This paper characterizes the structure of regular matrix pencils under fixed rank perturbations, extending previous bounded rank results and providing conditions for prescribed determinants.
Contribution
It introduces a new characterization of regular matrix pencils under fixed rank perturbations, generalizing prior bounded rank perturbation results.
Findings
01
Provides necessary and sufficient conditions for fixed rank perturbations with prescribed determinants.
02
Extends the structure theory of matrix pencils to fixed rank perturbations.
03
Results applicable over fields with sufficient elements.
Abstract
A characterization of the structure of a regular matrix pencil obtained by a bounded rank perturbation of another regular matrix pencil has been recently obtained. The result generalizes the solution for the bounded rank perturbation problem of a square constant matrix. When comparing the fixed rank perturbation problem of a constant matrix with the bounded rank perturbation problem we realize that both problems are of different nature; the first one is more restrictive. In this paper we characterize the structure of a regular matrix pencil obtained by a fixed rank perturbation of another regular matrix pencil. We apply the result to find necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a fixed rank perturbation such that the perturbed pencil has a prescribed determinant. The results hold over fields with sufficient number of elements.
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.
Full text
Fixed rank perturbations of regular matrix pencils
Itziar Baragaña111Departamento de Ciencia de la
Computación e IA,
Universidad del País Vasco, UPV/EHU,
Apdo. 649,
20080 Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain, e-mail: [email protected].
Partially supported by MINECO:
MTM2017-83624-P,
MTM2017-90682-REDT, and UPV/EHU: GIU16/42.
,
Alicia Roca222Corresponding author.
Departamento de Matemática Aplicada, IMM,
Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain,
e-mail: [email protected].
Partially supported by MINECO:
MTM2017-83624-P,
MTM2017-90682-REDT.
Abstract
A characterization of the structure of a regular matrix pencil obtained by a bounded rank perturbation of another regular matrix pencil has been recently obtained. The result generalizes the solution for the bounded rank perturbation problem of a square constant matrix.
When comparing the fixed rank perturbation problem of a constant matrix with the bounded rank perturbation problem we realize that both problems are of different nature; the first one is more restrictive. In this paper we characterize the structure of a regular matrix pencil obtained by a fixed rank perturbation of another regular matrix pencil.
We apply the result to find necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a fixed rank perturbation such that the perturbed pencil has a prescribed determinant. The results hold over fields with sufficient number of elements.
Low rank perturbations of matrix pencils have been widely studied, and the problem has recently deserved the attention of several authors, as we will see in the next references. Given a matrix pencil A(s) and a nonnegative integer r, the problem consists in characterizing the Kronecker structure of A(s)+P(s), where P(s) is a matrix pencil of bounded (rank(P(s))≤r) or fixed rank (rank(P(s))=r).
Some authors focus their research on generic perturbations; it means that the perturbation pencil P(s) belongs to an open and dense subset of the set of pencils of bounded or fixed rank (for this approach see for instance [4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13] and the references therein).
In other papers the pencil P(s) is allowed to be an arbitrary perturbation belonging to the whole set of pencils of bounded or fixed rank.
Within this framework and for bounded rank perturbations, the problem has been solved in [14, 16] for pencils A(s)=sI−A, P(s)=P, with A,P constant matrices (see Proposition 2.7 and Corollary 2.8 below). In the earlier work [15], the same problem was solved for r=1. A solution for quasi-regular matrix pencils of the form A(s)=\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}sI_{n}-A_{1}&A_{2}\end{array}\right] and constant perturbation pencils P(s)=\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}P_{1}&P_{2}\end{array}\right] has been obtained in [7]. For regular pencils A(s) and A(s)+P(s), a solution to the problem has recently been given in [2] (see Proposition 2.9) (see also [2] for further references on the problem).
Concerning fixed rank perturbations, the problem has been solved in [14] when A(s)=sI−A and P(s)=P is a constant matrix. The result obtained holds over algebraically closed fields (see Proposition 2.11 below). When comparing the characterization of the solutions of the bounded ([14, 16]) and fixed rank ([14]) perturbation problems, we observe that an extra condition appears in the fixed rank case, which proves that the two problems are of different nature.
In this paper we deal with regular matrix pencils and we require that P(s) is a matrix pencil of fixed rank. More precisely, the first problem we solve is the following:
Problem 1.1
Given two regular matrix pencils A(s),B(s)∈F[s]n×n
and a nonnegative integer r, r≤n,
find necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a
matrix pencil
P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and
A(s)+P(s) is strictly equivalent to B(s).
Recall that when A(s) is a regular matrix pencil, the Kronecker structure of A(s) is formed by its homogeneous invariant factors, and it is known as the Weierstrass structure of the pencil (see Theorem 2.6).
A solution to Problem 1.1 is given in Theorems 3.9 and 3.10.
