Effect of the incorporation of BiFeO3 on the structural, electrical and magnetic properties of the lead-free Bi0.5Na0.5TiO3

Wolfgang Zúñiga-Mera; Sonia Gaona Jurado; Alejandra Isabel Guerrero Duymovic; Claudia Fernanda Villaquirán Raigoza; José Eduardo García; Wolfgang Zúñiga-Mera; Sonia Gaona Jurado; Alejandra Isabel Guerrero Duymovic; Claudia Fernanda Villaquirán Raigoza; José Eduardo García

doi:10.3934/matersci.2021048

AIMS Materials Science

2021, Volume 8, Issue 5: 792-808. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021048

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Topical Sections

Effect of the incorporation of BiFeO₃ on the structural, electrical and magnetic properties of the lead-free Bi_0.5Na_0.5TiO₃

Wolfgang Zúñiga-Mera ¹,
Sonia Gaona Jurado ¹,
Alejandra Isabel Guerrero Duymovic ¹,
Claudia Fernanda Villaquirán Raigoza ^{1
,
,},
José Eduardo García ²

1.
Department of Physics, Science and Technology of Ceramic Materials Group (CYTEMAC), University of Cauca, Popayan, Colombia
2.
Department of Applied Physics, Polytechnic University of Catalunya, c/Jordi Girona 1-3, B4, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

Received: 07 September 2021 Accepted: 26 October 2021 Published: 05 November 2021

Powders of the system (1–x)Bi_0.5Na_0.5TiO₃–xBiFeO₃ (x = 0, 0.02, 0.08, 0.10) are synthesized by the combustion reaction method. The crystal structure and the particle size of Bi_0.5Na_0.5TiO₃ are modified by the incorporation of BiFeO₃, as can be seen from the infrared spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction results. The inclusion of iron and the increase in the molar percentage of bismuth in the BNT matrix generate new bonds with a different force constant. The structural analysis showed that the addition of BFO to the BNT does not induce any structural phase transition, preserving the rhombohedral symmetry of the Bi_0.5Na_0.5TiO₃ system. The electrical measurements show that the incorporation of iron increases the conductivity of the system generated by an increase in the concentration of oxygen vacancies; alternatively, the addition of 10% of BiFeO₃ generates ferrimagnetic behavior reflected in the magnetic hysteresis curves obtained at room temperature.

Keywords:

Citation: Wolfgang Zúñiga-Mera, Sonia Gaona Jurado, Alejandra Isabel Guerrero Duymovic, Claudia Fernanda Villaquirán Raigoza, José Eduardo García. Effect of the incorporation of BiFeO3 on the structural, electrical and magnetic properties of the lead-free Bi0.5Na0.5TiO3[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(5): 792-808. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021048

Related Papers:

[1]	Ziphozethu Ndlazi, Oualid Abboussi, Musa Mabandla, Willie Daniels . Memantine increases NMDA receptor level in the prefrontal cortex but fails to reverse apomorphine-induced conditioned place preference in rats. AIMS Neuroscience, 2018, 5(4): 211-220. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2018.4.211
[2]	Chris Cadonic, Benedict C. Albensi . Oscillations and NMDA Receptors: Their Interplay Create Memories. AIMS Neuroscience, 2014, 1(1): 52-64. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.52
[3]	Nao Fukuwada, Miki Kanno, Satomi Yoshida, Kenjiro Seki . Gαq protein signaling in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis regulate the lipopolysaccharide-induced despair-like behavior in mice. AIMS Neuroscience, 2020, 7(4): 438-458. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2020027
[4]	Md. Mamun Al-Amin, Robert K. P. Sullivan, Suzy Alexander, David A. Carter, DanaKai Bradford, Thomas H. J. Burne . Impaired spatial memory in adult vitamin D deficient BALB/c mice is associated with reductions in spine density, nitric oxide, and neural nitric oxide synthase in the hippocampus. AIMS Neuroscience, 2022, 9(1): 31-56. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2022004
[5]	Robert A. Moss, Jarrod Moss . The Role of Dynamic Columns in Explaining Gamma-band Synchronization and NMDA Receptors in Cognitive Functions. AIMS Neuroscience, 2014, 1(1): 65-88. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.65
[6]	Nisha Shantakumari, Musaab Ahmed . Whole body vibration therapy and cognitive functions: a systematic review. AIMS Neuroscience, 2023, 10(2): 130-143. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2023010
[7]	Valentina Bashkatova, Athineos Philippu . Role of nitric oxide in psychostimulant-induced neurotoxicity. AIMS Neuroscience, 2019, 6(3): 191-203. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2019.3.191
[8]	Tevzadze Gigi, Zhuravliova Elene, Barbakadze Tamar, Shanshiashvili Lali, Dzneladze Davit, Nanobashvili Zaqaria, Lordkipanidze Tamar, Mikeladze David . Gut neurotoxin p-cresol induces differential expression of GLUN2B and GLUN2A subunits of the NMDA receptor in the hippocampus and nucleus accumbens in healthy and audiogenic seizure-prone rats. AIMS Neuroscience, 2020, 7(1): 30-42. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2020003
[9]	Toshihiko Kinjo, Shun Ebisawa, Tatsuya Nokubo, Mifu Hashimoto, Takonori Yamada, Michiko Oshio, Ruka Nakamura, Kyosuke Uno, Nobuyuki Kuramoto . Post-translational modifications of the apelin receptor regulate its functional expression. AIMS Neuroscience, 2023, 10(4): 282-299. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2023022
[10]	Nicholas J. D. Wright . A review of the direct targets of the cannabinoids cannabidiol, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, N-arachidonoylethanolamine and 2-arachidonoylglycerol. AIMS Neuroscience, 2024, 11(2): 144-165. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2024009

Abstract

1. Introduction

A matrix $A = [a_{ij}]\in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ is called a strictly diagonally dominant (SDD) matrix if

$\begin{eqnarray} |a_{ii}| > r_i(A) \end{eqnarray}$

(1.1)

for all $i\in N: = \{1, \ldots, n\}$ , where $r_i(A) = \sum\limits_{j\in N\setminus\{i\}} |a_{ij}|$ .

