Total variation (TV) regularization is a powerful tool in image denoising, but it often exhibits limited performance in preserving edges. In contrast, non-convex TV regularization can more effectively preserve edges and contours, albeit posing challenges when solving. Recently, the convex non-convex (CNC) strategy has emerged as a potent approach that allows incorporating non-convex TV regularization terms while maintaining the overall convexity of the objective function. Its superior performance has been validated through various numerical experiments; however, theoretical analysis remains lacking. In this paper, we provided theoretical analysis of the performance of the CNC-TV denoising model. By utilizing the oracle inequality, we derived an improved upper bound on its performance compared to TV regularization. In addition, we devised an alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) algorithm to address the proposed model and verified its convergence properties. Our proposed model has been validated through numerical experiments in 1D and 2D denoising, demonstrating its exceptional performance.
Citation: Yating Zhu, Zixun Zeng, Zhong Chen, Deqiang Zhou, Jian Zou. Performance analysis of the convex non-convex total variation denoising model[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 29031-29052. doi: 10.3934/math.20241409
[1] | Pattrawut Chansangiam, Arnon Ploymukda . Riccati equation and metric geometric means of positive semidefinite matrices involving semi-tensor products. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 23519-23533. doi: 10.3934/math.20231195 |
[2] | Arnon Ploymukda, Pattrawut Chansangiam . Metric geometric means with arbitrary weights of positive definite matrices involving semi-tensor products. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26153-26167. doi: 10.3934/math.20231333 |
[3] | Yajun Xie, Changfeng Ma, Qingqing Zheng . On the nonlinear matrix equation Xs+AHF(X)A=Q. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18392-18407. doi: 10.3934/math.2023935 |
[4] | Tong Wu, Yong Wang . Super warped products with a semi-symmetric non-metric connection. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 10534-10553. doi: 10.3934/math.2022587 |
[5] | Rajesh Kumar, Sameh Shenawy, Lalnunenga Colney, Nasser Bin Turki . Certain results on tangent bundle endowed with generalized Tanaka Webster connection (GTWC) on Kenmotsu manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 30364-30383. doi: 10.3934/math.20241465 |
[6] | Mohd Danish Siddiqi, Meraj Ali Khan, Ibrahim Al-Dayel, Khalid Masood . Geometrization of string cloud spacetime in general relativity. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 29042-29057. doi: 10.3934/math.20231487 |
[7] | Wenxv Ding, Ying Li, Anli Wei, Zhihong Liu . Solving reduced biquaternion matrices equation k∑i=1AiXBi=C with special structure based on semi-tensor product of matrices. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 3258-3276. doi: 10.3934/math.2022181 |
[8] | Muhammad Asad Iqbal, Abid Ali, Ibtesam Alshammari, Cenap Ozel . Construction of new Lie group and its geometric properties. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 6088-6108. doi: 10.3934/math.2024298 |
[9] | Yimeng Xi, Zhihong Liu, Ying Li, Ruyu Tao, Tao Wang . On the mixed solution of reduced biquaternion matrix equation n∑i=1AiXiBi=E with sub-matrix constraints and its application. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 27901-27923. doi: 10.3934/math.20231427 |
[10] | Fengxia Zhang, Ying Li, Jianli Zhao . The semi-tensor product method for special least squares solutions of the complex generalized Sylvester matrix equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5200-5215. doi: 10.3934/math.2023261 |
Total variation (TV) regularization is a powerful tool in image denoising, but it often exhibits limited performance in preserving edges. In contrast, non-convex TV regularization can more effectively preserve edges and contours, albeit posing challenges when solving. Recently, the convex non-convex (CNC) strategy has emerged as a potent approach that allows incorporating non-convex TV regularization terms while maintaining the overall convexity of the objective function. Its superior performance has been validated through various numerical experiments; however, theoretical analysis remains lacking. In this paper, we provided theoretical analysis of the performance of the CNC-TV denoising model. By utilizing the oracle inequality, we derived an improved upper bound on its performance compared to TV regularization. In addition, we devised an alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) algorithm to address the proposed model and verified its convergence properties. Our proposed model has been validated through numerical experiments in 1D and 2D denoising, demonstrating its exceptional performance.
In mathematics, we are familiar with the notion of geometric mean for positive real numbers. This notion was generalized to that for positive definite matrices of the same dimension in many ways. The metric geometric mean (MGM) of two positive definite matrices A and B is defined as
A♯B=A1/2(A−1/2BA−1/2)1/2A1/2. | (1.1) |
This mean was introduced by Pusz and Woronowicz [1] and studied in more detail by Ando [2]. Algebraically, A♯B is a unique solution to the algebraic Riccati equation XA−1X=B; e.g., [3]. Geometrically, A♯B is a unique midpoint of the Riemannian geodesic interpolated from A to B, called the weighted MGM of A and B:
A♯tB=A1/2(A−1/2BA−1/2)tA1/2,0⩽t⩽1. | (1.2) |
Remarkable properties of the mean ♯t, where t∈[0,1], are monotonicity, concavity, and upper semi-continuity (according to the famous Löwner-Heinz inequality); see, e.g., [2,4] and a survey [5,Sect. 3]. Moreover, MGMs play an important role in the Riemannian geometry of the positive definite matrices; see, e.g., [6,Ch. 4].
Another kind of geometric means of positive definite matrices is the spectral geometric mean (SGM), first introduced by Fiedler and Pták [7]:
A♢B=(A−1♯B)1/2A(A−1♯B)1/2. | (1.3) |
Note that the scalar consistency holds, i.e., if AB=BA, then
A♢B=A♯B=A1/2B1/2. |
Since the SGM is based on the MGM, the SGM satisfies many nice properties as those for MGMs, for example, idempotency, homogeneity, permutation invariance, unitary invariance, self duality, and a determinantal identity. However, the SGM does not possess the monotonicity, the concavity, and the upper semi-continuity. A significant property of SGMs is that (A♢B)2 is similar to AB and, they have the same spectrum; hence, the name "spectral geometric mean". The work [7] also established a similarity relation between the MGM A♯B and the SGM A◊B when A and B are positive definite matrices of the same size. After that, Lee and Kim [8] investigated the t-weighted SGM, where t is an arbitrary real number:
A♢tB=(A−1♯B)tA(A−1♯B)t. | (1.4) |
Gan and Tam [9] extended certain results of [7] to the case of the t-weighted SGMs when t∈[0,1]. Many research topics on the SGMs have been widely studied, e.g., [10,11]. Lim [12] introduced another (weighted) geometric mean of positive definite matrices varying over Hermitian unitary matrices, including the MGM as a special case. The Lim's mean has an explicit formula in terms of MGMs and SGMs.
There are several ways to extend the classical studies of MGMs and SGMs. The notion of MGMs can be defined on symmetric cones [8,13] and reflection quasigroups [14] via algebraic-geometrical perspectives. In the framework of lineated symmetric spaces [14] and reflection quasigroups equipped with a compatible Hausdorff topology, we can define MGMs of arbitrary reals weights. The SGMs were also investigated on symmetric cones in [8]. These geometric means can be extended to those for positive (invertible) operators on a Hilbert space; see, e.g., [15,16]. The cancellability of such means has significant applications in mean equations; see, e.g., [17,18].