Unlike what happens when perturbing pencils of the form sI−A with constant matrices,
in this case the solutions to the bounded and fixed rank perturbation problems are characterized in terms of the same conditions. This is due to the fact that as the perturbation matrix can be a matrix pencil, it introduces some more freedom that in the constant perturbation problem. But, the fact of being a more restrictive problem determines extra needs for achieving a solution, and in this case proofs are more demanding. To solve it under the same conditions of the bounded case, some specific technical lemmas must be introduced; nothing similar was required in the bounded case.
The solution to Problem 1.1 obtained allows us to solve the following eigenvalue placement problem:
Problem 1.2
Given a regular matrix pencil A(s)∈F[s]n×n, a nonnegative integer r, r≤n, and a monic polynomial 0=q(s)∈F[s] with deg(q(s))≤n,
find necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a
matrix pencil
P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and
det(A(s)+P(s))=kq(s), with k∈F.
A solution to Problem 1.2 is given in Theorem 4.1 (see also Corollary 4.2
and Remark 4.3).
An analogous problem was solved in [2] in the case that rank(P(s))≤r. For r=1, see also [9].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce the notation, basic definitions and preliminary results. In Section 3 we solve Problem 1.1, first for pencils not having infinite elementary divisors and then for the general case. A solution to Problem 1.2 is given in Section 4. Finally, in Section 5 we summarize the main contributions of the paper.
2 Notation and preliminary results
The section contains three subsections, where we introduce notation and basic definitions (Subsection 2.1), some results concerning matrix pencils (Subsection 2.2), and previous results about matrix or pencil perturbations of bounded or fixed rank (Subsection 2.3).
2.1 Notation and basic definitions
Let F be a field. F[s] denotes the ring of polynomials in the indeterminate s with coefficients in F, F[s,t] the ring of polynomials in two indeterminates s,t with coefficients in F,
and Fm×n, F[s]m×n and F[s,t]m×n the vector spaces of m×n matrices with elements in F, F[s] and F[s,t], respectively.
Gln(F) is the general linear group of invertible matrices in Fn×n.
The number of elements of a finite set I will be denoted by ∣I∣.
If G is a matrix in Fm×n, I⊆{1,…,m}, and
J⊆{1,…,n}, with ∣I∣=r and ∣J∣=s, then
G(I,J) denotes the r×s submatrix of G formed by the rows in I and the columns in J.
Similarly, G(I,:) is the r×n submatrix of G formed by the rows in I and G(:,J)
is the m×s submatrix of G formed by the columns in J.
If ∣I∣=∣J∣ and det(G(I,J))=0, then the Schur complement of G(I,J) in G is
[TABLE]
where Ic={1,…,m}∖I and Jc={1,…,n}∖J (see [1]).
It is satisfied that
[TABLE]
and if m=n,
[TABLE]
Given a polynomial matrix G(s)∈F[s]m×n, the degree of G(s), denoted by deg(G(s)), is the maximum of the degrees of its entries. The normal rank of G(s), denoted by rank(G(s)), is the order of the largest non identically zero minor of G(s), i.e. it is the rank of G(s) considered as a matrix on the field of fractions of F[s]. If rank(G(s))=ρ, the determinantal divisor of order k of G(s), denoted by Dk(s), is the monic greatest common divisor of the minors of order k of G(s), 1≤k≤ρ. The determinantal divisors satisfy
Dk−1(s)∣Dk(s), 1≤k≤ρ (D0(s):=1) and the invariant factors of G(s) are the monic polynomials
[TABLE]
We will take γi(s):=1 for i<1 and γi(s):=0 for i>ρ.
A matrix U(s)∈F[s]n×n is unimodular if 0=det(U(s))∈F, equivalently U(s) is a unit in the ring F[s]n×n.
Two polynomial matrices G(s),H(s)∈F[s]m×n are equivalent (G(s)∼H(s)) if there exist unimodular matrices U(s)∈F[s]m×m, V(s)∈F[s]n×n such that
G(s)=U(s)H(s)V(s). A complete system of invariants for the equivalence of polynomial matrices is formed by the invariant factors, i.e. two polynomial matrices G(s),H(s)∈F[s]m×n are equivalent if and only if they have the same invariant factors.
Given a square matrix G∈Fn×n, the invariant factors of G are the invariant factors of the polynomial matrix sIn−G.
Two square matrices G,H∈Fn×n are similar (G∼sH) if there exists an invertible matrix Q∈Gln(F), such that
G=QHQ−1. It is well known that G∼sH if and only if sIn−G∼sIn−H, i.e. if and only if G and H have the same invariant factors (see, for instance, [8, Ch. 6, Theorem 7]).
2.2 Matrix pencils
We review now some basic definitions and results about matrix pencils.
For details see, for example, [8, Ch. 12].
A matrix pencil is a polynomial matrix G(s)∈F[s]m×n with deg(G(s))≤1. The pencil is regular if m=n and det(G(s)) is a non zero polynomial. Otherwise it is singular.
Two matrix pencils
G(s)=G0+sG1,H(s)=H0+sH1∈F[s]m×n are strictly equivalent (G(s)∼s.e.H(s)) if there exist invertible matrices Q∈Glm(F), R∈Gln(F) such that
G(s)=QH(s)R.
