Rearranging a matrix to get the minimum diagonal

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dows
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Minimum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the problem of rearranging a symmetric matrix to achieve the smallest possible values along its diagonal. Participants explore the implications of row and column permutations, the definition of "smallest elements," and the conditions under which such rearrangements can be achieved. The context includes theoretical considerations and specific applications related to distance matrices.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks for efficient methods to permute a symmetric matrix to minimize diagonal values.
  • Another participant points out that changing rows and corresponding columns keeps the same elements on the diagonal.
  • It is noted that rows and columns can be changed independently.
  • There is a call for clarification on what constitutes "smallest elements."
  • One participant argues that the problem may not have a general solution, citing an example where the smallest elements are confined to a submatrix, making it impossible to place them on the diagonal.
  • A conjecture is presented that a solution exists only if there is exactly one smallest element in each row and column, allowing for a straightforward permutation.
  • A specific case is introduced involving a distance matrix from two sets of elements, highlighting the goal of minimizing distances on the diagonal through permutations.
  • A question is raised regarding the definition of "smaller" in the context of the two sets of elements provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of achieving the desired diagonal arrangement, with some suggesting that it may not be possible under certain conditions. There is no consensus on the definition of "smallest elements" or the general solvability of the problem.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in defining the problem, particularly regarding the properties of the elements to be minimized and the implications of matrix symmetry. The specific conditions under which solutions may or may not exist remain unresolved.

Dows
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

I have the following problem: I have a symmetric (non sparse) matrix, and I want to find the permutation of columns and rows that lead to have the smaller numbers in the diagonal.

Anyone has a clue on how to solve efficiently this kind of problems?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
if you change rows and the corresponding columns, the same elements remain on the diagonal, don't they?
 
One can change rows and columns independently.
 
Define "smallest elements"!
 
Dickfore said:
Define "smallest elements"!

It doesn't really matter what property the OP means, provided there is some way to identify the elements you want to put on the diagonal.

This has no solution in general. For example suppose you have a 4x4 matrix and the 4 smallest elements are in the the top left 2x2 submatrix. Any row or column interchange leaves exactly 2 rows and 2 columns containing the smallest values, so you can never separate them onto the diagonal elements of 4 separate rows.

So I conjecture there is no solution unless there is exactly one smallest element in each row and each column, in which case the solution is simple - just permute either the rows or the columns to put the smallest elements on the diagonal. This will destroy the symmetry of the matrix, but the OP said interchanging rows and columns independently was allowed.
 
I tried to explain a smaller problem saying that the matrix is symmetric but maybe it's not helping too much.

So, my specific problem is:
- I have a distance matrix of two sets of elements. The two sets can have different number of elements, so the matrix is only square and symmetric when you are comparing a set with itself.

- I want to stablish a relation of similarity (pairings) between the elements in both sets, so I want to find the permutation of rows and columns that leads to have the smaller distances in the diagonal (minimum).
 
My question is this: Which one of these sets is "smaller":
{1, 4, 6}, or {2, 3, 6}
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K