Another way to generalize the means (1.2) and (1.4) is to replace the traditional matrix multiplications (TMM) by the semi-tensor products (STP) ⋉. Recall that the STP is a generalization of the TMM, introduced by Cheng [19]; see more information in [20]. To be more precise, consider a matrix pair (A,B)∈Mm,n×Mp,q and let α=lcm(n,p). The STP of A and B allows the two matrices to participate the TMM through the Kronecker multiplication (denoted by ⊗) with certain identity matrices:
A⋉B=(A⊗Iα/n)(B⊗Iα/p)∈Mαmn,αqp. |
For the factor-dimension condition n=kp, we have
A⋉B=A(B⊗Ik). |
For the matching-dimension condition n=p, the product reduces to A⋉B=AB. The STP occupies rich algebraic properties as those for TMM, such as bilinearity and associativity. Moreover, STPs possess special properties that TMM does not have, for example, pseudo commutativity dealing with swap matrices, and algebraic formulations of logical functions. In the last decade, STPs were beneficial to developing algebraic state space theory, so the theory can integrate ideas and methods for finite state machines to those for control theory; see a survey in [21].
Recently, the work [22] extended the MGM notion (1.1) to any pair of positive definite matrices, where the matrix sizes satisfied the factor-dimension condition:
A♯B=A1/2⋉(A−1/2⋉B⋉A−1/2)1/2⋉A1/2. | (1.5) |
In fact, A♯B is a unique positive-definite solution of the semi-tensor Riccati equation X⋉A−1⋉X=B. After that, the MGMs of arbitrary weight t∈R were studied in [23]. In particular, when t∈[0,1], the weighted MGMs have remarkable properties, namely, the monotonicity and the upper semi-continuity. See Section 2 for more details.
The present paper is a continuation of the works [22,23]. Here we investigate SGMS involving STPs. We start with the matrix mean equation:
A−1♯X=(A−1♯B)t, |
where A and B are given positive definite matrices of different sizes, t∈R, and X is an unknown square matrix. Here, ♯ is defined by the formula (1.5). We show that this equation has a unique positive definite solution, which is defined to be the t-weighted SGM of A and B. Another characterization of weighted SGMs are obtained in terms of certain matrix equations. It turns out that this mean satisfies various properties as in the classical case. We establish a similarity relation between the MGM and the SGM of two positive definite matrices of arbitrary dimensions. Our results generalize the work [7] and relate to the work [8]. Moreover, we investigate certain matrix equations involving weighted MGMs and SGMs.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we set up basic notation and give basic results on STPs, Kronecker products, and weighted MGMs of positive definite matrices. In Section 3, we characterize the weighted SGM for positive definite matrices in terms of matrix equations, then we provide fundamental properties of weighted SGMs in Section 4. In Section 5, we investigate matrix equations involving weighted SGMs and MGMs. We conclude the whole work in Section 6.
Throughout, let Mm,n be the set of all m×n complex matrices and abbreviate Mn,n to Mn. Define Cn=Mn,1 as the set of n-dimensional complex vectors. Denote by AT and A∗ the transpose and conjugate transpose of a matrix A, respectively. The n×n identity matrix is denoted by In. The general linear group of n×n complex matrices is denoted by GLn. Let us denote the set of n×n positive definite matrices by Pn. A matrix pair (A,B)∈Mm,n×Mp,q is said to satisfy a factor-dimension condition if n∣p or p∣n. In this case, we write A≻kB when n=kp, and A≺kB when p=kn.
Recall that for any matrices A=[aij]∈Mm,n and B∈Mp,q, their Kronecker product is defined by
A⊗B=[aijB]∈Mmp,nq. |
The Kronecker operation (A,B)↦A⊗B is bilinear and associative.
Lemma 2.1 (e.g. [5]). Let (A,B)∈Mm,n×Mp,q, (C,D)∈Mn,r×Mq,s, and (P,Q)∈Mm×Mn, then
(i) (A⊗B)∗=A∗⊗B∗.
(ii) (A⊗B)(C⊗D)=(AC)⊗(BD).
(iii) If (P,Q)∈GLm×GLn, then (P⊗Q)−1=P−1⊗Q−1.
(iv) If (P,Q)∈Pm×Pn, then P⊗Q∈Pmn and (P⊗Q)1/2=P1/2⊗Q1/2.
Lemma 2.2 (e.g. [20]). Let (A,B)∈Mm,n×Mp,q and (P,Q)∈Mm×Mn, then
(i) (A⋉B)∗=B∗⋉A∗.
(ii) If (P,Q)∈GLm×GLn, then (P⋉Q)−1=Q−1⋉P−1.
(iii) det where \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) .
Lemma 2.3 ([23]). For any S\in \mathbb{P}_m and X\in \mathbb{M}_n , we have X^*\ltimes S\ltimes X \in \mathbb{P}_{\alpha} , where \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) .
Definition 2.4. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) . For any t\in \mathbb{R} , the t -weighted MGM of A and B is defined by
\begin{align} A\,\sharp_t\, B \; = \; A^{1/2}\ltimes \left( A^{-1/2}\ltimes B\ltimes A^{-1/2} \right)^t\ltimes A^{1/2} \;\in\; \mathbb{P}_\alpha. \end{align} | (2.1) |
Note that A \, \sharp_0\, B = A\otimes I_{\alpha/m} and A \, \sharp_1\, B = B\otimes I_{\alpha/n} . We simply write A \, \sharp\, B = A \, \sharp_{1/2}\, B . We clearly have A\, \sharp_t\, B > 0 and A\, \sharp_t\, A = A .
Lemma 2.5 ([22]). Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n be such that A\prec_k B , then the Riccati equation
X\ltimes A^{-1}\ltimes X \; = \; B |
has a unique solution X = A \, \sharp\, B\in \mathbb{P}_n .
Lemma 2.6 ([23]). Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n and X, Y\in \mathbb{P}_n . Let t\in \mathbb{R} and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) , then
(i) Positive homogeneity: For any scalars a, b, c > 0 , we have c(A \, \sharp_t\, B) = (cA) \, \sharp_t\, (cB) and, more generally,
\begin{align} (aA) \,\sharp_t \, (bB) \; = \; a^{1-t} b^t (A \,\sharp_t\, B). \end{align} | (2.2) |
(ii) Self duality: (A \, \sharp_t\, B)^{-1} = A^{-1} \, \sharp_t\, B^{-1} .
(iii) Permutation invariance: A \, \sharp_{1/2} \, B = B \, \sharp_{1/2}\, A . More generally, A \, \sharp_t\, B = B \, \sharp_{1-t}\, A .
(iv) Consistency with scalars: If A\ltimes B = B \ltimes A , then A \, \sharp\, B = A^{1-t}\ltimes B^t .
(v) Determinantal identity:
\det(A\,\sharp\, B) \; = \; \sqrt{(\det A)^{\alpha /m}(\det B)^{\alpha /n}}. |
(vi) Cancellability: If t \neq 0 , then the equation A \, \sharp_t\, X = A \, \sharp_t\, Y implies X = Y .
In this section, we define and characterize weighted SGMs in terms of certain matrix equations involving MGMs and STPs.
Theorem 3.1. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n . Let t\in \mathbb{R} and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) , then the mean equation
\begin{align} A^{-1}\,\sharp\, X \; = \; (A^{-1}\,\sharp\, B)^t \end{align} | (3.1) |
has a unique solution X \in \mathbb{P}_\alpha .
Proof. Note that the matrix pair (A, X) satisfies the factor-dimension condition. Let Y = (A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B)^t and consider
\begin{align*} X \; = \; Y\ltimes A\ltimes Y. \end{align*} |
Using Lemma 2.5, we obtain that Y = A^{-1}\, \sharp\, X . Thus, A^{-1} \, \sharp\, X = (A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B)^t . For the uniqueness, let Z\in \mathbb{P}_\alpha be such that A^{-1}\, \sharp\, Z = Y . By Lemma 2.5, we get
Z \; = \; Y\ltimes A\ltimes Y \; = \; X. |
We call the matrix X in Theorem 3.1 the t -weighted SGM of A and B .
