Advances in Linear Algebra & Matrix Theory
Vol.3 No.4(2013), Article ID:40528,8 pages DOI:10.4236/alamt.2013.34008
Computing Approximation GCD of Several Polynomials by Structured Total Least Norm*
1College of Mathematics and Computational Science, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin, China
2Department of Mathematics, Shanghai University, Shanghai, China
Email: zhangxinjunguilin@163.com
Copyright © 2013 Xuefeng Duan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received September 28, 2013; revised October 30, 2013; accepted November 8, 2013
Keywords: Sylvester Matrix; Approximate Greatest Common Divisor; Low Rank Approximation; Structured Total Least Norm; Numerical Method
ABSTRACT
The task of determining the greatest common divisors (GCD) for several polynomials which arises in image compression, computer algebra and speech encoding can be formulated as a low rank approximation problem with Sylvester matrix. This paper demonstrates a method based on structured total least norm (STLN) algorithm for matrices with Sylvester structure. We demonstrate the algorithm to compute an approximate GCD. Both the theoretical analysis and the computational results show that the method is feasible.
1. Introduction
Let be the degree of
and
be the set of univariate polynomials.
stands for the spectral norm of the matrix
.
and
are the vector spaces of complex
vectors and
matrices, respectively. Transpose matrices and vectors are denoted by
and
.
denotes the greatest common divisor for the polynomials
and
. We use
to stand for the rank of matrix
.
In this paper, we consider the following problem. Let
, namely
Problem 1.1. Set be a positive integer with
. We wish to compute
such that
and
is minimized.
The problem of computing approximate GCD of several polynomials is widely applied in speech encoding and filter design [1], computer algebra [2] and signal processing [3] and has been studied in [4-7] in recent years. Several methods to the problem have been presented. The generally-used computational method is based on the truncated singular decomposition (TSVD) [8] which may not be appropriate when a matrix has a special structure since they do not preserve the special structure (for example, Sylvester matrix). Another common method based on QR decomposition [9,10] may suffer from loss of accuracy when it is applied to ill-conditioned problems and the algorithm derived in [11] can produce a more accurate result for ill-conditioned problems. Cadzow algorithm [12] is also a popular method to solve this problem which has been rediscovered in the literature [13].
Somehow it only finds a structured low rank matrix that is nearby a given target matrix but certainly is not the closet even in the local sense. Another method is based on alternating projection algorithm [14]. Although the algorithm can be applied to any low rank and any linear structure, the speed may be very slow. Some other methods have been proposed such as the ERES method [15], STLS method [16] and the matrix pencil method [17]. An approach to be described is called Structured Total Least Norm (STLN) which has been described for Hankel structure low rank approximation [18,19] and Sylvester structure low rank approximation with two polynomials [20]. STLN is a problem formulation for obtaining an approximate solution to an overdetermined linear system
preserving the given structure in
or
.
In this paper, we apply the algorithm to compute the structured preserving rank reduction of Sylvester matrix. We introduce some notations and discuss the relationship between the GCD problems and low rank approximation of Sylvester matrices in Section 2. Based on STLN method, we describe the algorithm to solve Problem 1.1 in Section 3. In Section 4, we use some examples to illustrate the method is feasible.
2. Main Results
First of all, we shall prove that Problem 1.1 always has a solution.
Theorem 2.1. Suppose that
,
and
are defined as those in Problem 1.1. There exist
,
with
,
and
such that for all
,
with
,
and
.
We have
Proof. Let be monic with
and set
with
. For the real and imaginary parts of the coefficients of
and of
. We are considered with the continuous objective function
We will prove that the function has a value on a closed and bounded set of its real argument vector which is smaller than elsewhere. Consider and
with a GCD of degree
for
. Clearly, any
and
with
can be discarded. So from above,we know that the coefficients of
can be bounded and so can the coefficients of
by any polynomials factor coefficient bound. Thus the function’s domain
is restricted to a sufficiently large ball. It remains to exclude
as the minimal solution. We have
.
In conclusion, the theorem is true.