It is immediate that if G(s)∼s.e.H(s) then G(s)∼H(s).
Moreover, if n=m, det(G1)=0 and det(H1)=0, then G(s)∼s.e.H(s) if and only if
G(s)∼H(s)
(see, for instance, [8, Ch.12, Theorem 1]).
Given G(s)=G0+sG1∈F[s]m×n, with ρ=rank(G(s)), the homogeneous pencil associated to G(s) is
[TABLE]
and the homogeneous determinantal divisor of order k of G(s), denoted by Δk(s,t), is the greatest common divisor of the minors of order k of G(s,t),
1≤k≤ρ. We will assume that Δk(s,t) is monic with respect to s.
The homogeneous determinantal divisors of G(s) are homogeneous polynomials and Δk−1(s,t)∣Δk(s,t), 1≤k≤ρ (Δ0(s,t):=1).
The homogeneous invariant factors of G(s) are the homogeneous polynomials
[TABLE]
If γ1(s)∣⋯∣γρ(s) are the invariant factors G(s),
then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for some integers 0≤m1(∞,G(s))≤⋯≤mρ(∞,G(s)).
Hence Γ1(s,t)∣⋯∣Γρ(s,t).
We take Γi(s,t):=1 for i<1 and
Γi(s,t):=0 for i>ρ.
If mi(∞,G(s))>0, then tmi(∞,G(s)) is an infinite elementary divisor of G(s).
The infinite elementary divisors of G(s) exist if and only if rank(G1)<rank(G(s)).
We denote by F the algebraic closure of F.
The spectrum of
G(s)=G0+sG1∈F[s]m×n is defined as
[TABLE]
where we agree that G(∞)=G1. The elements λ∈Λ(G(s)) are the eigenvalues of G(s).
The invariant factors and the homogeneous invariant factors of G(s) can be written as
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For λ∈Λ(G(s)), the integers
0≤m1(λ,G(s))≤⋯≤mρ(λ,G(s)) are called the
partial multiplicities at λ of G(s).
If λ∈F∖Λ(G(s)),
we put m1(λ,G(s))=⋯=mρ(λ,G(s))=0.
For λ∈F∪{∞}, we will agree that mi(λ,G(s))=0 for i<1 and mi(λ,G(s))=∞ for i>ρ.
When a matrix pencil has infinite elementary divisors, we can perform a change of variable which turn it into a new pencil without infinite structure. This will be done in Section 3, and we will need the following results, which can be found in [3].
Let
X=[xzyw]∈Gl2(F).
For a matrix pencil G(s)=sG1+G0∈F[s]m×n and an homogeneous polynomial Φ(s,t)∈F[s,t]
we define:
Let
G(s)=sG1+G0∈F[s]m×n, ρ=rank(G(s)). Let Γ1(s,t)∣…∣Γρ(s,t) be the homogeneous invariant factors of G(s). Then the homogeneous invariant factors of
PX(G(s)) are ΠX(Γ1)(s,t)∣…∣ΠX(Γρ)(s,t).
Remark 2.5
Observe that
(i)
rank(PX(G(s)))=rank(G(s)).
2. (ii)
In Lemma 2.4,
ΠX(Γi)(s,t) are not necessarily monic with respect to s. In fact, ΠX(Γi)(s,t) are the homogeneous invariant factors of
PX(G(s)) multiplied by a constant 0=ki∈F.
In this paper we deal with regular matrix pencils. The following theorem states that
the homogeneous invariant factors form a complete system of invariants for the strict equivalence of regular pencils. A proof can be found in
[8, Ch. 12] for infinite fields and in [11, Ch. 2] for arbitrary fields.
Theorem 2.6** (Weierstrass)**
Two regular matrix pencils are strictly equivalent if and only if they have the same homogeneous invariant factors.
For regular matrix pencils, expressions (1) and (2) allow us to write
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where, for λ∈F∪{∞},
μa(λ,G(s))=∑i=1nmi(λ,G(s)) is
the algebraic multiplicity of λ in G(s).
Notice that deg(det(G(s,t)))=n and deg(det(G(s)))=n−μa(∞,G(s)).
Finally, given an homogeneous polynomial Γ(s,t),
we will use the following notation
[TABLE]
where Γ(∞,1):=Γ(1,0).
With this notation, if G(s)∈F[s]n×n is a regular matrix pencil with Γ1(s,t)∣⋯∣Γn(s,t) homogeneous invariant factors, then
[TABLE]
Also, for a polynomial q(s)∈F[s] with deg(q(s))≤n, we define
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
2.3 Rank perturbations of square matrices and regular matrix pencils
The problem of characterizing the Weierstrass structure of a regular matrix pencil obtained by a bounded rank perturbation of another regular matrix pencil
(i.e. Problem 1.1 with the relaxed condition rank(P(s))≤r) was solved in [2]. The key point in the obtention of the solution was the next result. It was proven in [16] and in [14] under another formulation. We present here the version of [16].
