Skip to main content

matrix - Nearest Kronecker Product



Some people (see The ubiquitous Kronecker product by Van Loan) have worked on finding two matrices $\mathbf A$,$\mathbf B$ of specified size whose tensor product $\mathbf A\otimes\mathbf B$ is closest (in a norm) to a given (larger) matrix $\mathbf C$. That is, find $\mathbf A$,$\mathbf B$ which minimizes $\|\mathbf C−\mathbf A\otimes\mathbf B\|$. The algorithm is based on the SVD. There is a MATLAB implementation here. It would be nice to see this algorithm implemented in Mathematica (using SVD, Riffle...)


Has anyone done this?


Possible Extensions are:



  • Factorisation - If the error is zero then the algorithm factorises the original matrix.

  • Find the nearest Kronecker product over all possible smaller matrices.

  • The algorithm uses the Frobenius norm - could other norms be used?



Answer



The Pitsianis-Van Loan algorithm turns out to be surprisingly easy to implement in Mathematica:



nearestKroneckerProductSum[mat_?MatrixQ, dim1_?VectorQ, dim2_?VectorQ,
k_Integer?Positive, opts___] /;
TrueQ[Dimensions[mat] == dim1 dim2] := Module[{tmp},
Check[tmp =
SingularValueDecomposition[Flatten[Partition[mat, dim2], {{2, 1}, {4, 3}}],
k, opts],
Return[$Failed], SingularValueDecomposition::take];
MapThread[#1 MapThread[Composition[Transpose, Partition],
{#2, {dim1, dim2}[[All, 1]]}] &,
{Sqrt[Diagonal[tmp[[2]]]], Transpose[Transpose /@ Delete[tmp, 2]]}]]


nearestKroneckerProduct[mat_?MatrixQ, dim1_?VectorQ, dim2_?VectorQ, opts___] /;
TrueQ[Dimensions[mat] == dim1 dim2] :=
First[nearestKroneckerProductSum[mat, dim1, dim2, 1, opts]]

To verify the routine, let's use a manifest Kronecker product as an example:


dim1 = {4, 3}; dim2 = {6, 5};
BlockRandom[SeedRandom[42];
m1 = RandomReal[{-1, 1}, dim1]; m2 = RandomReal[{-1, 1}, dim2]];
tst = KroneckerProduct[m1, m2];

{t1, t2} = nearestKroneckerProduct[tst, dim1, dim2];
Norm[KroneckerProduct[t1, t2] - tst, "Frobenius"] // Chop
0

Note, however, that t1 and t2 are not the same as m1 and m2, since the factorization is only unique up to a constant factor.


Now, for an actual random matrix:


BlockRandom[SeedRandom[42]; m3 = RandomReal[{-1, 1}, dim1 dim2]];
{bm, cm} = nearestKroneckerProduct[m3, dim1, dim2];
Norm[KroneckerProduct[bm, cm] - m3, "Frobenius"]
9.853962754011258




As can be ascertained from the implementation given above, the Pitsianis-Van Loan algorithm can in fact solve a more general problem; namely, to express a matrix as a sum of Kronecker products. The underlying algorithm relies on constructing a certain matrix through shuffling the original, and then proceeding to derive a low-rank approximation via SVD, which can then be reshuffled into the Kronecker factors of the terms.


To demonstrate, here is the algorithm applied to m3, and trying to express it as a sum of six Kronecker products:


k = 6;
tx = nearestKroneckerProductSum[m3, dim1, dim2, k];
Norm[m3 - Total[KroneckerProduct @@@ tx], "Frobenius"]
5.6710996859350775

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...