Definition 3.2. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) . For any t\in \mathbb{R} , the t -weighted SGM of A and B is defined by
\begin{align} A \,\lozenge_t\, B \; = \; (A^{-1}\,\sharp\, B)^t\ltimes A\ltimes (A^{-1}\,\sharp\, B)^t \,\in\; \mathbb{M}_\alpha. \end{align} | (3.2) |
According to Lemma 2.3, we have A \, \lozenge_t\, B \in \mathbb{P}_\alpha . In particular, A\, \lozenge_0\, B = A\otimes I_{\alpha/m} and A \, \lozenge_1\, B = B\otimes I_{\alpha/n} . When t = 1/2 , we simply write A\, \lozenge\, B = A\, \lozenge_{1/2}\, B . The formula (3.2) implies that
\begin{align} A \,\lozenge_t\, A \; = \; A, \quad A \,\lozenge_t\, A^{-1} \; = \; A^{1-2t} \end{align} | (3.3) |
for any t\in \mathbb{R} . Note that in the case n \mid m , we have
\begin{align*} A \,\lozenge_t\, B \; = \; (A^{-1} \,\sharp\, B)^{t} A (A^{-1} \,\sharp\,B)^{t}, \end{align*} |
i.e., Eq (3.2) reduces to the same formula (1.4) as in the classical case m = n . By Theorem 3.1, we have
\begin{align*} A^{-1} \,\sharp\, (A \,\lozenge_t\, B ) \; = \; (A^{-1}\,\sharp\, B)^t \; = \; (B \,\lozenge_{t}\, A )^{-1} \,\sharp\, B. \end{align*} |
The following theorem provides another characterization of the weighted SGMs.
Theorem 3.3. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n . Let t\in \mathbb{R} and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) , then the following are equivalent:
(i) X = A\, \lozenge_t\, B .
(ii) There exists a positive definite matrix Y\in \mathbb{P}_\alpha such that
\begin{align} X \; = \; Y^t\ltimes A\ltimes Y^t \; = \; Y^{t-1}\ltimes B\ltimes Y^{t-1}. \end{align} | (3.4) |
Moreover, the matrix Y satisfying (3.4) is uniquely determined by Y = A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B .
Proof. Let X = A\, \lozenge_t\, B . Set Y = A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B \in \mathbb{P}_{\alpha} . By Definition 3.2, we have X = Y^t\ltimes A\ltimes Y^t . By Lemma 2.5, we get Y\ltimes A\ltimes Y = B\otimes I_{\alpha/n} . Hence,
\begin{align*} Y^{t-1}\ltimes B \ltimes Y^{t-1} \; = \; Y^t Y^{-1}\ltimes B\ltimes Y^{-1} Y^t \; = \; Y^t\ltimes A\ltimes Y^t \; = \; X. \end{align*} |
To show the uniqueness, let Z\in \mathbb{P}_\alpha be such that
X \; = \; Z^t\ltimes A\ltimes Z^t = Z^{t-1}\ltimes B\ltimes Z^{t-1}. |
We have Z\ltimes A\ltimes Z = B\otimes I_{\alpha/n} . Note that the pair (A, B \otimes I_{\alpha/n}) satisfies the factor-dimension condition. Now, Lemma 2.5 implies that Z = A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B = Y .
Conversely, suppose there exists a matrix Y\in \mathbb{P}_\alpha such that Eq (3.4) holds, then Y\ltimes A\ltimes Y = B . Applying Lemma 2.5, we have Y = A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B . Therefore,
X\; = \; (A^{-1}\,\sharp\, B)^t\ltimes A\ltimes(A^{-1}\,\sharp\, B)^t \; = \; A\diamondsuit_t B. |
Fundamental properties of the weighted SGMs (3.2) are as follows.
Theorem 4.1. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n , t\in \mathbb{R} , and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) , then
(i) Permutation invariance: A\, \lozenge_t\, B = B\, \lozenge_{1-t}\, A . In particular, A\, \lozenge \, B = B \, \lozenge \, A .
(ii) Positive homogeneity: c(A\, \lozenge_t\, B) = (cA) \, \lozenge_t\, (cB) for all c > 0 . More generally, for any scalars a, b > 0 , we have
\begin{align*} (aA) \,\lozenge_t \, (bB) \; = \; a^{1-t} b^t (A \,\lozenge_t\, B). \end{align*} |
(iii) Self-duality: (A\, \lozenge_t\, B)^{-1} = A^{-1}\, \lozenge_t\, B^{-1} .
(iv) Unitary invariance: For any U\in \mathbb{U}_\alpha , we have
\begin{align} U^* (A\,\lozenge_t\, B) U \; = \; (U^*\ltimes A\ltimes U) \,\lozenge_t\, (U^*\ltimes B\ltimes U). \end{align} | (4.1) |
(v) Consistency with scalars: If A\ltimes B = B\ltimes A , then A\, \lozenge_t\, B = A^{1-t}\ltimes B^t .
(vi) Determinantal identity:
\det(A\,\lozenge_t\, B) \; = \;(\det A)^{\frac{(1-t)\alpha}{m}}(\det B)^\frac{t\alpha}{n}. |
(vii) Left and right cancellability: For any t\in \mathbb{R}-\{0\} and Y_1, Y_2\in \mathbb{P}_n , the equation
A \,\lozenge_t\, Y_1 \; = \; A \,\lozenge_t\, Y_2 |
implies Y_1 = Y_2 . For any t\in \mathbb{R}-\{1\} and X_1, X_2\in \mathbb{P}_m , the equation X_1\, \lozenge_t \, B = X_2\, \lozenge_t \, B implies X_1 = X_2 . In other words, the maps X\mapsto A \, \lozenge_t\, X and X\mapsto X \, \lozenge_t\, B are injective for any t \neq 0, 1 .
(viii) (A \, \lozenge\, B)^2 is positively similar to A\ltimes B i.e., there is a matrix P \in \mathbb{P}_{\alpha} such that
(A \,\lozenge\, B)^2 \; = \; P (A\ltimes B) P^{-1}. |
In particular, (A \, \lozenge\, B)^2 and A\ltimes B have the same eigenvalues.
Proof. Throughout this proof, let X = A\, \lozenge_t\, B and Y = A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B . From Theorem 3.3, the characteristic equation (3.4) holds.
To prove (ⅰ), set Z = B\, \lozenge_{1-t} \, A and W = B^{-1}\, \sharp\, A . By Theorem 3.3, we get
\begin{align*} Z \; = \; W^{1-t}\ltimes B\ltimes W^{1-t} \; = \; W^{-t}\ltimes A\ltimes W^{-t}. \end{align*} |
It follows from Lemma 2.6(ⅱ) that
\begin{align*} W^{-1} \; = \; B \,\sharp\, A^{-1} \; = \; A^{-1}\,\sharp\, B \; = \; Y. \end{align*} |
Hence, X = Y^t\ltimes A\ltimes Y^t = W^{-t}\ltimes A\ltimes W^{-t} = Z , i.e., A\, \lozenge_t\, B = B\, \lozenge_{1-t}\, A .