Let A,B∈Fn×n and let α1(s)∣⋯∣αn(s) and β1(s)∣⋯∣βn(s) be the invariant factors of A and B, respectively. Let r be a nonnegative integer.
Then there exists a matrix
P∈Fn×n such that rank(P)≤r and A+P has β1(s)∣⋯∣βn(s) as invariant factors if and only if
[TABLE]
Bearing in mind that
[TABLE]
we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 2.8
Let A(s)=sIn+A,B(s)=sIn+B∈F[s]n×n.
Let α1(s)∣⋯∣αn(s) and
β1(s)∣⋯∣βn(s)
be the invariant factors of
A(s) and B(s), respectively.
Let r be a nonnegative integer.
Then there exists a matrix
P∈Fn×n such that rank(P)≤r and A(s)+P∼s.e.B(s)
if and only if (3) holds.
The next proposition is the generalization of Proposition 2.7 to regular matrix pencils obtained in [2].
Let A(s),B(s)∈F[s]n×n be regular matrix pencils.
Let ϕ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ϕn(s,t) and ψ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ψn(s,t) be the homogeneous invariant factors of
A(s) and B(s), respectively, and assume that F∪{∞}⊆Λ(A(s))∪Λ(B(s)). Let r be a nonnegative integer.
There exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))≤r and A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s) if and only if
[TABLE]
From this proposition we can derive the following result.
Corollary 2.10
Let A(s),B(s)∈F[s]n×n be regular matrix pencils.
Let ϕ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ϕn(s,t) and ψ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ψn(s,t) be the homogeneous invariant factors of
A(s) and B(s), respectively, and assume that F∪{∞}⊆Λ(A(s))∪Λ(B(s)).
Let
[TABLE]
Then there exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r0 and A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s).
In this paper we will show that for any r , r0≤r≤n, there exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s) (see Corollary 3.11).
When F is an algebraically closed field
the possible similarity class of a square matrix obtained by a fixed rank perturbation of another square matrix was characterized in [14]. The result is presented in the next proposition; the statement is different from the original one and more adapted to our problem.
Suppose that F is algebraically closed.
Let A,B∈Fn×n and let α1(s)∣⋯∣αn(s) and β1(s)∣⋯∣βn(s) be the invariant factors of A and B, respectively. Let r be a nonnegative integer, r≤n.
Then there exists a matrix
P∈Fn×n with rank(P)=r such that A+P has β1(s)∣⋯∣βn(s) as invariant factors if and only if
(3) is satisfied and
[TABLE]
As mentioned in the Introduction section, the aim of this paper is to solve an analogous problem to that solved in Proposition 2.11 for regular matrix pencils.
When F is algebraically closed, if A(s)=sIn+A and B(s)=sIn+B, by Proposition 2.11 conditions (4) and
(5) are sufficient for the existence of a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s).
Nevertheless, (5) is not a necessary condition, as we can see in the next example.
Example 2.12
Let c∈F (F algebraically closed), A=B=cIn, r an integer, 0<r≤n and P(s)=[Ir000](sIn+A). Then
rank(P(s))=r and
[TABLE]
but
[TABLE]
3 Fixed rank perturbation for regular matrix pencils
In this section we give a complete solution to Problem 1.1 under the same restriction on the field F as in Proposition 2.9.
According to this proposition, the interlacing conditions (4) are necessary. We prove that they are also sufficient, except when F is a finite field with ∣F∣=2 and r=n=1.
Following the strategy of [2], we start analyzing the case when the pencils A(s), B(s) do not have infinite elementary divisors.
3.1 Pencils A(s), B(s) without infinite elementary divisors
First, we analyze the case when r=n, then when r<n.
Observe that conditions (4) are trivially fulfilled for r=n.
We prove in Proposition 3.3 that for regular pencils A(s)=sIn+A,B(s)=sIn+B∈F[s]n×n, n≥2, there always exists a regular pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s). In order to do that we need the following technical lemma.
Lemma 3.1
Let n≥2. Then there exists a matrix
En∈Gln(F) such that In+En∈Gln(F).
Proof.
We prove the result by induction on n.
If n=2, put E2=[1110]. Then
E2,I2+E2∈Gl2(F).
Assume that there exists Ep∈Glp(F) such that Ip+Ep∈Glp(F) and let n=p+1.
Obviously, Ep=Ip+Ep. Therefore, if R=Ep−1−(Ip+Ep)−1, then
R=0. Let i,j∈{1,…,p} be such that R(i,j)=0 and let w=−1+eitEp−1ej∈F.
We define
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
hence, Ep+1,Ip+1+Ep+1,∈Glp+1(F).
□
Remark 3.2
If ∣F∣=2, Lemma 3.1 is straightforward, and the result holds for n≥1. We can take, for example, En=cIn, with c∈F, c=0,−1.