Now we begin to solve Problem 1.1, we first define a matrix associated with
as follows
and an matrix associated with
as
An extended Sylvester matrix or a generalized resultant is then defined by
Deleting the last rows of
and the last
columns of coefficients of
separately is
, We get the
-th Sylvester matrix
It is well-known that if and only if
has rank deficiency at least 1. We have
(2.1)
where is the
-th Sylvester matrix generated by
.
From above, we know that (2.1) can be transformed to the low rank approximation of a Sylvester matrix.
If we use STLN [16] to solve the following overdetermined system
for, where
is the first column of
and
are the remainder columns of
, then we get a minimal perturbation
of Sylvester structure satisfying
So the solution with Sylvester structure is and
.
We will give the following example and theorem to explain why we choose the first column to form the overdetermined system.
Example 2.1. Suppose three polynomials are given
The matrix is the Sylvester matrix generated by
and
The matrix is partitioned as
or
, where
is the first column of
, whereas
is the last column of
.
The overdetermined system
has a solution, while the system
has no solution.
Theorem 2.2. Suppose that
,
and
are defined as those in Problem 1.1 and
is the
-th Sylvester matrix of
. Then the following statements are equivalent.
1);
2) has a solution, where
is the first column of
and
are the remainder columns of
.
Proof. Suppose
has a nonzero solution, then
. Since
is the first column of
, obviously, the dimension of the rank deficiency of
is at least 1.
Suppose the rank deficiency of
is at least 1 and
,
. Multiplying the vector
to the matrix
, then we obtain
(2.2)
Next we will prove that has a solution. If we multiply the vector
to two sides of the equation
, it turns out to be
(2.3)
The solution of equation (2.3) is equal to the coefficients of polynomials
such that
We can get and
from
. Dividing
by
, we obtain a quotient
and a remainder
satisfy
where
. Now we can get that
are solutions of Equation (2.3), since
and
Next, we will illustrate for any given Sylvester matrixas long as all the elements are allowed to be perturbed, we can always find -Sylvester structure matrices
satisfy
, where
is the first column of
and
are the remainder column of
.
Theorem 2.3. Given the positive integer, there exists a Sylvester matrix
with rank deficiency k.
Proof. We can always find polynomials with
,
and
. Hence
is the Sylvester matrix of
and its rank deficiency is k.
Corollary 2.1. Given the positive integer, and
-th Sylvester matrix
, where
,
, it is always possible to find a
-th Sylvester structure perturbation
such that
.
3. STLN for Overdetermined System with Sylvester Structure
In this section, we will use STLN method to solve the overdetermined system
According to theorem 2.3 and corollary 2.1, we can always find Sylvester structure with
. Next we will use STLN method to find the minimum solution.
First, we define the Sylvester structure preserving perturbation of
can be represented by a vector
.
We can define a matrix such that
.
where is a
identity matrix.
We will solve the equality-constrained least squares problem
(3.1)
where the structured residual is
By using the penalty method, the formulation (3.1) can be transformed into
(3.2)
where is a large penalty value.
Let and
stand for a small change in
and
, respectively and
be the corresponding change in
. Then the first order approximate to
is
Introducing a matrix of Sylvester structure and
(3.2) can be approximated by
(3.3)
where satisfies that
(3.4)
In the following, we present a method to obtain the matrix. Suppose
and
are defined as above. Multiplying the vector
to the two sides of equation (3.4), it becomes
Let, we obtain
(3.5)
where is the polynomial with degree
which is generated by the subvector of
:
is the polynomial with degree
which is generated by the subvector of
:
is the polynomial with degree
which is generated by the subvector of
:
is the polynomial with degree
which is generated by the subvector of
:
is the polynomial with degree
which is generated by the subvector of
:
is the polynomial with degree
which is generated by the subvector of
:
Here we will present a simple example to illustrate how to find.
Example 3.1. Suppose,
and
then
4. Approximate GCD Algorithm and Experiments
The following algorithm is designed to solve Problem 1.1.
Algorithm 4.1.