The concept of SDD originated from the well-known Lévy-Desplanques Theorem ^[1], which states that if condition (1.1) holds, then $A$ is nonsingular, i.e., SDD matrices are nonsingular. It is well known that the class of SDD matrices has wide applications in many fields of scientific computing, such as the Schur complement problem ^[2,3], eigenvalue localizations ^{[4,5,6,7,8,9,10]}, convergence analysis of the parallel-in-time iterative method ^[11], estimating the infinity norm for the inverse of $H$ -matrices ^{[12,13,14,15]}, error bound for linear complementarity problems ^[16,17], structure tensors ^[18,19], etc.

Some well-known matrices have been presented and studied ^[4,7,20] by breaking the diagonal dominance condition (1.1). For instance, by allowing at most one row to be non-SDD, Ostrowski introduced the class of Ostrowski matrices ^[20] (also known as doubly strictly diagonally dominant (DSDD) matrices). Here, a matrix $A = [a_{ij}]\in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ is an Ostrowski matrix ^[20] if for all $j\neq i$ ,

$\begin{eqnarray*} |a_{ii}||a_{jj}| > r_i(A)r_j(A). \end{eqnarray*}$

In addition, based on the partition-based approach that allows more than one row to be non-SDD, a well-known class of matrices called $S$ -SDD matrices has been proposed and studied ^[7,21].

Definition 1.1. ^[7,21] Let $A = [a_{ij}]\in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ and $S$ be a nonempty proper subset of $N$ . Then, a matrix $A$ is called an $S$ -SDD matrix if

$\begin{align*} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} |a_{ii}| > r_i^{S}(A), i\in S, \\ \big(|a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A)\big)\big(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)\big) > r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)r_j^{S}(A), i\in S, j\in\overline{S}, \end{array} \right. \end{align*}$

where $r_i^S(A) = \sum\limits_{j\in S\setminus \{i\}}|a_{ij}|$ .

Besides DSDD matrices and $S$ -SDD matrices, there are many generalizations of SDD matrices, such as Nekrasov matrices ^[22,23], $DZ$ -type matrices ^[24], CKV-type matrices ^[25] and so on.

Observe from Definition 1.1 that $S$ -SDD matrices only consider the effect of "interaction" between $i\in S$ and $j\in \overline{S}$ on the nonsingular. However, other "interaction, " such as the "constraint condition" between $i\in S$ ( $i\in \overline{S}$ ) and $j\in S$ ( $j\in \overline{S}$ ) with $i\neq j$ , might also affect the non-singularity of the matrix. Naturally, an interesting question arises: When we consider this "constraint condition, " can we get the non-singularity of the matrix? To answer this question, in this paper, we introduce a new class of nonsingular matrices arising from this "constraint condition" and show several benefits from this new class of matrices, which we will call partially doubly strictly diagonally dominant matrices.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present a new class of matrices called PDSDD matrices and prove that it is a subclass of nonsingular $H$ -matrices, which is similar to, but different from, the class of $S$ -SDD matrices. Section 3 gives a new eigenvalue localization set for matrices and presents an infinity norm bound for the inverse of PDSDD matrices. It is proved that the obtained bound is better than the well-known Varah's bound for SDD matrices. Based on this infinity norm bound, we also obtain a new pseudospectra localization for matrices and apply it to measure the distance to instability. Finally, we give concluding remarks in Section 4.

2. Partially doubly strictly diagonally dominant matrices

We start with some preliminaries and definitions. Let $\mathbb{Z}^{n\times n}$ be the set of all matrices $A = [a_{ij}]\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ with $a_{ij}\leq 0$ and $i\neq j$ . A matrix $A\in\mathbb{Z}^{n\times n}$ is called a nonsingular $M$ -matrix if its inverse is nonnegative, i.e., $A^{-1}\geq 0$ ^[26]. A matrix $A = [a_{ij}]\in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ is called a nonsingular $H$ -matrix ^[26] if its comparison matrix $\mathcal{M}(A) = [m_{ij}]\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ defined by

$m_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} |a_{ij}|, &i = j, \\ -|a_{ij}|, &i\neq j, \end{array} \right.$

is a nonsingular $M$ -matrix. Let $|N|$ be the cardinality of set $N$ .

In the following, we define a new class of matrices called PDSDD matrices.

Definition 2.1. Let $S$ be a subset of $N$ and $\overline{S}$ be the complement of $S$ . Given a matrix $A = [a_{ij}]\in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ , for each subset $\Delta \in \{S, \overline{S}\}$ , denote $\Delta_{-}: = \{i\in \Delta|a_{ii}\leq r_i(A)\}$ and $\Delta_{+}: = \{i\in \Delta|a_{ii} > r_i(A)\}$ . Then, a matrix $A$ is called a partially doubly strictly diagonally dominant (PDSDD) matrix if for each $\Delta \in \{S, \overline{S}\}$ either $|\Delta_{-}| = 0$ or $|\Delta_{-}| = 1$ , and for $i\in \Delta_{-}$ ,

$\begin{align} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} |a_{ii}| > r_i^{\overline{\Delta}}(A), \\ \big(|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{\Delta}}(A)\big)\big(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{\Delta}(A)+|a_{ji}|\big) > r_i^{\Delta}(A)(r_j^{\overline{\Delta}}(A)+|a_{ji}|), &j\in \Delta_{+}, \end{array} \right. \end{align}$

(2.1)

where $r_i^\Delta(A) = \sum\limits_{j\in \Delta\setminus \{i\}}|a_{ij}|$ .