Proposition 3.3
Let n≥2 and
A(s)=sIn+A,B(s)=sIn+B∈F[s]n×n. Then there exists a matrix pencil
P(s)∈F[s]n×n with rank(P(s))=n such that A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s).
Proof.
By Lemma 3.1, there exists En∈Gln(F) such that In+En∈Gln(F).
Let P0=(In+En)B−A∈Fn×n
and P(s)=Ens+P0∈F[s]n×n. Then rank(P(s))=n and
[TABLE]
□
When r<n, next lemma allows us to take advantage of a solution to the bounded case and out of it to built a solution for the fixed rank case. This is done in Proposition 3.5.
Lemma 3.4
Let r1,r,n be integers, 0≤r1<r<n.
Let I,J⊂{1,…,n} be such that ∣I∣=∣J∣=r1≥0. Then there exists a matrix E∈Fn×n satisfying that
rank(E)=r−r1, In+E∈Gln(F), E(I,:)=0, and E(:,J)=0.
Proof.
First, let us see that there exist sets
[TABLE]
(x′≥0, a′≥0) with ik=iℓ for k=ℓ, such that R1∪˙R2⊂Ic, R1∪˙S2⊂Jc, x′+a′=r−r1, and x′=1.
Let
[TABLE]
and let x=∣X∣, a=n−r1−x=∣Y∣=∣Z∣.
•
If a≥r−r1, we put
R1=∅ and choose R2⊆Y, S2⊆Z such that ∣R2∣=∣S2∣=r−r1.
In this case, x′=0, a′=r−r1.
•
If a<r−r1, then x=n−r1−a>n−r>0. Therefore
x≥2.
–
If (r−r1)−a≥2 we put R2=Y, S2=Z and choose R1⊂X with ∣R1∣=r−r1−a(<n−r1−a=x). In this case, x′=r−r1−a≥2, a′=a.
–
If (r−r1)−a=1 and a≥1, we choose R1⊆X with ∣R1∣=2 and R2⊂Y, S2⊂Z with ∣R2∣=∣S2∣=r−r1−2=a−1.
In this case, x′=2, a′=a−1.
–
If (r−r1)−a=1 and a=0, then r−r1=1<x. We can choose i,j∈X such that i=j. We put
R1=∅, R2={i}, S2={j}.
In this case, x′=0, a′=1.
We have that
R1∪˙R2∪˙S2⊆{1,…,n}, hence x′+2a′≤n.
Let us denote
(R2∪R1∪S2)c={ix′+2a′+1,…,in}.
We have obtained that x′=0 or x′≥2. If x′≥2, by Lemma 3.1
there exists
Ex′∈Glx′(F)
such that Ix′+Ex′∈Glx′(F).
Let Eˉ∈Fn×n be the matrix having
[TABLE]
and the rest of its entries equal to zero, i.e.
[TABLE]
(If x′=0 or a′=0, the corresponding block vanishes).
Obviously,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Let P be the permutation matrix
P=[ei1…ein], where ek denotes
the k-th column of In. Then, Pek=eik for 1≤k≤n; equivalently, Pteik=ek, and eiktP=ekt.
Let
E=PEˉPt.
Then,
rank(E)=rank(Eˉ)=r−r1, In+E=PPt+PEˉPt=P(In+Eˉ)Pt∈Gln(F),
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Since I⊆(R1∪R2)c and J⊆(R1∪S2)c, it results that
E(I,:)=0 and E(:,J)=0.
□
Proposition 3.5
Let n≥2 and
A(s)=sIn+A∈F[s]n×n. Let P∈Fn×n be a matrix such that rank(P)=r1
and
let r be an integer, r1<r<n. Then there exists a matrix pencil
P(s)∈F[s]n×n with rank(P(s))=r such that A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.A(s)+P.
Proof.
Since rank(P)=r1, there exist I,J⊂{1,…,n} such that
∣I∣=∣J∣=r1 and det(P(I,J))=0 (if r1=0, then
I=J=∅).
By Lemma 3.4, there exists a matrix E∈Fn×n such that
rank(E)=r−r1, In+E∈Gln(F), E(I,:)=0, and E(:,J)=0.
Let Q=In+E. Then
[TABLE]
where P(s)=P+E(sIn+A+P).
Let us see that rank(P(s))=r.
On one hand,
[TABLE]
On the other one,
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
As
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
we can write
P(s)/P(s)(I,J)=sE(Ic,Jc)+P0, with P0∈F(n−r1)×(n−r1), from where
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
□
Theorem 3.6
Let n≥2 and A(s)=sIn+A,B(s)=sIn+B∈F[s]n×n.
Let ϕ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ϕn(s,t) and ψ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ψn(s,t) be the homogeneous invariant factors of A(s) and B(s), respectively. Let r be a nonnegative integer,
r≤n. If (4) is satisfied, then there exists
a matrix pencil
P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and
A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s).
If r<n, let αi(s)=ϕi(s,1) and βi(s)=ψi(s,1),
1≤i≤n,
be
the invariant factors of A(s) and B(s), respectively.