The assertion (ⅱ) follows directly from the formulas (3.2) and (2.2):
\begin{align*} (aA) \,\lozenge_t\, (bB) \;& = \; (a^{-1}A^{-1} \,\sharp\, bB)^t \ltimes (aA) \ltimes (a^{-1}A^{-1} \,\sharp\, bB)^t \\ \;& = \; (a^{-1} \,\sharp\, b)^t (A^{-1} \,\sharp\, B)^t \ltimes (aA) \ltimes (a^{-1} \,\sharp\, b)^t (A^{-1} \,\sharp\, B)^t \\ \;& = \; (a^{-1} \,\sharp\, b)^t a (a^{-1} \,\sharp\, b)^t (A^{-1} \,\sharp\, B)^t \ltimes A \ltimes (A^{-1} \,\sharp\, B)^t \\ \;& = \; a^{1-t} b^t (A \,\lozenge_t\, B). \end{align*} |
To prove the self-duality (ⅲ), set W = Y^{-1} = A\, \sharp \, B^{-1} . Observe that
\begin{align*} X^{-1} \;& = \; (Y^t \ltimes A \ltimes Y^t)^{-1} \; = \; Y^{-t} \ltimes A^{-1} \ltimes Y^{-t} \; = \; W^t\ltimes A^{-1}\ltimes W^t, \\ X^{-1} \;& = \; (Y^{t-1} \ltimes B \ltimes Y^{t-1})^{-1} \; = \; Y^{1-t} \ltimes B^{-1} \ltimes Y^{1-t} \; = \; W^{t-1}\ltimes B^{-1}\ltimes W^{t-1}. \end{align*} |
Theorem 3.3 now implies that
\begin{align*} (A\,\lozenge_t\, B)^{-1} \; = \; X^{-1} \; = \; A^{-1} \,\lozenge_t\, B^{-1}. \end{align*} |
To prove (ⅳ), let U\in \mathbb{U}_\alpha and consider W = U^*\ltimes Y\ltimes U . We have
\begin{align*} W^t\ltimes U^* \ltimes A \ltimes U \ltimes W^t \;& = \; U^*\ltimes Y^t \ltimes U \ltimes U^* \ltimes A \ltimes U \ltimes U^*\ltimes Y^t \ltimes U \\ \;& = \; U^*\ltimes Y^t\ltimes A\ltimes Y^t\ltimes U \\ \;& = \; U^*\ltimes X\ltimes U, \end{align*} |
and, similarly,
\begin{align*} W^{t-1} \ltimes U^* \ltimes B \ltimes U \ltimes W^{t-1} \; = \; U^*\ltimes Y^{t-1} \ltimes B \ltimes Y^{t-1} \ltimes U \; = \; U^*\ltimes X\ltimes U. \end{align*} |
By Theorem 3.3, we arrive at (4.1).
For the assertion (ⅴ), the assumption A\ltimes B = B\ltimes A together with Lemma 2.6 (ⅳ) yields
\begin{align*} Y \; = \; A^{-1} \,\sharp\, B \; = \;A^{-1/2}\ltimes B^{1/2} . \end{align*} |
It follows that
\begin{align*} Y^t\ltimes A\ltimes Y^t \;& = \; A^{-t/2}\ltimes B^{t/2}\ltimes A\ltimes A^{-t/2}\ltimes B^{t/2} \; = \; A^{1-t}\ltimes B^t, \\ Y^{t-1}\ltimes B\ltimes Y^{t-1} \;& = \; A^{-(t-1)/2}\ltimes B^{(t-1)/2}\ltimes B\ltimes A^{-(t-1)/2}\ltimes B^{(t-1)/2} \; = \; A^{1-t}\ltimes B^t. \end{align*} |
Now, Theorem 3.3 implies that A\, \lozenge_t\, B = A^{1-t}\ltimes B^t . The determinantal identity (ⅵ) follows directly from the formula (1.4), Lemma 2.2(ⅲ), and Lemma 2.6(ⅴ):
\begin{align*} \det(A\,\lozenge_t\, B) \;& = \; \det(A^{-1}\,\sharp\, B)^{2t}(\det A)^\frac{\alpha}{m} \\ \;& = \; (\det A)^{-\frac{\alpha t}{m}}(\det B)^\frac{\alpha t}{n}(\det A)^\frac{\alpha}{m} \\ \;& = \; (\det A)^\frac{(1-t)\alpha}{m}(\det B)^\frac{t\alpha}{n}. \end{align*} |
To prove the left cancellability, let t\in \mathbb{R}-\{0\} and suppose that A\, \lozenge_t\, Y_1 = A \, \lozenge_t\, Y_2 . We have
\begin{align*} \left(A^{1/2}\ltimes(A^{-1} \,\sharp\, Y_1)^t\ltimes A^{1/2} \right)^2 \;& = \; A^{1/2}\ltimes (A \,\lozenge_t \, Y_1)\ltimes A^{1/2} \\ \;& = \; A^{1/2}\ltimes (A \, \lozenge_t \, Y_2)\ltimes A^{1/2} \\ \;& = \; \left(A^{1/2}\ltimes(A^{-1} \,\sharp\, Y_2)^t\ltimes A^{1/2} \right)^2. \end{align*} |
Taking the positive square root yields
A^{1/2}\ltimes(A^{-1} \,\sharp\, Y_1)^t\ltimes A^{1/2} \; = \; A^{1/2}\ltimes(A^{-1} \,\sharp\, Y_2)^t\ltimes A^{1/2}, |
and, thus, (A^{-1} \, \sharp\, Y_1)^t = (A^{-1} \, \sharp\, Y_2)^t . Since t \neq 0 , we get A^{-1} \, \sharp\, Y_1 = A^{-1} \, \sharp\, Y_2 . Using the left cancellability of MGM (Lemma 2.6(ⅵ)), we obtain Y_1 = Y_2 . The right cancellability follows from the left cancellability together with the permutation invariance (ⅰ).
For the assertion (ⅷ), since A\, \lozenge\, B = Y^{1/2}\ltimes A\ltimes Y^{1/2} = Y^{-1/2}\ltimes B\ltimes Y^{-1/2} , we have
\begin{align*} (A \,\lozenge\, B)^2 \;& = \; (Y^{1/2}\ltimes A\ltimes Y^{1/2})(Y^{-1/2}\ltimes B\ltimes Y^{-1/2}) \\ \;& = \; Y^{1/2}(A\ltimes B)Y^{-1/2}. \end{align*} |
Note that the matrix Y^{1/2} is positive definite. Thus, (A \, \lozenge\, B)^2 is positively similar to A\ltimes B , so they have the same eigenvalues.
Remark 4.2. Let (A, B) \in \mathbb{P}_{m} \times \mathbb{P}_{n} . Instead of Definition 3.2, the permutation invariance (ⅰ) provides an alternative definition of A \, \lozenge_t\, B as follows:
\begin{align*} A \,\lozenge_t\, B \;& = \; (B^{-1} \,\sharp\, A)^{1-t} \ltimes B \ltimes (B^{-1} \,\sharp\,A)^{1-t} \\ \;& = \; (A\,\sharp\, B^{-1} )^{1-t} \ltimes B \ltimes (A \,\sharp\,B^{-1})^{1-t} . \end{align*} |
In particular, if m \mid n , we have
\begin{align*} A \,\lozenge_t\, B \; = \; (A \,\sharp\, B^{-1})^{1-t} B (A \,\sharp\, B^{-1})^{1-t}. \end{align*} |
The assertion (ⅷ) is the reason why A\, \lozenge\, B is called the SGM.
Now, we will show that A\, \sharp\, B and A\, \lozenge_t\, B are positively similar when A and B are positive definite matrices of arbitrary sizes. Before that, we need the following lemma.