Note that the class of DSDD matrices allows at most one row to be non-SDD, whereas the class of matrices defined in Definition 2.1 allows at most one row to be non-SDD in each subset $\Delta\in \{S, \overline{S}\}$ . For this reason, we call it the class of PDSDD matrices.

The following theorem provides that the class of PDSDD matrices is a subclass of nonsingular $H$ -matrices.

Theorem 2.1. Every PDSDD matrix is a nonsingular $H$ -matrix.

Proof. According to the well-known result that SDD matrices are nonsingular $H$ -matrices, it is sufficient to consider the case that $A$ has one or two non-SDD rows. Assume, on the contrary, that $A$ is a singular matrix, and then there exists a nonzero eigenvector ${\bf x} = [x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n]^T$ corresponding to 0 eigenvalue such that

$\begin{eqnarray} A{\bf x} = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.2)

Let $|x_p|: = \max\limits_{i\in N}\{|x_i|\}$ . Then, $|x_p| > 0$ , and $p\in \Delta\cup \overline{\Delta}$ , where $\Delta\in \{S, \overline{S}\}$ . Without loss of generality, we assume that $\Delta = S$ . Next, we need only consider the case $p\in S$ , and another case $p\in \overline{S}$ can be proved similarly. For $p\in S$ , it follows from Definition 2.1 that $p\in S_{-}\cup S_{+}$ , where $S_{-}: = \{i\in S|a_{ii}\leq r_i(A)\}$ and $S_{+}: = \{i\in S|a_{ii} > r_i(A)\}$ .

If $p\in S_{-}$ , then by Definition 2.1 we have

$\begin{align} |a_{pp}| > r_p^{\overline{S}}(A), \end{align}$

(2.3)

and for all $j\in S_{+}$ ,

$\begin{align} \big(|a_{pp}|-r_p^{\overline{S}}(A)\big)\big(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{jp}|\big) > r_p^{S}(A)(r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{jp}|). \end{align}$

(2.4)

Note that $|S_{-}| = 1$ . Then, $S\setminus \{p\} = S_+$ . Let $|x_q|: = \max\limits_{k\in S\setminus \{p\}}\{|x_k|\}$ . Considering the $p$ -th equality of (2.2), we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} a_{pp}x_p = -\sum\limits_{k\neq p, k\in S}a_{pk}x_k-\sum\limits_{k\neq p, k\in \overline{S}}a_{pk}x_k. \end{eqnarray*}$

Taking the modulus in the above equation and using the triangle inequality yields

$\begin{align*} |a_{pp}||x_p|&\leq\sum\limits_{k\neq p, k\in S}|a_{pk}||x_k|+\sum\limits_{k\neq p, k\in \overline{S}}|a_{pk}||x_k| \\&\leq\sum\limits_{k\neq p, k\in S}|a_{pk}||x_q|+\sum\limits_{k\neq p, k\in \overline{S}}|a_{pk}||x_p| \\& = r_p^{S}(A)|x_q|+r_p^{\overline{S}}(A)|x_{p}|, \end{align*}$

which implies that

$\begin{eqnarray} (|a_{pp}|-r_p^{\overline{S}}(A))|x_p|\leq r_p^{S}(A)|x_{q}|. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.5)

If $|x_{q}| = 0$ , then $|a_{pp}|-r_p^{\overline{S}}(A)\leq0$ as $|x_p| > 0$ , which contradicts (2.3). If $|x_{q}|\neq0$ , then from the $q$ -th equality of (2.2), we obtain

$\begin{align*} |a_{qq}||x_q|&\leq\sum\limits_{k\neq q, k\in S}|a_{qk}||x_k|+\sum\limits_{k\neq q, k\in \overline{S}}|a_{qk}||x_k| \\&\leq\bigg(\sum\limits_{k\neq q, k\in S}|a_{qk}|-|a_{qp}|\bigg)|x_q|+\bigg(\sum\limits_{k\neq q, k\in \overline{S}}|a_{qk}|+|a_{qp}|\bigg)|x_p| \\& = (r_q^{S}(A)-|a_{qp}|)|x_q|+(r_q^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{qp}|)|x_{p}|, \end{align*}$

i.e.,

$\begin{eqnarray} (|a_{qq}|-r_q^{S}(A)+|a_{qp}|)|x_q|\leq (r_q^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{qp}|)|x_{p}|. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.6)

Multiplying (2.6) with (2.5) and dividing by $|x_p||x_{q}| > 0$ , we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} (|a_{pp}|-r_p^{\overline{S}}(A))(|a_{qq}|-r_q^{S}(A)+|a_{qp}|)\leq r_p^{S}(A)(r_q^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{qp}|), \end{eqnarray*}$

which contradicts (2.4).

If $p\in S_{+}$ , then $|a_{pp}| > r_p(A)$ . Considering the $p$ -th equality of (2.2) and using the triangle inequality, we obtain

$\begin{align*} |a_{pp}||x_p|\leq\sum\limits_{k\neq p}|a_{pk}||x_k|\leq r_p(A)|x_p|, \end{align*}$

i.e., $|a_{pp}|\leq r_p(A)$ , which contradicts $|a_{pp}| > r_p(A)$ . Hence, we can conclude that 0 is not an eigenvalue of $A$ , that is, $A$ is a nonsingular matrix.

