Problem with minimizing the matrix norm

  • Thread starter Thread starter mnb96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Norm
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on minimizing the functional Tr{(A - XB)(A - XB)*} for a matrix X in R^(n×n), where A and B are complex matrices. The original poster initially attempted to use Einstein notation and partial derivatives but found the process cumbersome. They later discovered a more straightforward approach by expanding the trace expression and treating the real and imaginary parts of X separately. A participant provided insights on solving a more general problem involving complex matrices, which helped clarify the approach. The conversation highlights the effectiveness of different notations in simplifying complex matrix calculus problems.
mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hello,

I have to to find the entries of a matrix X\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n} that minimize the functional: Tr \{ (A-XB)(A-XB)^* \}, where Tr denotes the trace operator, and * is the conjugate transpose of a matrix. The matrices A and B are complex and not necessarily square.

I tried to reformulate the problem with Einstein notation, then take the partial derivatives with respect to each a^{i}_{j} and set them all to zero. The expression becomes pretty cumbersome and error-prone.

I was wondering if there is an easier and/or known solution for this problem.
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In effect, minimizing Tr((A - B.X).(A - B.X)+) where the + means Hermitian conjugate or transpose conjugate. First one expands it:

Tr(A.A+) - Tr(A+.B.X) - Tr(X+.B+.A) + Tr(B+.B.X.X+)

Next, consider how X varies: X = Xr + i*Xi where Xr and Xi are the real and imaginary parts.

The Hermitian conjugate X+ = (Xr - i*Xi)T and it is evident that one can treat X and X+ as separate variables, since they are different linear combinations of Xr and Xi. Differentiating by X+ and X yields

B+.B.X= B+.A
X+.B+.B = A+.B
 
Thanks lpetrich,

I actually got the same result few hours before I found your reply, though you actually showed how to solve a more general problem where also X is complex.
What I did was basically to use Einstein notation to derive some useful matrix calculus identities, and then by using them it was kind of easy to arrive at the final formula(s) that you wrote.
It was interesting to see how using a different notation made the problem more manageable.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
5K