Lemma 4.3. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n . Let t\in \mathbb{R} and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) , then there exists a unique Y_t\in \mathbb{P}_\alpha such that
\begin{align*} A\,\lozenge_t\, B \; = \; Y_t\ltimes A\ltimes Y_t \quad \mathit{\text{and}} \quad B\,\lozenge_t \,A \; = \;Y_t^{-1}\ltimes A\ltimes Y_t^{-1}. \end{align*} |
Proof. Set Y_t = (A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B)^t , then Y_t\ltimes A\ltimes Y_t = A\, \lozenge_t\, B . Using Lemma 2.6, we obtain that
Y_t^{-1}\ltimes B\ltimes Y_t^{-1} \; = \; (B^{-1}\,\sharp\, A)^t\ltimes B\ltimes (B^{-1}\,\sharp\, A)^t \; = \; B\,\lozenge_t A. |
To prove the uniqueness, let Z_t\in \mathbb{P}_\alpha be such that Z_t\ltimes A\ltimes Z_t = A\, \lozenge_t\, B and Z_t^{-1}\ltimes A\ltimes Z_t^{-1} = B\, \lozenge_t\, A . By Lemma 2.5, we get Z_t = A^{-1}\, \sharp\, (A\, \lozenge_t\, B) , but Theorem 3.1 says that
A^{-1}\,\sharp\, (A\,\lozenge_t\, B) \; = \; (A^{-1}\,\sharp\, B)^t. |
Thus, Z_t = Y_t .
Theorem 4.4. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n . Let t\in \mathbb{R} and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) , then A\, \sharp\, B is positively similar to (A\lozenge_{1-t}B)^{1/2}U(A \, \lozenge_t\, B)^{1/2} for some unitary U\in \mathbb{M}_\alpha .
Proof. By Lemma 4.3, there exists Y_t\in \mathbb{P}_\alpha such that A\, \lozenge_t\, B = Y_t\ltimes A\ltimes Y_t and B\, \lozenge_t A = Y_t^{-1}\ltimes A\ltimes Y_t^{-1} . Using Lemmas 2.2 and 2.5, we have
\begin{align*} Y_t(A \,\lozenge_{1-t}\, B)Y_t \;& = \; B\otimes I_{\alpha/n} \\ \;& = \; (A\,\sharp\,B)\ltimes A^{-1}\ltimes (A\,\sharp\,B) \\ \;& = \; (A\,\sharp\,B)Y_t(A\,\lozenge_t\, B)^{-1}Y_t(A\,\sharp\,B), \end{align*} |
then
\begin{align*} \left( (A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{-1/2}Y_t(\,A\sharp\,B)Y_t (A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{-1/2}\right)^2 \; = \; (A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{-1/2}Y_t^2 (A\lozenge_{1-t}B)Y_t^2(A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{-1/2}. \end{align*} |
Thus,
\begin{align*} A\,\sharp\,B \; = \; Y_t^{-1}(A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{1/2} \left((A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{-1/2}Y_t^2(A\lozenge_{1-t}B)Y_t^2 (A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{-1/2}\right)^{1/2} (A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{1/2}Y_t^{-1}. \end{align*} |
Set V = (A \, \lozenge_t\, B)^{-1/2}Y_t^2 (A \, \lozenge_{1-t}\, B)^{1/2} and U = V^{-1}(VV^*)^{1/2} . Obviously, U is a unitary matrix. We obtain
\begin{align*} A\,\sharp\,B \;& = \; Y_t^{-1} (A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{1/2}(VV^*)^{1/2} (A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{1/2}Y_t^{-1} \\ \;& = \; Y_t(A\lozenge_{1-t}B)^{1/2} V^{-1}(VV^*)^{1/2} (A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{1/2} Y_t^{-1} \\ \;& = \; Y_t (A\lozenge_{1-t}B)^{1/2}U(A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{1/2}Y_t^{-1}. \end{align*} |
This implies that (A\lozenge_{1-t}B)^{1/2}U(A \, \lozenge_t\, B)^{1/2} is positive similar to A\, \sharp\, B .
In general, the MGM A\, \sharp_t\, B and the SGM A\, \lozenge_t\, B are not comparable (in the Löwner partial order). We will show that A\, \sharp_t\, B and A\, \lozenge_t\, B coincide in the case that A and B are commuting with respect to the STP. To do this, we need a lemma.
Lemma 4.5. Let (P, Q)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n . If
\begin{align} P\ltimes Q\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{-1} \; = \; Q\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{-1}\ltimes P, \end{align} | (4.2) |
then P\ltimes Q = Q\ltimes P .
Proof. From Eq (4.2), we have
\left( Q^{-1/2}\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{1/2}\right)\left( Q^{-1/2}\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{1/2}\right)^* \; = \; \left( Q^{-1/2}\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{1/2}\right)^*\left( Q^{-1/2}\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{1/2}\right) . |
This implies that Q^{-1/2}\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{1/2} is a normal matrix. Since Q^{-1/2}\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{1/2} and P\otimes I_{\alpha/m} are similar matrices, we conclude that the eigenvalues of Q^{-1/2}\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{1/2} are real and Q^{-1/2}\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{1/2} is Hermitian. Hence,
Q^{-1/2}\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{1/2} \; = \; \left( Q^{-1/2}\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{1/2}\right)^* \; = \; Q^{1/2}\ltimes P\ltimes Q^{-1/2}. |
Therefore, P\ltimes Q = Q\ltimes P .
The next theorem generalizes [7,Theorem 5.1].
Theorem 4.6. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n and t\in \mathbb{R} . If A\ltimes B = B\ltimes A , then A\, \sharp_t\, B = A\, \lozenge_t\, B . In particular, A\, \sharp\, B = A\lozenge B if and only if A\ltimes B = B\ltimes A .
Proof. Suppose A\ltimes B = B\ltimes A . By Lemma 2.6 and Theorem 4.1, we have
A\,\sharp_t\,B \; = \; A^{1-t}\ltimes B^t = A\,\lozenge_t\, B . |
Next, assume that A\, \sharp\, B = A \, \lozenge\, B = X . By Lemma 2.5, we have
X\ltimes A^{-1}\ltimes X \; = \; B\otimes I_{\alpha/n}. |
Set Y = A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B . By Lemma 3.3, we get X = Y^{1/2}\ltimes A\ltimes Y^{1/2} = Y^{-1/2}\ltimes B\ltimes Y^{-1/2} . It follows that
\begin{align*} Y^{1/2}\ltimes X\ltimes Y^{1/2} \;& = \; B\otimes I_{\alpha/n} \; = \; X\ltimes A^{-1}\ltimes X \\ \;& = \; X\ltimes Y^{1/2}\ltimes X^{-1}\ltimes Y^{1/2}\ltimes X. \end{align*} |
Thus,
Y^{1/2}\ltimes X\ltimes Y^{1/2}\ltimes X^{-1} \; = \; X\ltimes Y^{1/2}\ltimes X^{-1}\ltimes Y^{1/2}. |
Lemma 4.5 implies that X\ltimes Y^{1/2} = Y^{1/2}\ltimes X . Hence,
\begin{align*} A\ltimes B \;& = \; A \ltimes Y \ltimes A \ltimes Y \; = \; Y^{-1/2}\ltimes X^2\ltimes Y^{1/2} \\ \;& = \; X^2 \; = \; Y^{1/2}\ltimes X^2\ltimes Y^{-1/2} \\ \;& = \; Y \ltimes A \ltimes Y \ltimes A \\ \;& = \; B\ltimes A. \end{align*} |
Theorem 4.7. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) , then the following statements are equivalent:
(i) A \, \lozenge\, B = I_{\alpha} ,
(ii) A\otimes I_{\alpha/m} = B^{-1}\otimes I_{\alpha/n} ,
(iii) A \, \sharp\, B = I_\alpha .