We next prove that $A$ is a nonsingular $H$ -matrix. For any $\varepsilon\geq 0$ , let

$B_\varepsilon = \mathcal{M}(A)+\varepsilon I = [b_{ij}].$

Note that $b_{ii} = |a_{ii}|+\varepsilon$ , $b_{ij} = -|a_{ij}|$ , and $B_\varepsilon\in \mathbb{Z}^{n\times n}$ . Then, $\Delta_{-}(B_\varepsilon)\subseteq \Delta_{-}(A)$ , and $\Delta_{+}(A)\subseteq\Delta_{+}(B_\varepsilon)$ . If $A$ is an SDD matrix, then $\Delta_{-}(A) = \emptyset$ , and thus $\Delta_{-}(B_\varepsilon) = \emptyset$ , which implies that $B_\varepsilon$ is an SDD matrix. If $A$ is not an SDD matrix, then $|\Delta_{-}(A)| = 1$ for some $\Delta\in \{S, \overline{S}\}$ . For this case, $|\Delta_{-}(B_\varepsilon)| = 0$ or $|\Delta_{-}(B_\varepsilon)| = 1$ . If $|\Delta_{-}(B_\varepsilon)| = 0$ for each $\Delta\in \{S, \overline{S}\}$ , then $B_\varepsilon$ is also an SDD matrix. If $|\Delta_{-}(B_\varepsilon)| = 1$ for some $\Delta\in \{S, \overline{S}\}$ , then $\Delta_{-}(B_\varepsilon) = \Delta_{-}(A)$ and $\Delta_{+}(B_\varepsilon) = \Delta_{+}(A)$ . Hence, for $i\in \Delta_{-}(B_\varepsilon)$ ,

$\begin{eqnarray*} |b_{ii}|-r_{i}^{\overline{\Delta}}(B_\varepsilon) = |a_{ii}|+\varepsilon-r_{i}^{\overline{\Delta}}(A) > 0, \end{eqnarray*}$

and for all $j\in \Delta_{+}(B_\varepsilon)$ ,

$\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} (|b_{ii}|-r_{i}^{\overline{\Delta}}(B_\varepsilon))(|b_{jj}|-r_{j}^{\Delta}(B_\varepsilon)+|b_{ji}|) & = (|a_{ii}|+\varepsilon-r_{i}^{\overline{\Delta}}(A))(|a_{jj}|+\varepsilon-r_{j}^{\Delta}(A)+|a_{ji}|) \\&\geq(|a_{ii}|-r_{i}^{\overline{\Delta}}(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_{j}^{\Delta}(A)+|a_{ji}|) \\& > r_i^{\Delta}(A)(r_j^{\overline{\Delta}}(A)+|a_{ji}|) \\& = r_i^{\overline{\Delta}}(B_\varepsilon)(r_j^{\Delta}(B_\varepsilon)+|b_{ji}|). \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Therefore, $B_\varepsilon$ is a PDSDD matrix and thus nonsingular for each $\varepsilon\geq 0$ . This implies that $\mathcal{M}(A)$ is a nonsingular $M$ -matrix (see the condition ( $D_{15}$ ) of Theorem 2.3 in [, Chapter 6]). Therefore, $A$ is a nonsingular $H$ -matrix. The proof is complete.

Proposition 2.1. Every DSDD matrix is a PDSDD matrix.

Proof. If $A$ is an SDD matrix, then $A$ is a PDSDD matrix. If $A$ is not an SDD matrix, then by the assumptions it holds that there exists $i_0\in N$ such that $|a_{i_0i_0}|\leq r_{i_0}(A)$ and

$|a_{i_0i_0}||a_{jj}| > r_{i_0}(A)r_j(A)\; \text{for all}\; j\neq i_0.$

Taking $S = N$ , we have $r_i^{\overline{S}}(A) = 0$ and $r_i^{S}(A) = r_i(A)$ for all $i\in N$ . This implies that for all $j\in S\setminus \{i_0\}$ ,

$\begin{align*} &\big(|a_{i_0i_0}|-r_{i_0}^{\overline{S}}(A)\big)\big(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji_0}|\big)-r_{i_0}^{S}(A)(r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji_0}|) \\& = |a_{i_0i_0}|(|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)+|a_{ji_0}|)-r_{i_0}(A)|a_{ji_0}| \\& = |a_{i_0i_0}||a_{jj}|-|a_{i_0i_0}|(r_j(A)-|a_{ji_0}|)-r_{i_0}(A)|a_{ji_0}| \\&\geq|a_{i_0i_0}||a_{jj}|-r_{i_0}(A)(r_j(A)-|a_{ji_0}|+|a_{ji_0}|) \\& = |a_{i_0i_0}||a_{jj}|-r_{i_0}(A)r_j(A) \\& > 0. \end{align*}$

Hence, by Definition 2.1, we conclude that $A$ is a PDSDD matrix. The proof is complete.

Next, we give an example to show that neither PDSDD matrices nor $S$ -SDD matrices are included in each other.