Then, conditions
(4) imply conditions (3).
By Corollary 2.8, there exists P∈Fn×n such that rank(P)≤r and
A(s)+P∼s.e.B(s). If rank(P)<r, we apply Proposition 3.5.
□
We show next an example of pencils A(s) and B(s) such that B(s) cannot be obtained by a constant perturbation of rank 2 of A(s), but it does result as a pencil perturbation of rank 2 of the pencil A(s).
Example 3.7
Let F be an arbitrary field and r=2,
[TABLE]
The homogeneous invariant factors of A(s) and B(s) are
ϕ1(s,t)=ϕ2(s,t)=ϕ3(s,t)=(s−t) and
ψ1(s,t)=1,ψ2(s,t)=(s−t),ψ3(s,t)=s(s−t), respectively.
We have that
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
hence, by Corollary 2.8, there exists a matrix P∈F3×3 such that rankP≤2 and
A(s)+P∼s.e.B(s).
In fact, taking P=000000001, we have that rankP=1 and A(s)+P=B(s).
Observe that
[TABLE]
By Proposition 2.11, this means that there is no P∈Fˉ3×3 such that rankP=2 and A(s)+P∼s.e.B(s).
Let Q=100110001∈Gl3(F).
Then
[TABLE]
where P(s)=000s−100001∈F[s]3×3, and rankP(s)=2.
Corollary 3.8
Let n≥2 and let A(s)=A0+sA1,B(s)=B0+sB1∈F[s]n×n be such that det(A1)=0 and det(B1)=0.
Let ϕ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ϕn(s,t) and ψ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ψn(s,t) be the homogeneous invariant factors of A(s) and B(s), respectively. Let r be a nonnegative integer,
r≤n. If (4) is satisfied, then there exists
a matrix pencil
P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and
A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s).
Proof.
We have that A(s)∼s.e.A1−1A0+sIn and B(s)∼s.e.B1−1B0+sIn.
Hence, the homogeneous invariant factors of sIn+A1−1A0 and sIn+B1−1B0 are ϕ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ϕn(s,t) and ψ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ψn(s,t), respectively.
By Theorem 3.6, there exists a matrix pencil P′(s)∈F[s]n×n such that
rank(P′(s))=r and sIn+A1−1A0+P′(s)∼s.e.sIn+B1−1B0∼s.e.B(s).
Let P(s)=A1P′(s). Then, rank(P(s))=rank(P′(s))=r and
[TABLE]
□
3.2 General case
We analyze first the case n=1.
Theorem 3.9
Let a(s)=a0+sa1,b(s)=b0+sb1∈F[s] be such that a(s)=0 and b(s)=0.
Let ϕ1(s,t) and ψ1(s,t) be the homogeneous invariant factors of
a(s) and b(s), respectively. Let r be an integer, 0≤r≤1.
If ∣F∣>2 or r=0, then there exists p(s)=p0+sp1∈F[s] such that rank(p(s))=r and a(s)+p(s)∼s.e.b(s) if and only if (4) holds.
2. 2.
If ∣F∣=2 and r=1, then there exists p(s)∈F[s] such that rank(p(s))=1 and a(s)+p(s)∼s.e.b(s) if and only if a(s)=b(s).
Proof.
The necessity is an immediate consequence of Proposition 2.9. Let us prove the sufficiency.
If r=0, then (6) implies ψ1(s)=ϕ1(s), hence b(s)∼s.e.a(s)=a(s)+0.
•
If r=1, then (6) is trivially satisfied for any a(s),b(s).
As ∣F∣>2, there exists c∈F∖{0} such that a(s)=cb(s). Taking p(s)=cb(s)−a(s), the sufficiency is proven.
2. 2.
It is enough to observe that if ∣F∣=2, there exists p(s)∈F[s] such that a(s)+p(s)∼s.e.b(s) if and only if a(s)+p(s)=b(s).
□
Next theorem is our main result.
Theorem 3.10
Let n≥2. Let A(s)=sA1+A0,B(s)=sB1+B0∈F[s]n×n be regular matrix pencils.
Let ϕ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ϕn(s,t) and ψ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ψn(s,t) be the homogeneous invariant factors of A(s) and B(s), respectively, and assume that F∪{∞}⊆Λ(A(s))∪Λ(B(s)). Let r be a nonnegative integer, r≤n.
There exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s) if and only if
(4) holds.
Proof.
The necessity is an immediate consequence of Proposition 2.9.
Assume that (4) holds.
As F∪{∞}⊆Λ(A(s))∪Λ(B(s)), there exists c∈F∪{∞} such that c∈Λ(A(s))∪Λ(B(s)).
Let ϕ1′(s,t),…,ϕn′(s,t) and
ψ1′(s,t),…,ψn′(s,t) be the homogeneous invariant factors of A′(s) and B′(s), respectively.
By Lemma 2.4 and Remark 2.5,
[TABLE]
where 0=ci∈F, 0=di∈F, 1≤i≤n.
