyd [1981]
M. D. Atkinson and S. Lloyd.
Primitive spaces of matrices of bounded rank.
Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society (Series A), 30(04):473–482, 1981.
- Atkinson and Stephens [1978]
M. D. Atkinson and N. M. Stephens.
Spaces of matrices of bounded rank.
The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, 29(2):221–223, 1978.
- Carmosino et al. [2015]
Marco Carmosino, Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, and Antonina Kolokolova.
Tighter connections between derandomization and circuit lower bounds.
In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, APPROX/RANDOM 2015, August 24-26, 2015, Princeton, NJ, USA, pages 645–658, 2015.
doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.APPROX-RANDOM.2015.645.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.APPROX-RANDOM.2015.645.
- Draisma [2006]
Jan Draisma.
Small maximal spaces of non-invertible matrices.
Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 38:764–776, 10 2006.
ISSN 1469-2120.
doi:10.1112/S0024609306018741.
URL http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0024609306018741.
- Edmonds [1970]
Jack Edmonds.
Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra.
In N. Sauer R. K. Guy, H. Hanani and J. Schönheim, editors, Combinatorial Structures and their Appl., pages 69–87, New York, 1970. Gordon and Breach.
- Fortin and Reutenauer [2004]
M. Fortin and C. Reutenauer.
Commutative/noncommutative rank of linear matrices and subspaces of matrices of low rank.
Séminaire Lotharingien de Combinatoire, 52:B52f, 2004.
- Garg et al. [2016]
Ankit Garg, Leonid Gurvits, Rafael Oliveira, and Avi Wigderson.
A deterministic polynomial time algorithm for non-commutative rational identity testing.
In IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2016, 9-11 October 2016, Hyatt Regency, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, pages 109–117, 2016.
doi:10.1109/FOCS.2016.95.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2016.95.
- Ivanyos et al. [2015a]
Gábor Ivanyos, Marek Karpinski, Youming Qiao, and Miklos Santha.
Generalized wong sequences and their applications to edmonds’ problems.
J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 81(7):1373–1386, 2015a.
doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2015.04.006.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2015.04.006.
- Ivanyos et al. [2015b]
Gábor Ivanyos, Youming Qiao, and K. V. Subrahmanyam.
Constructive non commutative rank computation in deterministic polynomial time over fields of arbitrary characteristics.
preprint arXiv:1512.03531, 2015b.
- Ivanyos et al. [2016]
Gábor Ivanyos, Youming Qiao, and K. V. Subrahmanyam.
Non-commutative Edmonds’ problem and matrix semi-invariants.
computational complexity, pages 1–47, 2016.
ISSN 1420-8954.
doi:10.1007/s00037-016-0143-x.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00037-016-0143-x.
- Lovász [1979]
László Lovász.
On determinants, matchings, and random algorithms.
In FCT, pages 565–574, 1979.
- Lovász [1989]
László Lovász.
Singular spaces of matrices and their application in combinatorics.
Boletim da Sociedade Brasileira de Matemática-Bulletin/Brazilian Mathematical Society, 20(1):87–99, 1989.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Atkinson and Lloyd [1981] M. D. Atkinson and S. Lloyd. Primitive spaces of matrices of bounded rank. Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society (Series A) , 30(04):473–482, 1981.
- 2Atkinson and Stephens [1978] M. D. Atkinson and N. M. Stephens. Spaces of matrices of bounded rank. The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics , 29(2):221–223, 1978.
- 3Carmosino et al. [2015] Marco Carmosino, Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, and Antonina Kolokolova. Tighter connections between derandomization and circuit lower bounds. In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, APPROX/RANDOM 2015, August 24-26, 2015, Princeton, NJ, USA , pages 645–658, 2015. doi: 10.4230/LIP Ics.APPROX-RANDOM.2015.645 . URL http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/LIP Ics.APPROX-RANDOM.2015.645 . · doi ↗
- 4Draisma [2006] Jan Draisma. Small maximal spaces of non-invertible matrices. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society , 38:764–776, 10 2006. ISSN 1469-2120. doi: 10.1112/S 0024609306018741 . URL http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S 0024609306018741 . · doi ↗
- 5Edmonds [1970] Jack Edmonds. Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra. In N. Sauer R. K. Guy, H. Hanani and J. Schönheim, editors, Combinatorial Structures and their Appl. , pages 69–87, New York, 1970. Gordon and Breach.
- 6Fortin and Reutenauer [2004] M. Fortin and C. Reutenauer. Commutative/noncommutative rank of linear matrices and subspaces of matrices of low rank. Séminaire Lotharingien de Combinatoire , 52:B 52f, 2004.
- 7Garg et al. [2016] Ankit Garg, Leonid Gurvits, Rafael Oliveira, and Avi Wigderson. A deterministic polynomial time algorithm for non-commutative rational identity testing. In IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2016, 9-11 October 2016, Hyatt Regency, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA , pages 109–117, 2016. doi: 10.1109/FOCS.2016.95 . URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2016.95 . · doi ↗
- 8Ivanyos et al. [2015 a] Gábor Ivanyos, Marek Karpinski, Youming Qiao, and Miklos Santha. Generalized wong sequences and their applications to edmonds’ problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. , 81(7):1373–1386, 2015 a. doi: 10.1016/j.jcss.2015.04.006 . URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2015.04.006 . · doi ↗
