Skip to main content

linear algebra - Efficiently Constructing Rank One Approximations for a Matrix using SVD


Suppose I have a $m\times n$ matrix $A$ (real for simplicity). Then SingularValueDecomposition[A] yields 3 matrices $U$, $\Sigma$ and $V$ such that


$A = U\Sigma V^\top = u_1 \sigma_1 v_1^\top + u_2 \sigma_2 v_2^\top + \cdots$,


where $U = [u_1\;\; u_2 \ldots]$ (vector = column matrix).


Successive approximations for $A$ are given by the rank 1 matrices $u_1 \sigma_1 v_1^\top$, etc. I wanted to make a function to compute this but found myself doing all sorts of messy manipulations due to Mathematica's matrix structure (and/or my lack of knowledge on how to use them).


Here is my tentative function. It has as input any matrix A and an optional argument n saying how many rank 1 matrices should be summed. This function is not meant to be numerically fast or anything; perhaps I would use it as a educational tool to examine different approximations of A or etc. The point is in the Sum function where I would like to know: is there a more efficient (or perhaps cleaner) way of doing the matrix multiplications?


RankOneApprox[A_, n_: 1] := Block[{U, Sig, V},


{U, Sig, V} = SingularValueDecomposition[A];

Sum[Sig[[i,i]] ({U[[All, i]]}\[Transpose].{V[[All, i]]}), {i, 1, n}]];

Answer



How about the following:


RankOneApprox[A_, n_: 1] := Module[
{U, Sig, V},
{U, Sig, V} = SingularValueDecomposition[A];
U.DiagonalMatrix[Diagonal[Sig[[1 ;; n]]], 0, Length[a]].ConjugateTranspose[V]

]

Here I take the first n diagonal elements of Sig. That's equivalent to summing the projectors you wrote out explicitly. With these n singular values, I then form a new matrix that has zeros everywhere else, and insert that into the definition of the SVD. When n equals the dimension of a, you get the original SVD back.


This assumes a to be a square matrix - if desired, it would be pretty easy to extend to rectangular matrices. Here I just want to illustrate how one uses the matrix manipulations to avoid writing explicit sums. Also, your original function has the Transpose in a syntactically incorrect spot, and I've fixed that in the above version.


Edit


As mentioned by R.M in the comment, there is another way of calling SingularValueDecomposition that already weeds out the smallest singular values for you: SingularValueDecomposition[A, n]


However, this returns condensed versions of all the matrices, see also the documentation, where an example is given (under Applications) that does something very similar to this question. One has to be a little careful about the dimensionality of the factors in the SVD formula, because the unitary matrices in the condensed form are no longer represented by square matrices (in particular, the syntax Dot @@ SingularValueDecomposition in the comment won't work because conjugate-transposition was omitted). Fortunately, to construct the corresponding matrix approximation, we can maintain the same syntax as in the above function:


RankOneApprox[A_, n_: 1] := Module[
{U, Sig, V},
{U, Sig, V} = SingularValueDecomposition[A, n];

U.Sig.ConjugateTranspose[V]
]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

equation solving - Invert and fit implicitly defined curve

I need to fit an implicitly defined curve. I thought I could get some data out of Solve , and then using FindFit . Therefore, I would like to find the relation the parametric curve defined by $F(x,y)=0$: Solve[-(1/2) + 1/2 (0.41202 BesselK[0, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]] + (0.101483 x BesselK[1, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]])/Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]) == 0, y] But I can't get an output: Solve was unable to solve the system with inexact coefficients or the system obtained by direct rationalization of inexact numbers present in the system. Since many of the methods used by Solve require exact input, providing Solve with an exact version of the system may help. >> Edit: In particular, I would like to fit the data coming from the curve with the expression of another curve, and not with a function $f(x)$. In particular, since this clearly looks like a cardioid , I would like it to fit to something like it. What other strategies could I try?

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...