Example 2.1. Consider the following matrices:

$A = \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} 3 &-1 &-3 &0 \\ -1 &3 &0 &-8 \\ 0 &-1 &3 &0\\ 0 & 0 &0 & 8 \end{array} \right], \; B = \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} 3 &0 &0 &-3 \\ 0 &3 &0 &-3 \\ 0 &0 &3 &-3\\ 0 & 0 &0 & 8 \end{array} \right].$

By calculation, we know that $A$ is a PDSDD matrix for $S = \{1, 3\}$ , but it is not an $S$ -SDD matrix for any nonempty proper subset $S$ of $N$ and thus not a DSDD matrix. Meanwhile, $B$ is an $S$ -SDD matrix for $S = \{1, 2, 3\}$ , but it is not a PDSDD matrix, because $B$ has three non-SDD rows.

According to Theorem 2.1, Proposition 2.1 and Example 2.1, the relations among DSDD matrices, PDSDD matrices, $S$ -SDD matrices and $H$ -matrices can be depicted as follows:

$\{\text{PDSDD}\}\subset\{H\}, \; \{\text{PDSDD}\}\not\subset\{S\text{-SDD}\}, \; \{\text{S-SDD}\}\not\subset\{\text{PDSDD}\},$

and

$\{\text{DSDD}\}\subset\{\text{PDSDD}\}\cap\{\text{S-SDD}\}.$

3. Some possible applications

3.1. A new eigenvalue localization set for matrices

It is well known that the non-singularity of matrices can generate the equivalent eigenvalue inclusion set in the complex plane ^[4,5,7,9,24]. By the non-singularity of PDSDD matrices, we in this section give a new eigenvalue localization set for matrices. Before that, an equivalent condition for the definition of PDSDD matrices is given, which can be proved immediately from Definition 2.1.

Lemma 3.1. Let $A = [a_{ij}]\in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ and $\{S, \overline{S}\}$ be a partition of the set $N$ . A matrix $A$ is called a PDSDD matrix if and only if $S^\star$ is not empty unless $S$ is empty, and $\overline{S}^\star$ is not empty unless $\overline{S}$ is empty, where

$\begin{eqnarray*} S^{\star}: = \bigg\{i\in S:|a_{ii}| > r_i^{\overline{S}}(A), \; {{and\; for\; all}}\; j\in S\setminus\{i\}, \; |a_{jj}| > r_j(A) \; \mathit{\text{and}}\\\big(|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)\big)\big(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|\big) > r_i^{S}(A)(r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|)\bigg\}, \end{eqnarray*}$

and

$\begin{eqnarray*} \overline{S}^{\star}: = \bigg\{i\in \overline{S}:|a_{ii}| > r_i^{S}(A), \; {{and\; for\; all}}\; j\in \overline{S}\setminus\{i\}, \; |a_{jj}| > r_j(A) \; \mathit{\text{and}}\\\; \big(|a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A)\big)\big(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|\big) > r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)\bigg\} \end{eqnarray*}$

with $r_i^S(A) = \sum\limits_{j\in S\setminus \{i\}}|a_{ij}|$ .

By Lemma 3.1, we can obtain the following theorem.

Theorem 3.1. Let $A = [a_{ij}] \in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ and $S$ be any subset of $N$ . Then,

$\begin{eqnarray*} \sigma(A)\subseteq \Theta^{S}(A): = \theta^{S}(A)\bigcup\theta^{\overline{S}}(A), \end{eqnarray*}$

where $\sigma(A)$ is the set of all the eigenvalues of $A$ ,

$\theta^{S}(A) = \bigcap\limits_{i\in S}\left(\Gamma_i^{\overline{S}}(A)\right)\bigcup\left(\bigcup\limits_{j\in S\setminus \{i\}}\big(\widehat{V}_{ij}^{\overline{S}}(A)\cup\Gamma_j(A)\big)\right)$

and

$\theta^{\overline{S}}(A) = \bigcap\limits_{i\in \overline{S}}\left(\Gamma_i^{S}(A)\right)\bigcup\left(\bigcup\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i\}}\big(\widehat{V}_{ij}^{S}(A)\cup\Gamma_j(A)\big)\right)$

with

$\Gamma_i^{S}(A): = \left\{z\in \mathbb{C}:|z-a_{ii}|\leq r_i^{S}(A)\right\}, \; \Gamma_j(A): = \left\{z\in \mathbb{C}:|z-a_{jj}|\leq r_j(A)\right\},$

and

$\begin{eqnarray*} \widehat{V}_{ij}^{S}(A): = \left\{z\in \mathbb{C}:(|z-a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A))(|z-a_{jj}|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|)\right.\\ \left.\leq r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)\right\}. \end{eqnarray*}$

Proof. Without loss of generality, we assume that $S$ is a nonempty subset of $N$ . For the case of $S = \emptyset$ , we have $\Theta^{S}(A) = \theta^{\overline{S}}(A)$ , and the conclusion can be proved similarly. Suppose, on the contrary, that there exists an eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $A$ such that $\lambda\notin\Theta^{S}(A)$ , that is, $\lambda\notin\theta^{S}(A)$ and $\lambda\notin\theta^{\overline{S}}(A)$ . For $\lambda\notin\theta^{S}(A)$ , there exists an index $i\in S$ such that $\lambda\notin \Gamma_i^{\overline{S}}(A)$ , and for all $j\in S\setminus \{i\}$ , $\lambda\notin \Gamma_j(A)$ and $\lambda\notin \widehat{V}_{ij}^{\overline{S}}(A)$ , that is, $|\lambda-a_{ii}| > r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)$ , $|\lambda-a_{jj}| > r_j(A)$ , and

$\begin{eqnarray*} (|\lambda-a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A))(|\lambda-a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|) > r_i^{S}(A)(r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|). \end{eqnarray*}$