Applying Lemma 2.2, from (4) we obtain
[TABLE]
By Corollary 3.8, there exists a matrix pencil P′(s)=sP1′+P0′∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P′(s))=r and
Let n≥2. Let A(s)=sA1+A0,B(s)=sB1+B0∈F[s]n×n be regular matrix pencils.
Let ϕ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ϕn(s,t) and ψ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ψn(s,t) be the homogeneous invariant factors of A(s) and B(s), respectively, and assume that F∪{∞}⊆Λ(A(s))∪Λ(B(s)).
Let
[TABLE]
Then
there exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n with rank(P(s))=r and such that A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s) if and only if
r0≤r≤n.
Proof.
It is straigthtforward that r≥r0 if and only if conditions (4) hold.
□
Example 3.12
Let F be an arbitrary field. Let A(s),B(s)∈F[s]5×5 be regular matrix pencils with homogeneous invariant factors
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
respectively. Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Hence, for 3≤r≤5
there exist matrix pencils Pr(s)∈F[s]5×5 with
rank(Pr(s))=r such that A(s)+Pr(s)∼s.e.B(s).
Moreover, there is not any pencil P(s) with rank(P(s))≤2 such that A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s).
The characterization of the solution given in Theorem 3.10 can be stated in terms of the partial multiplicities of the elements of Λ(A(s))∪Λ(B(s))
(see [2, Corollary 4.5] for an analogous result when rank(P(s))≤r; see also [9, Proposition 4.2] for r=1).
Corollary 3.13
Let n≥2. Let A(s),B(s)∈F[s]n×n be regular matrix pencils.
Assume that F∪{∞}⊆Λ(A(s))∪Λ(B(s)).
Let r be a nonnegative integer, r≤n.
There exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s) if and only if
[TABLE]
As pointed out in [2, Remark 4.15], if #F>2n,
the condition F∪{∞}⊆Λ(A(s))∪Λ(B(s)) is automatically satisfied. In the case that #F≤2n, Theorem 3.10 can still be applied if there exists an element c∈F∪{∞} which is neither an eigenvalue of A(s) nor of B(s).
Moreover, we show in Corollary 3.14 that the condition F∪{∞}⊆Λ(A(s))∪Λ(B(s)) is not always necessary.
Corollary 3.14
Let A(s),B(s)∈F[s]n×n be regular matrix pencils.
Let ϕ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ϕn(s,t) and ψ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ψn(s,t) be the homogeneous invariant factors of
A(s) and B(s), respectively, and assume that
for some λ0∈F∪{∞},
[TABLE]
Let r be a nonnegative integer, r≤n.
There exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s) if and only if
(4) holds.
Proof.
Analogous to the proof of [2, Theorem 4.17]. □
Example 3.15
Let F=Z2, r=2,
[TABLE]
The homogeneous invariant factors of A^(s) and B^(s) are
ϕ1(s,t)=1,ϕ2(s,t)=ϕ3(s,t)=(s−t),ϕ4(s,t)=t(s−t) and
ψ1(s,t)=ψ2(s,t)=1,ψ3(s,t)=(s−t),ψ4(s,t)=ts(s−t), respectively.
Then
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and F∪{∞}=Λ(A^(s))∪Λ(B^(s))={0,1,∞}.
But
[TABLE]
We have that
[TABLE]
where A(s) and B(s) are the pencils of Example 3.7 and we have seen that there exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]3×3 such that
rankP(s)=2 and
A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s). Taking
P^(s)=[000P(s)]∈F[s](1+3)×(1+3), we have that
A^(s)+P^(s)∼s.e.B^(s) and rankP^(s)=2.
4 Eigenvalue placement for regular matrix pencils under fixed rank perturbations
In this section we give a solution to Problem 1.2.
Recall that if Γ(s,t) is an homogeneous polynomial,
[TABLE]
where Γ(∞,1):=Γ(1,0).
The following theorem is the main result in this section.
The proof is similar to that of Theorem 5.1 of [2].
Theorem 4.1
Let n≥2.
Let A(s)∈F[s]n×n be a regular matrix pencil and ϕ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ϕn(s,t) be its homogeneous invariant factors. Let Ψ(s,t)∈F[s,t] be a nonzero homogeneous polynomial, monic with respect to s, and such that deg(Ψ(s,t))=n.
Assume that F∪{∞}⊆Λ(A(s))∪Λ(Ψ(s,t)).
Let r be a nonnegative integer, r≤n.
There exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n with rank(P(s))=r
such that if C(s,t) is the homogeneous pencil associated to A(s)+P(s), then det(C(s,t))=kΨ(s,t) with 0=k∈F if and only if
[TABLE]
Proof.Necessity.
Let C(s)=A(s)+P(s) and let
ψ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ψn(s,t) be its homogeneous invariant factors.
Taking Ψ(s,t)=ψ1(s,t)…ψn(s,t), from Theorem 3.10 condition (8) is satisfied.
Sufficiency.
Assume that (8) holds.