Input-A Sylvester matrix S generated by
, respectively, an integer
and a tolerance
.
Output-Polynomials
and the Euclidean distance
is to a minimum.
1) Form the -th Sylvester matrix
as the above section, set the first column of
as
and the remainder columns of
as
. Let
.
2) Calculate from
and
. Compute
and
as the above section.
3) Repeat
(1)
(2) Let
(3) Form the matrix and
from
, and
from
. Let
until
and
4) Output the polynomials
constructed from
Given a tolerance, we can use the Algorithm 4.1 to compute an approximate GCD of
. The method begin with
using Algorithm 4.1 to compute the minimum perturbation
with. If
, then we can compute the approximate GCD form matrix
. Otherwise, we reduce
by one and repeat the Algorithm 4.1.
Example 4.1. We wish to find the minimal polynomial perturbations and
of
satisfy that the polynomials and
have a common root. We take two cases into account.
Case 1: The leading coefficients can be perturbed. Let and
, after 3 iterations, we get the polynomials
and
with a minimum distance
Case 2: The leading coefficients can be perturbed. Let and
, after 3 iterations, we have the polynomials
and
:
with a minimum distance
Example 4.2. Let,
and
after 8 iterations, we have the polynomials
with a minimum distance
and the CPU time
Example 4.3. Let,
and
after 11 iterations, we have the polynomials
with a minimum distance
and the CPU time
Example 4.4. Let,
and
after 1 iteration, we have the polynomials
with a minimum distance
and the CPU time
Example 4.5. Let,
and
after 1 iteration, we have the polynomials
with a minimum distance
and the CPU time
Examples 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 show that Algorithm 4.1 is feasible to solve Problem 1.1.
In Table 1, we present the performance of Algorithm 4.1 and compare the accuracy of the new fast algorithm with the algorithms in [9,21]. Denote be the total degree of polynomials
and
be the total degree of polynomials
. It (Chu) stands for the number of iterations by the method in [14] whereas it (STLN) denotes the number of iterations by Algorithm 4.1. Denoted by error(Zeng) and error (STLN) are the perturbations
computed by the method in
[21] and Algorithm 4.1, respectively. The last two columns denote the CPU time in seconds costed by AFMP algorithm and our algorithm, respectively.
As shown in the above table, we show that our method based on STLN algorithm converges quickly to the minimal approximate solutions, needing no more than 2 iterations whereas the method in [14] requires more iteration steps. We also note that our algorithm still converges very quickly when the degrees of polynomials become large while the algorithm in [14] needs more iteration steps. Besides, our algorithm needs less CPU time than the AFMP algorithm. So the convergence speed of our method is faster. From the errors, we demonstrate that our method has smaller magnitudes compared with the method in [21]. So our algorithm can generate much more accurate solutions.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we present that approximation GCD of several polynomials can be solved by a practical and reliable way based on STLN method and transformed to the approximation of Sylvester structure problem. For the matrices related to the minimization problems are all structured matrix with low displacement rank, applying the algorithm to solve these minimization problems would be possible. The complexity of the algorithm is reduced with respect to the degrees of the given polynomials. Although the problem of structured low rank ap-
Table 1. Algorithm performance on benchmarks.
proximation has been studied in many literatures and obtained many accomplishments, there is still much work to be done, for example, low rank approximation of finite dimensional matrix has not been fully resolved.
REFERENCES
- B. DeMoor, “Total Least Squares for Affinely Structured Matrices and the Noisy Realization Problem,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Process, Vol. 42, No. 11, 1994, pp. 3104-3113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/78.330370
- R. M. Corless, P. M. Gianni, B. M. Tragerm and S. M. Watt, “The Singular Value Decomposition for Polynomial System,” Proceedings of International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, Montreal, 1995, pp. 195-207
- S. R. Khare, H. K. Pillai and M. N. Belur, “Numerical Algorithm for Structured Low Rank Approximation Problem,” Proceeding of the 19th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems, Budapest, Hungary, 2010.