Similarly, for $\lambda\notin\theta^{\overline{S}}(A)$ , there exists an index $i\in \overline{S}$ such that $\lambda\notin \Gamma_i^{S}(A)$ , and for all $j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i\}$ , $\lambda\notin \Gamma_j(A)$ and $\lambda\notin \widehat{V}_{ij}^{S}(A)$ , that is, $|\lambda-a_{ii}| > r_i^{S}(A)$ , $|\lambda-a_{jj}| > r_j(A)$ , and

$\begin{eqnarray*} (|\lambda-a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A))(|\lambda-a_{jj}|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|) > r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|). \end{eqnarray*}$

These imply that $S^{\star}(\lambda I-A)$ and $\overline{S}^{\star}(\lambda I-A)$ are not empty. It follows from Lemma 3.1 that $\lambda I-A$ is a PDSDD matrix. Then, by Theorem 2.1, $\lambda I-A$ is nonsingular, which contradicts that $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $A$ . Hence, $\lambda\in\Theta^{S}(A)$ . This completes the proof.

Remark 3.1. Take the intersection over all possible subsets $S$ of $N$ , and we can get a satisfactory eigenvalue localization although it has more computation costs:

$\begin{eqnarray*} \sigma(A)\subseteq \Theta(A): = \bigcap \limits_{S\subseteq N}\Theta^{S}(A). \end{eqnarray*}$

To compare our set $\Theta(A)$ with the Geršgorin disks $\Gamma(A)$ in ^[8], Brauer's ovals of Cassini $\mathcal{K}(A)$ in ^[27] and the Cvetković-Kostić-Varga eigenvalue localization set $\mathcal{C}(A)$ in ^[7], }let us recall the definitions of $\Gamma(A)$ , $\mathcal{K}(A)$ and $\mathcal{C}(A)$ as follows.

Theorem 3.2. ^[8] Let $A = [a_{ij}]\in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ and $\sigma(A)$ be the set of all eigenvalues of $A$ . Then,

$\begin{equation*} \sigma(A)\subseteq \Gamma(A): = \mathop \bigcup \limits_{i \in N} \Gamma_i(A), \end{equation*}$

where $\Gamma_i(A) = \{ z \in \mathbb{C}:|{a_{ii}} - z| \le {r_i}(A) \}$ .

Theorem 3.3. ^[27] Let $A = [a_{ij}]\in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ and $\sigma(A)$ be the set of all eigenvalues of $A$ . Then,

$\begin{equation*} \sigma(A)\subseteq{\mathcal{K} }(A): = \mathop \bigcup \limits_{i, j\in N, i \ne j} \mathcal{K}_{ij}(A), \end{equation*}$

where $\mathcal{K}_{ij}(A) = \{ z \in \mathbb{C}:|{a_{ii}} - z||{a_{jj}} - z| \le {r_i}(A){r_j}(A)\}$ .

Theorem 3.4. ^[7] Let $S$ be any nonempty proper subset of $N$ , and $n\geq 2$ . Then, for any $A = [a_{ij}] \in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ , all the eigenvalues of $A$ belong to set

$\begin{eqnarray*} \mathcal{C}^{S}(A) = \left(\bigcup\limits_{i\in S}\Gamma_i^{S}(A)\right)\bigcup\left(\bigcup\limits_{i\in S, j\in \overline{S}}V_{ij}^{S}(A)\right), \end{eqnarray*}$

and hence

$\begin{eqnarray*} \sigma(A)\subseteq \mathcal{C}(A): = \bigcap\limits_{S\subset N, S\neq\emptyset, S\neq N}\mathcal{C}^{S}(A), \end{eqnarray*}$

where $\Gamma_i^S(A)$ is given by Theorem 3.1, and

$\begin{eqnarray*} V_{ij}^{S}(A): = \left\{z\in \mathbb{C}:(|z-a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A))(|z-a_{jj}|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A))\leq r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)r_j^{S}(A)\right\}. \end{eqnarray*}$

Remark 3.2. Observe that the class of SDD matrices is a subclass of DSDD matrices, which is a subclass of of PDSDD matrices. Hence, the corresponding set $\Theta(A)$ will contain Brauer's ovals of Cassini $\mathcal{K}(A)$ , which contains the Geršgorin disks $\Gamma(A)$ , that is,

$\Theta(A)\subseteq\mathcal{K}(A)\subseteq \Gamma(A).$

In addition, because PDSDD class and $S$ -SDD class do not contain each other, it follows that the relation between $\Theta(A)$ and $\mathcal{C}(A)$ is

$\Theta(A)\not\subset\mathcal{C}(A)\; \text{and}\; \mathcal{C}(A)\not\subset\Theta(A).$

3.2. An infinity norm bound for the inverse of PDSDD matrices

In this section, we consider the infinity norm bounds for the inverse of PDSDD matrices, since it might be used for the convergence analysis of matrix splitting and matrix multi-splitting iterative methods for solving large sparse systems of linear equations, linear complementarity problems and pseudospectra localizations.