Proof. First, we show the equivalence between the statements (ⅰ) and (ⅱ). Suppose that A\lozenge B = I_{\alpha} . Letting Y = A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B , we have by Theorem 3.3 that
Y^{1/2}\ltimes A\ltimes Y^{1/2} \; = \; Y^{-1/2}\ltimes B\ltimes Y^{-1/2} \; = \; I_{\alpha}. |
Applying Lemma 2.1, we obtain
A\otimes I_{\alpha/m} \; = \; Y^{-1} \; = \; B^{-1}\otimes I_{\alpha/n}. |
Now, suppose A\otimes I_{\alpha/m} = B^{-1}\otimes I_{\alpha/n} . By Lemma 2.1, we have
\begin{align*} A \ltimes B \;& = \; (A \otimes I_{\alpha/m}) (B \otimes I_{\alpha/n}) \; = \; (B^{-1} \otimes I_{\alpha/n}) (B \otimes I_{\alpha/n}) \\ \;& = \; I_n \otimes I_{\alpha/n} \; = \; I_{\alpha}, \end{align*} |
and similarly, B \ltimes A = I_{\alpha} . Now, Theorem 4.1(ⅴ) implies that
\begin{align*} A \,\lozenge\, B \;& = \; A^{1/2}\ltimes B^{1/2} \\ \;& = \; (B^{-1/2}\otimes I_{\alpha/n})(B^{1/2}\otimes I_{\alpha/n}) \; = \; I_{\alpha}. \end{align*} |
Next, we show the equivalence between (ⅱ) and (ⅲ). Suppose that A \, \sharp\, B = I_\alpha , then we have
\begin{align*} (A^{-1/2} \ltimes B \ltimes A^{-1/2})^{1/2} \; = \; A^{-1/2} \ltimes I_{\alpha} \ltimes A^{-1/2} \; = \; A^{-1} \otimes I_{\alpha/m}. \end{align*} |
This implies that
\begin{align*} A^{-1/2} \ltimes B \ltimes A^{-1/2} \; = \; (A^{-1} \otimes I_{\alpha})^2 \; = \; A^{-2} \otimes I_{\alpha/m}. \end{align*} |
Thus, B \otimes I_{\alpha/n} = A^{-1} \otimes I_{\alpha/m} or A \otimes I_{\alpha/m} = B^{-1} \otimes I_{\alpha/n} .
Now, suppose (ⅲ) holds, then we get A \ltimes B = I_{\alpha} = B \ltimes A . It follows from Lemma 2.6 (ⅳ) that A \, \sharp\, B = A^{1/2} \ltimes B^{1/2} = I_{\alpha} .
In particular from Theorem 4.7, when m = n , we have that A \, \lozenge\, B = I_n if and only if A = B^{-1} , if and only if, A \, \sharp\, B = I_n . This result was included in [7] and related to the work [8].
In this section, we investigate matrix equations involving MGMs and SGMs of positive definite matrices. In particular, recall that the work [23] investigated the matrix equation A \, \sharp_t\, X = B . We discuss this matrix equation when the MGM \sharp_t is replaced by the SGM \lozenge_t in the next theorem.
Theorem 5.1. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n where m \mid n . Let t \in \mathbb{R} -\{0\} , then the mean equation
\begin{align} A \,\lozenge_t\, X \; = \; B, \end{align} | (5.1) |
in an unknown X \in \mathbb{P}_n , is equivalent to the Riccati equation
\begin{align} W_t \ltimes A \ltimes W_t \; = \; B \end{align} | (5.2) |
in an unknown W_t \in \mathbb{P}_n . Moreover, Eq (5.1) has a unique solution given by
\begin{align} X \; = \; A \,\lozenge_{1/t}\, B \; = \; (A \,\sharp\, B^{-1})^{1- \frac{1}{t}} B (A \,\sharp\, B^{-1})^{1- \frac{1}{t}}. \end{align} | (5.3) |
Proof. Let us denote W_t = (A^{-1} \, \sharp\, X)^t for each t \in \mathbb{R} -\{0\} . By Definition 3.2, we have
\begin{align*} A \,\lozenge_t\, X \; = \; (A^{-1}\,\sharp\, X)^t\ltimes A\ltimes (A^{-1}\,\sharp\, X)^t \; = \; W_t \ltimes A \ltimes W_t. \end{align*} |
Note that the map X \mapsto W_t is injective due to the cancellability of the MGM \sharp_t (Lemma 2.6(ⅵ)). Thus, Eq (5.1) is equivalent to the Riccati equation (5.2). Now, Lemma 2.5 implies that Eq (5.2) is equivalent to W_t = A^{-1} \, \sharp\, B . Thus, Eq (5.1) is equivalent to the equation
\begin{align} (A^{-1} \,\sharp\, X)^t \; = \; A^{-1} \,\sharp\, B. \end{align} | (5.4) |
We now solve (5.4). Indeed, we have
\begin{align*} A^{-1} \,\sharp\, X \; = \; (A^{-1} \,\sharp\, B)^{1/t}. \end{align*} |
According to Theorem 3.1 and Definition 3.2, this equation has a unique solution denoted by the SGM of A and B with weight 1/t . Now, Remark 4.2 provides the explicit formula (5.3) of A \, \lozenge_{1/t}\, B .
Remark 5.2. For the case n \mid m in Theorem 5.1, we get a similar result. In particular to the case m \mid n , the mean equation
\begin{align} A \,\lozenge\, X \; = \; B \end{align} | (5.5) |
has a unique solution X = (A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B)B(A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B) .
Theorem 5.3. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n . Let t\in \mathbb{R} -\{0\} and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) , then the equation
\begin{align} (A\,\sharp\, X)\,\sharp_t\,(B\,\sharp\, X) \; = \; I_\alpha \end{align} | (5.6) |
has a unique solution X = A^{-1} \, \lozenge_t\, B^{-1} \in \mathbb{P}_\alpha .
Proof. For the case t = 0 , Lemma 2.5 tells us that the equation A\, \sharp\, X = I_\alpha has a unique solution
X \; = \; A^{-1}\otimes I_{\alpha/m} \; = \; A^{-1} \,\lozenge_0\, B^{-1}. |
Now, assume that t\neq 0 . To prove the uniqueness, let U = A\, \sharp\, X and V = B\, \sharp\, X , then
U \ltimes A^{-1} \ltimes U \; = \; X \; = \; V \ltimes B^{-1} \ltimes V . |
Since U\, \sharp_t\, V = I_\alpha , we obtain (U^{-1/2}\ltimes V\ltimes U^{-1/2})^t = U^{-1} and, thus, V = U^{(t-1)/t} . It follows that
\begin{align*} B\otimes I_{\alpha/n} \;& = \; V\ltimes X^{-1} \ltimes V \; = \; V\ltimes U^{-1}\ltimes A\ltimes U^{-1}\ltimes V \\ \;& = \; U^{-1/t}\ltimes A\ltimes U^{-1/t}. \end{align*} |
Using Lemma 2.5, we have that U^{-1/t} = A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B and, thus, U = (A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B)^{-t} . Hence,
\begin{align*} X \;& = \; (A^{-1}\,\sharp\,B)^{-t} \ltimes A^{-1} \ltimes (A^{-1}\,\sharp\,B)^{-t} \\ \;& = \; (A\,\sharp\, B^{-1})^t \ltimes A^{-1} \ltimes (A\,\sharp\, B^{-1})^t \; = \; A^{-1} \,\lozenge_t\, B^{-1}. \end{align*} |
Corollary 5.4. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) , then the equation
\begin{align} A\,\sharp\, X \; = \; B\,\sharp\, X^{-1} \end{align} | (5.7) |
has a unique solution X = A^{-1} \, \lozenge\, B \in \mathbb{P}_\alpha .