- E. Kaltofen, Z. F. Yang and L. H. Zhi, “Approximate Greatest Common Divisors of Several Polynomials with Linearly Constrained Coecients and Simgular Polynomials,” Proceedings of International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computations, Genova, 2006.
- N. Karkanias, S. Fatouros, M. Mitrouli and G. H. Halikias, “Approximate Greatest Common Divisor of Many Polynomials, Generalised Resultants, and Strength of Approximation,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 51, No. 12, 2006, pp. 1817-1830. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2006.01.010
- I. Markovsky, “Structured Low-Rank Approximation and Its Applications,” Automatica, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2007, pp. 891-909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2007.09.011
- D. Rupprecht, “An Algorithm for Computing Certied Approximate GCD of Univariate Polynomials,” Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, Vol. 139, No. 1-3, 1999, pp. 255-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4049(99)00014-6
- J. A. Cadzow, “Signal Enhancement: A Composite Property Mapping Algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustic Speech Signal Process, Vol. 36, No. 1, 1988, pp. 49- 62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/29.1488
- G. Cybenko, “A General Orthogonalization Technique with Applications to Time Series Analysis and Signal Processing,” Mathematics of Computation, Vol. 40, 1983, pp. 323-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-1983-0679449-6
- J. R. Winkler and J. D. Allan, “Structured Total Least Norm and Approximate GCDs of Inexact Polynomials,” Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 215, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2007.03.018
- A. Frieze, R. Kannaa and S. Vempala, “Fast Monte-Carlo Algorithm for Finding Low Rank Approximations,” Journal of ACM, Vol. 51, No. 6, 2004, pp. 1025-1041. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1039488.1039494
- R. Beer, “Quantitative in Vivo NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance on Living Objects),” University of Technology Delft, 1995.
- B. Paola, “Structured Matrix-Based Methods for Approximate Polynomial GCD,” Edizioni della Normale, 2011.
- M. T. Chu, R. E. Funderlic and R. J. Plemmons, “Structured Low Rank Approximation,” Linear Algebra Applications, Vol. 366, No. 1, 2003, pp. 157-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3795(02)00505-0
- B. Beckermann and G. Labahn, “A Fast and Numerically Stable Euclidean-Like Algorithm for Detecting Relative Prime Numerical Polynomials,” IEEE Journal of Symbolic Computation, Vol. 26, No. 6, 1998, pp. 691-714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jsco.1998.0235
- B. Y. Li, Z. F. Yang and L. H. Zhi, “Fast Low Rank Approximation of a Sylvester Matrix by Structured Total Least Norm,” Journal of JSSAC (Japan Society for Symbolic and Algebraic Computation), Vol. 11, No. 34, 2005, pp. 165-174.
- B. Botting, M. Giesbrecht and J. May, “Using Riemannian SVD for Problems in Approximate Algebra,” Proceedings of the 2005 International Workshop on Symbolic-Numeric, Xi’an, 2005.
- E. Kaltofen, Z. F. Yang and L. H. Zhi, “Structured Low Rank Approximation of a Sylvester Matrix,” International Workshop on Symbolic-Numeric Computation, Xi’an, 2005, pp. 19-21.
- H. Park, L. Zhang and J. B. Rosen, “Low Rank Approximation of a Hankel Matrix by Structured Total Least Norm,” BIT Numerical Mathematics, Vol. 39, No. 4, 1999, pp. 757-779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022347425533
- L. H. Zhi and Z. F. Yang, “Computing Approximate GCD of Univariate Polynomials by Structure Total Least Norm,” Mathematics-Mechanization Research Preprints, No. 24, 2004, pp. 375-387.
- Z. Zeng and B. H. Dayton, “The Approximate GCD of Inexact Polynomials Part 2: A Multivariate Algorithm,” Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, Santander, 2004.
NOTES
*The author is supported by a grant from National Natural Science Foundation of China (11101100; 11391240185; 11261014; 11226323) and Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province (No.2012GXN SFBA053006; 2013GX NSFBA019009; 2011GXNSFA018138).