Theorem 3.5. Let $A = [a_{ij}] \in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ be a PDSDD matrix. Then,

$\begin{eqnarray} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}\leq \max\left\{\min\limits_{i\in S^\star}\max\left\{\frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)}, \varphi_i^{S}(A)\right\}, \min\limits_{i\in \overline{S}^\star}\max\left\{\frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A)}, \varphi_i^{\overline{S}}(A)\right\}\right\}, \end{eqnarray}$

(3.1)

where $S^\star$ and $\overline{S}^\star$ are defined by Lemma 3.1,

$\varphi_i^{S}(A): = \max\limits_{j\in S\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mathcal{X}_{ij}^{S}(A), \frac{1}{|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)}\right\}$

with

$\mathcal{X}_{ij}^{S}(A): = \frac{|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+r_i^{S}(A)}{(|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)-r_i^{S}(A)(r_{j}^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|)}.$

Proof. According to a well-known fact (see ^[10,30]),

$\begin{eqnarray*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1} = \inf\limits_{{\bf x}\neq 0}\frac{||A{\bf x}||_{\infty}}{||{\bf x}||_{\infty}} = \min\limits_{||{\bf x}||_{\infty} = 1}||A{\bf x}||_{\infty} = ||A{\bf x}^{*}||_{\infty} = \max\limits_{i\in N}|(A{\bf x}^{*})_i| \end{eqnarray*}$

for some ${\bf x}^{*} = [x_1^{*}, x_2^{*}, \ldots, x_n^{*}]^{T}$ such that $||{\bf x}||_{\infty} = 1$ . Denote $|x_p^{*}| = ||{\bf x}||_{\infty} = 1$ . It follows that

$\begin{eqnarray*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}\geq|(A{\bf x}^{*})_p|. \end{eqnarray*}$

Consider the $p$ -th row of $Ax^*$ , and we have

$\begin{eqnarray} (A{\bf x}^{*})_p = a_{pp}x_p^{*}+\sum\limits_{j\neq p}a_{pj}x_j^{*}. \end{eqnarray}$

(3.2)

Since $A$ is a PDSDD matrix, it follows from Lemma 3.1 that $S^\star$ is not empty unless $S$ is empty, and $\overline{S}^\star$ is not empty unless $\overline{S}$ is empty. We only consider the case both $S$ and $\overline{S}$ are not empty, and the case of $S = \emptyset$ or $\overline{S} = \emptyset$ can be proved similarly.

The first case. Suppose that either $S$ or $\overline{S}$ is a singleton set. We assume that $S = \{k\}$ . Then, $\overline{S} = N\setminus\{k\}$ , and from Lemma 3.1 it holds that $S^\star$ is not empty and $\overline{S}^\star$ is not empty, that is,

$|a_{kk}| > r_k^{\overline{S}}(A) = r_k(A).$

For each $i_0\in \overline{S}^\star$ , $|a_{i_0i_0}| > r_{i_0}^{S}(A)$ , and for all $j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i_0\}$ ,

$\begin{align} \big(|a_{i_0i_0}|-r_{i_0}^{S}(A)\big)\big(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji_0}|\big) > r_{i}^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji_0}|). \end{align}$

(3.3)

Note that $p\in S\cup \overline{S}$ . If $p\in S = \{k\}$ , then

$\begin{align*} |a_{pp}|&\leq|(A{\bf x}^{*})_p|+r_p(A), \end{align*}$

and

$||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}\geq|(A{\bf x}^{*})_p|\geq|a_{pp}|-r_p(A) > 0.$

Hence,

$\begin{align} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}&\leq\frac{1}{|a_{pp}|-r_p(A)} = \frac{1}{|a_{kk}|-r_k^{\overline{S}}(A)}. \end{align}$

(3.4)

If $p\in \overline{S}$ , then $p = i_0$ or $p\neq i_0$ , where $i_0\in \overline{S}^\star$ . If $p = i_0$ , then let $|x_{q}^{*}| = \max\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus\{p\}}\{|x_j^{*}|\}$ . By (3.2), it follows that

$\begin{eqnarray*} a_{pp}x_p^{*} = (A{\bf x}^{*})_p-\sum\limits_{j\neq p, j\in S}a_{pj}x_j^{*}-\sum\limits_{j\neq p, j\in \overline{S}}a_{pj}x_j^{*}, \end{eqnarray*}$

and taking absolute values on both sides and using the triangle inequality, we get

$\begin{align*} |a_{pp}||x_p^{*}|&\leq|(A{\bf x}^{*})_p|+\sum\limits_{j\neq p, j\in S}|a_{pj}||x_j^{*}|+\sum\limits_{j\neq p, j\in \overline{S}}|a_{pj}||x_j^{*}| \\&\leq|(A{\bf x}^{*})_p|+\sum\limits_{j\neq p, j\in S}|a_{pj}||x_p^{*}|+\sum\limits_{j\neq p, j\in \overline{S}}|a_{pj}||x_{q}^{*}| \\&\leq||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}+r_p^{S}(A)|x_p^{*}|+r_p^{\overline{S}}(A)|x_{q}^{*}|, \end{align*}$

which implies that

$\begin{eqnarray} |a_{pp}|-||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}-r_p^{S}(A)\leq r_p^{\overline{S}}(A)|x_{q}^{*}|. \end{eqnarray}$

(3.5)

Consider the $q$ -th row of $A{\bf x}^{*}$ , and we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} (A{\bf x}^{*})_{q} = a_{qq}x_{q}^{*}+\sum\limits_{j\neq q}a_{qj}x_j^{*}. \end{eqnarray*}$

It follows that

$\begin{align*} |a_{qq}||x_{q}^{*}|&\leq|(A{\bf x}^{*})_{q}|+\left(\sum\limits_{j\neq q, j\in \overline{S}}|a_{qj}|-|a_{qp}|\right)|x_q^{*}|+\left(\sum\limits_{j\neq q, j\in S}|a_{qj}|+|a_{qp}|\right)|x_p^{*}| \nonumber\\&\leq ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}+\left(r_q^{\overline{S}}(A)-|a_{qp}|\right)|x_q^{*}|+\left(r_q^{S}(A)+|a_{qp}|\right), \end{align*}$

i.e.,

$\begin{eqnarray} (|a_{qq}|-r_q^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{qp}|)|x_{q}^{*}|\leq ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}+(r_q^{S}(A)+|a_{qp}|). \end{eqnarray}$