Proof. Equation (5.7) and Lemma 2.6 imply that
\begin{align*} (A \,\sharp\, X)^{-1} \; = \; (B\,\sharp\, X^{-1})^{-1} \; = \; B^{-1} \,\sharp\, X. \end{align*} |
Thus, Eq (5.7) is equivalent to the following equation:
\begin{align*} (A\,\sharp\, X)\,\sharp_{1/2} \,(B^{-1}\,\sharp\, X) \; = \; I_\alpha. \end{align*} |
Now, the desired solution follows from the case t = 1/2 in Theorem 5.3.
In particular, when m = n and A = B , the equation A\, \sharp\, X = A\, \sharp\, X^{-1} has a unique solution X = A \, \lozenge\, A^{-1} = A^0 = I by Eq (3.3).
Theorem 5.5. Let (A, B)\in \mathbb{P}_m\times \mathbb{P}_n and \alpha = {\rm{lcm}}(m, n) , then the equation
\begin{align} (A\,\sharp\, X) \,\lozenge_t\, (B\,\sharp\, X) \; = \; I_\alpha \end{align} | (5.8) |
has a unique solution X = A^{-1} \, \lozenge_t\, B^{-1} \in \mathbb{P}_\alpha .
Proof. If t = 0 , the equation A\, \sharp\, X^{-1} = I_\alpha has a unique solution X = A^{-1} \otimes I_{\alpha/m} = A^{-1} \, \lozenge_0\, B^{-1} . Now, consider t\neq 0 , and let U = A\, \sharp\, X and V = B\, \sharp\, X , then
U^{-1}\ltimes A\ltimes U^{-1} \; = \; X^{-1} \; = \; V^{-1}\ltimes B\ltimes V^{-1}. |
Since U\lozenge_t V = I_\alpha , we have that U = (U^{-1}\, \sharp\, V)^{-2t} , i.e., U^{1/(2t)} = U\, \sharp\, V^{-1} . Applying Lemma 2.5, we get V^{-1} = U^{1/(2t)}\ltimes U^{-1}\ltimes U^{1/(2t)} = U^{(1-t)/t} . Hence,
B \; = \; V\ltimes U^{-1}\ltimes A\ltimes U^{-1}\ltimes V \; = \; U^{-1/t}\ltimes A\ltimes U^{-1/t}. |
Using Lemma 2.5, we have U^{-1/t} = A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B , i.e., U = (A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B)^{-t} . Thus,
X^{-1} \; = \; (A^{-1}\,\sharp\, B)^t\ltimes A\ltimes (A^{-1}\,\sharp\, B)^t \; = \; A \,\lozenge_t\, B. |
Hence, by the self-duality of the SGM \lozenge_{t} , we have
X \; = \; (A \,\lozenge_t\, B)^{-1} \; = \; A^{-1} \,\lozenge_t\, B^{-1}. |
All results in this section seem to be not noticed before in the literature. In particular, from Theorems 5.3 and 5.5, when m = n and A = B , the equation A\, \sharp\, X = I has a unique solution X = A^{-1} .
We characterize weighted SGMs of positive definite matrices in terms of certain matrix equations involving MGMs and STPs. Indeed, for each real number t , the unique positive solution of the matrix equation A^{-1}\, \sharp\, X \; = \; (A^{-1}\, \sharp\, B)^t is defined to be the t -weighted SGM of A and B . We then establish several properties of the weighted SGMs such as permutation invariance, homogeneity, self-duality, unitary invariance, cancellability, and a determinantal identity. The most significant property is the fact that (A\lozenge B)^2 is positively similar to A\ltimes B , so the two matrices have the same spectrum. The results in Sections 3 and 5 include the classical weighted SGMs of matrices as special cases. Furthermore, we show that certain equations concerning weighted SGMs and weighted MGMs of positive definite matrices have a unique solution written explicitly as weighted SGMs of associated matrices. In particular, the equation A \, \lozenge_t\, X = B can be expressed in terms of the famous Riccati equation. For future works, we may investigate SGMs from differential-geometry viewpoints, such as geodesic property.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
This research project is supported by National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT): (N41A640234). The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for comments and suggestions.
The authors declare there is no conflicts of interest.
[1] |
M. Elad, B. Kawar, G. Vaksman, Image denoising: the deep learning revolution and beyond–a survey paper, SIAM J. Imaging Sci., 16 (2023), 1594–1654. https://doi.org/10.1137/23M1545859 doi: 10.1137/23M1545859
![]() |
[2] |
L. I. Rudin, S. Osher, E. Fatemi, Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms, Phys. D, 60 (1992), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(92)90242-F doi: 10.1016/0167-2789(92)90242-F
![]() |
[3] | A. Chambolle, V. Caselles, D. Cremers, M. Novaga, T. Pock, An introduction to total variation for image analysis, In: Theoretical foundations and numerical methods for sparse recovery, Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 2010,263–340. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226157.263 |
[4] | M. Burger, S. Osher, A guide to the TV zoo, In: Level set and PDE based reconstruction methods in imaging, Cham: Springer, 2013, 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01712-9_1 |
[5] |
M. Pragliola, L. Calatroni, A. Lanza, F. Sgallari, On and beyond total variation regularization in imaging: the role of space variance, SIAM Rev., 65 (2023), 601–685. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.03650 doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2104.03650
![]() |
[6] |
D. H. Zhao, R. Y. Huang, L. Feng, Proximity algorithms for the L^1L^2/TV^{\alpha} image denoising model, AIMS Math., 9 (2024), 16643–16665. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2024807 doi: 10.3934/math.2024807
![]() |
[7] |
A. Ben-loghfyry, A. Hakim, A bilevel optimization problem with deep learning based on fractional total variation for image denoising, Multimed. Tools Appl., 83 (2024), 28595–28614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-16583-4 doi: 10.1007/s11042-023-16583-4
![]() |
[8] |
A. Lanza, S. Morigi, F. Sgallari, Convex image denoising via non-convex regularization with parameter selection, J. Math. Imaging Vis., 56 (2016), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10851-016-0655-7 doi: 10.1007/s10851-016-0655-7
![]() |
[9] |
I. Selesnick, A. Lanza, S. Morigi, F. Sgallari, Non-convex total variation regularization for convex denoising of signals, J. Math. Imaging Vis., 62 (2020), 825–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10851-019-00937-5 doi: 10.1007/s10851-019-00937-5
![]() |
[10] |
M. Kang, M. Jung, Nonconvex fractional order total variation based image denoising model under mixed stripe and Gaussian noise, AIMS Math., 9 (2024), 21094–21124. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.20241025 doi: 10.3934/math.20241025
![]() |
[11] |
I. W. Selesnick, A. Parekh, I. Bayram, Convex 1-D total variation denoising with non-convex regularization, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., 22 (2015), 141–144. https://doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2014.2349356 doi: 10.1109/LSP.2014.2349356
![]() |
[12] |
J. Darbon, M. Sigelle, Image restoration with discrete constrained total variation part Ⅱ: Levelable functions, convex priors and non-convex cases, J. Math. Imaging Vis., 26 (2006), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10851-006-0644-3 doi: 10.1007/s10851-006-0644-3
![]() |
[13] |
H. L. Zhang, L. M. Tang, Z. Fang, C. C. Xiang, C. Y. Li, Nonconvex and nonsmooth total generalized variation model for image restoration, Signal Process., 143 (2018), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2017.08.021 doi: 10.1016/j.sigpro.2017.08.021
![]() |
[14] |
M. Hintermüller, T. Wu, Nonconvex TV^q-models in image restoration: analysis and a trust-region regularization–based superlinearly convergent solver, SIAM J. Imaging Sci., 6 (2013), 1385–1415. https://doi.org/10.1137/110854746 doi: 10.1137/110854746
![]() |
[15] |
Z. Fang, L. M. Tang, L. Wu, H. X. Liu, A nonconvex TV_q- l_1 regularization model and the ADMM based algorithm, Sci. Rep., 12 (2022), 7942. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11938-7 doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-11938-7