Then, there exists an homogeneous polynomial
γ(s,t)∈F[s,t] such that
[TABLE]
We define
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
Let B(s) be a pencil with homogeneous invariant factors
ψ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ψn(s,t).
Then, B(s) is regular and condition (4) is satisfied.
By Theorem 3.10,
there exists a pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and A(s)+P(s)∼s.e.B(s).
Let B(s,t) be the homogeneous pencil associated to B(s).
Then there exist 0=k1,k2∈F such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
□
Notice that Theorem 4.1 gives us a solution to Problem 1.2 as we see in the following corollary (compare it with Theorem 5.4 in [2]).
Corollary 4.2
Let n≥2.
Let A(s)∈F[s]n×n be a regular matrix pencil and α1(s)∣⋯∣αn(s) be its invariant factors. Let q(s)∈F[s] be a nonzero monic polynomial with deg(q(s))≤n.
Assume that F∪{∞}⊆Λ(A(s))∪Λn(q(s)).
Let r be a nonnegative integer, r≤n.
There exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and det(A(s)+P(s))=kq(s) with 0=k∈F if and only if
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let ϕ1(s,t)∣⋯∣ϕn(s,t) be the homogeneous invariant factors of A(s) and
let Ψ(s,t)=tnq(ts).
Then Ψ(s,t)∈F[s,t] is a nonzero homogeneous polynomial, deg(Ψ(s,t))=n and
F∪{∞}⊆Λ(A(s))∪Λ(Ψ(s,t)).
Take δ(s)=α1(s)…αn−r(s). Then
Assume that there exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n such that rank(P(s))=r and det(A(s)+P(s))=kq(s) with 0=k∈F. Let
C(s,t) be the homogeneous pencil associated to C(s)=A(s)+P(s).
Then, deg(det(C(s,t)))=n and det(C(s,1))=det(A(s)+P(s))=kq(s), from where
det(C(s,t))=tn−deg(q)tdeg(q)kq(ts)=kΨ(s,t). By Theorem 4.1, (8) (equivalently,
(9)) holds.
Conversely, assume that (9) (equivalently,
(8)) holds. Then by Theorem 4.1, there exists a matrix pencil P(s)∈F[s]n×n with rank(P(s))=r and
such that if C(s,t) is the homogeneous pencil associated to C(s)=A(s)+P(s), then det(C(s,t))=kΨ(s,t) with 0=k∈F.
Therefore, det(A(s)+P(s))=det(C(s,1))=kq(s).
□
Remark 4.3
If n=1, given pencils a(s),q(s),p(s)∈F[s], then det(a(s)+p(s))=kq(s) with 0=k∈F if and only if a(s)+p(s)∼s.e.q(s), i.e. Problem 1.2 is the same as Problem 1.1.
5 Conclusions
Given a regular matrix pencil, we have completely characterized the
Weiestrass structure of a regular pencil obtained by a perturbation of fixed rank. The characterization is stated in terms of interlacing conditions between the homogeneous invariant factors of the original an the perturbed pencils, except in a very particular case. This work completes the research carried out in [2], where the same type of problem was solved in the case that the perturbed pencil was of bounded rank. Surprisingly enough, both solutions are characterized in terms of the same interlacing conditions.
The necessity of the conditions holds over arbitrary fields and the sufficiency over fields with sufficient number of elements.
It is remarkable the fact that the characterization of the fix rank perturbation of a pencil of the form A(s)=sI−A requires an extra condition when the perturbation is performed by a constant matrix ([14]), and that that extra condition disappears when the fixed rank perturbation is allowed to be a pencil of degree one.
We also solve an eigenvalue placement problem characterizing the assignment of the determinant to a regular matrix pencil obtained by a fixed rank pencil perturbation of another regular one.
Bibliography16
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] Ando, T. Totally positive matrices. Linear Algebra and its Applications 90 (1987), 165–219.
2[2] Baragaña, I., and Roca, A. Weierstrass structure and eigenvalue placement of regular matrix pencils under low rank perturbations. To appear in SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications (2019).
3[3] Cabral, I., and Silva, F. Unified Theorems on Completions of Matrix Pencils. Linear Algebra and its Applications 54 (1991), 43–54.
4[4] De Terán, F., and Dopico, F. Low rank perturbation of Kronecker structures without full rank. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 29 , 2 (2007), 496–529.
5[5] De Terán, F., and Dopico, F. Generic change of the partial multiplicities of regular matrix pencils under low-rank perturbations. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 37 , 3 (2016), 823–835.
6[6] De Terán, F., Dopico, F., and Moro, J. Low rank perturbation of Weierstrass structure. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 30 , 2 (2008), 538–547.
7[7] Dodig, M., and Sto s ˇ ˇ s \check{\mbox{s}} ić, M. The rank distance problem for pairs of matrices and a completion of quasi-regular matrix pencils. Linear Algebra and its Applications 457 (2014), 313–347.
8[8] Gantmacher, F. Matrix Theory, Vols I, II . Chelsea, New York, 1974.