Singular Value Decomposition for a Given Matrix

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around performing a singular value decomposition (SVD) for a specific 2x2 matrix. The original poster outlines their attempts to compute the SVD, including the determination of singular values and the construction of matrices U, Σ, and V.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the importance of the orientation of eigenvectors in the matrices U and V, suggesting that the determinants of both matrices should match. The original poster questions why their computed SVD does not yield the expected matrix.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance on ensuring the orientation of eigenvectors is consistent between U and V. There is acknowledgment of varying interpretations regarding the necessity of orientation in different SVD scenarios, particularly with non-square matrices.

Contextual Notes

The original poster's matrix and the resulting calculations are under scrutiny, with participants noting that the textbooks may not adequately address the orientation of eigenvectors in SVD. There is also mention of simpler matrices where orientation may not be as critical.

Dschumanji
Messages
153
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I want to do a singular value decomposition for the following matrix:

M = \left\lceil 1 \ \ -1 \right\rceil
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \:\:\left\lfloor 1 \ \ -1 \right\rfloor



Homework Equations


M=U\Sigma V^{\ T}

M^{\ T}M

MM^{\ T}



The Attempt at a Solution


To determine the singular values for \Sigma, I first determined the eigenvalues from M^{\ T}M (I could have also done it from MM^{\ T}). The eigenvalues are 4 and 0, so the singular values are 2 and 0. So I end up with the following matrix:

\Sigma = \left\lceil 2 \ \ 0 \right\rceil
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left\lfloor 0 \ \ 0 \right\rfloor

The columns of V are the eigenvectors of M^{\ T}M. So I end up with the following:

V = \left\lceil -1 \ \ 1 \right\rceil
\ \ \ \ \ \ \:\left\lfloor \ \ \:\: 1 \ \ 1 \right\rfloor

The transpose of V turns out to be no different than V. To determine U, I find the eigenvectors of MM^{\ T}. I end up with the following matrix:

U = \left\lceil 1 \ \ -1 \right\rceil
\ \ \ \ \ \ \:\:\left\lfloor 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \right\rfloor

When you scale the columns of U and V^{\ T} so that the matrices become orthogonal, you find that the product of U\Sigma V^{\ T} multiplied by 0.5 should yield the matrix M. It does not turn out to be M, though. Instead I end up with the following matrix:

0.5U\Sigma V^{\ T}= \left\lceil -1 \ \ 1 \right\rceil
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \:\,\,\,\left\lfloor -1 \ \ 1 \right\rfloor

What am I doing wrong?!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Dschumanji! :smile:

You must choose the basis of eigenvectors of the same orientation. That is, you must choose U and V such that det(U)=det(V). This is not the case here. A solution is to set

U=\left(\begin{array}{cc} -1 & -1\\ -1 & 1\\ \end{array}\right)

This matrix, with the V you already had, will yield

M=0.5U\Sigma V^T
 
micromass said:
Hi Dschumanji! :smile:

You must choose the basis of eigenvectors of the same orientation. That is, you must choose U and V such that det(U)=det(V). This is not the case here. A solution is to set

U=\left(\begin{array}{cc} -1 & -1\\ -1 & 1\\ \end{array}\right)

This matrix, with the V you already had, will yield

M=0.5U\Sigma V^T
Thanks, Micromass, for the help and also for providing an example of how to make a matrix with Latex! All of the textbooks and tutorials online never mention that the relative orientation of the eigenvectors should be the same for both U and V. I have been trying this suggestion out for other SVD problems and it seems to work pretty well. However, there are some problems where the relative orientation of the vectors does not matter. For example, the really simple matrix:

M=\left(\begin{array}{cc} -3 & 0\\ 0 & 0\\ \end{array}\right)

Can have the following SVD:

M = \left(\begin{array}{cc} -1 & 0\\ 0 & 1\\ \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc} 3 & 0\\ 0 & 0\\ \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\ 0 & 1\\ \end{array}\right)

The relative orientation of the eigenvectors in U are not the same as in V. The determinants of U and V are also not the same.
 
Dschumanji said:
Thanks, Micromass, for the help and also for providing an example of how to make a matrix with Latex! All of the textbooks and tutorials online never mention that the relative orientation of the eigenvectors should be the same for both U and V. I have been trying this suggestion out for other SVD problems and it seems to work pretty well. However, there are some problems where the relative orientation of the vectors does not matter. For example, the really simple matrix:

M=\left(\begin{array}{cc} -3 & 0\\ 0 & 0\\ \end{array}\right)

Can have the following SVD:

M = \left(\begin{array}{cc} -1 & 0\\ 0 & 1\\ \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc} 3 & 0\\ 0 & 0\\ \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\ 0 & 1\\ \end{array}\right)

The relative orientation of the eigenvectors in U are not the same as in V. The determinants of U and V are also not the same.

OK, I spoke to quick. You certainly need to take orientation into account, but maybe you don't always want to take the same orientation.

Let's say that

M=U\Sigma V^T

Then

\det(M)=\det(U)\det(\Sigma)\det(V)

You know that det(U) and det(V) are 1 or -1. So, if the sign of det(M) and det(\Sigma) are equal, then you need to choose U and V of the same orientation. If the sign is opposite, then you need to choose U and V of the opposite orientation.

The question is somewhat trickier when confronted to non-square matrices though. I agree that textbooks and websites should mention this...
 
Ah, that indeed makes sense. Thanks again!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K