![]() |
[16] |
A. Lanza, S. Morigi, I. W. Selesnick, F. Sgallari, Sparsity-inducing nonconvex nonseparable regularization for convex image processing, SIAM J. Imaging Sci., 12 (2019), 1099–1134. https://doi.org/10.1137/18M1199149 doi: 10.1137/18M1199149
![]() |
[17] | A. Lanza, S. Morigi, I. W. Selesnick, F. Sgallari, Convex non-convex variational models, In: Handbook of mathematical models and algorithms in computer vision and imaging: mathematical imaging and vision, Cham: Springer, 2023, 3–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98661-2_61 |
[18] |
Y. L. Liu, H. Q. Du, Z. X. Wang, W. B. Mei, Convex MR brain image reconstruction via non-convex total variation minimization, Int. J. Imaging Syst. Technol., 28 (2018), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/ima.22275 doi: 10.1002/ima.22275
![]() |
[19] |
M. R. Shen, J. C. Li, T. Zhang, J. Zou, Magnetic resonance imaging reconstruction via non-convex total variation regularization, Int. J. Imaging Syst. Technol., 31 (2021), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/ima.22463 doi: 10.1002/ima.22463
![]() |
[20] |
J. L. Li, Z. Y. Xie, G. Q. Liu, L. Yang, J. Zou, Diffusion optical tomography reconstruction based on convex-nonconvex graph total variation regularization, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 46 (2023), 4534–4545. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.8777 doi: 10.1002/mma.8777
![]() |
[21] | Q. Li, A comprehensive survey of sparse regularization: fundamental, state-of-the-art methodologies and applications on fault diagnosis, Expert Syst. Appl., 229 (2023), 120517. |
[22] |
H. B. Lin, F. T. Wu, G. L. He, Rolling bearing fault diagnosis using impulse feature enhancement and nonconvex regularization, Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 142 (2020), 106790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.106790 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.106790
![]() |
[23] |
J. P. Wang, G. L. Xu, C. L. Li, Z. S. Wang, F. J. Yan, Surface defects detection using non-convex total variation regularized RPCA with kernelization, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 70 (2021), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2021.3056738 doi: 10.1109/TIM.2021.3056738
![]() |
[24] |
T. H. Wen, Z. Chen, T. Zhang, J. Zou, Graph-based semi-supervised learning with non-convex graph total variation regularization, Expert Syst. Appl., 255 (2024), 124709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124709 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124709
![]() |
[25] | G. Scrivanti, É. Chouzenoux, J. C. Pesquet, A CNC approach for directional total variation, In: 2022 30th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), 488–492. https://doi.org/10.23919/EUSIPCO55093.2022.9909763 |
[26] |
H. Q. Du, Y. L. Liu, Minmax-concave total variation denoising, Signal Image Video Process., 12 (2018), 1027–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11760-018-1248-2 doi: 10.1007/s11760-018-1248-2
![]() |
[27] | J. C. Hütter, P. Rigollet, Optimal rates for total variation denoising, In: Conference on Learning Theory, 49 (2016), 1115–1146. |
[28] |
J. Q. Fan, R. Z. Li, Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 96 (2001), 1348–1360. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214501753382273 doi: 10.1198/016214501753382273
![]() |
[29] |
A. H. Al-Shabili, Y. Feng, I. Selesnick, Sharpening sparse regularizers via smoothing, IEEE Open J. Signal Process., 2 (2021), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1109/OJSP.2021.3104497 doi: 10.1109/OJSP.2021.3104497
![]() |
[30] |
I. Selesnick, Sparse regularization via convex analysi, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 65 (2017), 4481–4494. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2017.2711501 doi: 10.1109/TSP.2017.2711501
![]() |
[31] |
E. Mammen, S. van de Geer, Locally adaptive regression splines, Ann. Statist., 25 (1997), 387–413. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1034276635 doi: 10.1214/aos/1034276635
![]() |
[32] |
D. Needell, R. Ward, Near-optimal compressed sensing guarantees for total variation minimization, IEEE. Trans. Image Process., 22 (2013), 3941–3949. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2013.2264681 doi: 10.1109/TIP.2013.2264681
![]() |
[33] | Y. X. Wang, J. Sharpnack, A. J. Smola, R. J. Tibshirani, Trend filtering on graphs, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 17 (2016), 1–41. |
[34] | V. Sadhanala, Y. X. Wang, R. J. Tibshirani, Total variation classes beyond 1d: minimax rates, and the limitations of linear smoothers, In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (NIPS 2016), 2016. |
[35] |
S. Chatterjee, S. Goswami, New risk bounds for 2D total variation denoising, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 67 (2021), 4060–4091. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2021.3059657 doi: 10.1109/TIT.2021.3059657
![]() |
[36] |
R. Varma, H. Lee, J. Kovačević, Y. Chi, Vector-valued graph trend filtering with non-convex penalties, IEEE Trans. Signal Inform. Process. Netw., 6 (2020), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSIPN.2019.2957717 doi: 10.1109/TSIPN.2019.2957717
![]() |
[37] |
A. Guntuboyina, D. Lieu, S. Chatterjee, B. Sen, Adaptive risk bounds in univariate total variation denoising and trend filtering, Ann. Statist., 48 (2020), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1214/18-AOS1799 doi: 10.1214/18-AOS1799
![]() |
[38] | F. Ortelli, S. van de Geer, Adaptive rates for total variation image denoising, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21 (2020), 1–38. |
[39] |
F. Ortelli, S. van de Geer, Prediction bounds for higher order total variation regularized least squares, Ann. Statist., 49 (2021), 2755–2773. https://doi.org/10.1214/21-AOS2054 doi: 10.1214/21-AOS2054
![]() |
[40] | N. Parikh, S. Boyd, Proximal algorithms, Found. Trends Optim., 1 (2014), 127–239. https://doi.org/10.1561/2400000003 |
[41] |
S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, J. Eckstein, Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers, Found. Trends Mach. Learn., 3 (2011), 1–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2200000016 doi: 10.1561/2200000016
![]() |
[42] | S. Boucheron, G. Lugosi, P. Massart, Concentration inequalities: a nonasymptotic theory of independence, Oxford University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535255.001.0001 |
[43] |
N. Kumar, M. Sonkar, G. Bhatnagar, Efficient image restoration via non-convex total variation regularization and ADMM optimization, Appl. Math. Model., 132 (2024), 428–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2024.04.055 doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2024.04.055
![]() |
[44] |
S. J. Ma, J. Huang, A concave pairwise fusion approach to subgroup analysis, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 112 (2017), 410–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1148039 doi: 10.1080/01621459.2016.1148039
![]() |
[45] |
P. Tseng, Convergence of a block coordinate descent method for nondifferentiable minimization, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 109 (2001), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017501703105 doi: 10.1023/A:1017501703105
![]() |
[46] |
L. Condat, A direct algorithm for 1-D total variation denoising, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., 20 (2013), 1054–1057. https://doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2013.2278339 doi: 10.1109/LSP.2013.2278339
![]() |