(3.6)

Then, from (3.5) and (3.6), we get that

$\begin{eqnarray*} \frac{|a_{pp}|-||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}-r_p^{S}(A)}{r_p^{\overline{S}}(A)}\leq|x_{q}^{*}|\leq\frac{||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}+r_q^{S}(A)+|a_{qp}|}{|a_{qq}|-r_q^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{qp}|}, \end{eqnarray*}$

which implies that

$\begin{align} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}&\leq\frac{|a_{qq}|-r_q^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{qp}|+r_p^{\overline{S}}(A)}{(|a_{pp}|-r_p^{S}(A))(|a_{qq}|-r_q^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{qp}|)-r_p^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_{q}^{S}(A)+|a_{qp}|)} \\&\leq\max\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus\{i_0\}}\frac{|a_{jj}|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji_0}|+r_{i_0}^{\overline{S}}(A)}{(|a_{i_0i_0}|-r_{i_0}^{S}(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji_0}|)-r_{i_0}^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_{j}^{S}(A)+|a_{ji_0}|)} \\&: = \max\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus\{i_0\}}\mathcal{X}_{i_0j}^{\overline{S}}(A). \end{align}$

(3.7)

If $p\neq i_0$ , then $|a_{pp}| > r_p(A)$ . Similarly to the proof of (3.4), we obtain

$\begin{align*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}&\leq\frac{1}{|a_{pp}|-r_p(A)}\leq\max\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i_0\}}\frac{1}{|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)}. \end{align*}$

Hence,

$\begin{align*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}\leq\max\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i_0\}}\left\{\mathcal{X}_{i_0j}^{\overline{S}}(A), \frac{1}{|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)}\right\}. \end{align*}$

Since $i_0$ is arbitrary in $\overline{S}^\star$ , it follows that

$\begin{align} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}\leq\min\limits_{i\in \overline{S}^\star}\max\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mathcal{X}_{ij}^{\overline{S}}(A), \frac{1}{|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)}\right\}. \end{align}$

(3.8)

By (3.4) and (3.8), it holds that

$\begin{align*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}\leq\max\left\{\min\limits_{i\in S^\star}\frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)}, \min\limits_{i\in \overline{S}^\star}\max\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mathcal{X}_{ij}^{\overline{S}}(A), \frac{1}{|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)}\right\}\right\}. \end{align*}$

If $\overline{S}$ is a singleton set, then similar to the above case, we obtain

$\begin{align*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}\leq\max\left\{\min\limits_{i\in S^\star}\max\limits_{j\in S\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mathcal{X}_{ij}^{S}(A), \frac{1}{|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)}\right\}, \min\limits_{i\in \overline{S}^\star}\frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A)}\right\}. \end{align*}$

The second case. Suppose that both $S$ and $\overline{S}$ are singleton sets. By Lemma 3.1, it follows that $S^\star$ is not empty, and $\overline{S}^\star$ is not empty. Then, similar to the proof of the first case, we have

$\begin{align*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}\leq\min\limits_{i\in S^\star}\max\limits_{j\in S\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mathcal{X}_{ij}^{S}(A), \frac{1}{|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)}\right\}, \end{align*}$

and

$\begin{align*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}\leq\min\limits_{i\in \overline{S}^\star}\max\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mathcal{X}_{ij}^{\overline{S}}(A), \frac{1}{|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)}\right\}. \end{align*}$

Now, the conclusion follows from the above two cases.

In ^[15], an elegant upper bound for the inverse of SDD matrices is presented.

Theorem 3.6. ^[15] Let $A = [a_{ij}] \in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ be an SDD matrix. Then,

$\begin{eqnarray*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}\leq \max\limits_{i\in N}\frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_i(A)}. \end{eqnarray*}$

This bound is usually called Varah's bound and plays a critical role in numerical algebra ^{[11,16,28,29]}. As discussed before, an SDD matrix is a PDSDD matrix as well. Thus, Theorem 3.5 can be applied to SDD matrices. In the following, we show that bound (3.1) of Theorem 3.5 works better than Varah's bound of Theorem 3.6.

Theorem 3.7. Let $A = [a_{ij}] \in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ be an SDD matrix and $S$ be any subset of $N$ . Then,

$\begin{eqnarray*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}\leq \varphi^{S}(A)\leq \max\limits_{i\in N}\frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_i(A)}, \end{eqnarray*}$

where

$\varphi^{S}(A): = \max\left\{\min\limits_{i\in S}\max\left\{\frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)}, \varphi_i^{S}(A)\right\}, \min\limits_{i\in \overline{S}}\max\left\{\frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A)}, \varphi_i^{\overline{S}}(A)\right\}\right\}$

and $\varphi_i^{S}(A)$ is given by Theorem 3.5.

Proof. Since $A$ is an SDD matrix, it follows from Lemma 3.1 that $S^\star = S$ for any subset $S$ of $N$ . Hence, by Theorem 3.5, it follows that

$\begin{eqnarray*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}\leq \varphi^{S}(A). \end{eqnarray*}$

We next prove that $\varphi^{S}(A)\leq \max\limits_{i\in N}\frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_i(A)}$ . Define $|a_{i_0i_0}|-r_{i_0}(A): = \min\limits_{i\in N}\{|a_{ii}|-r_{i}(A)\}$ . Obviously, for each $i\in N$ ,

$\frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_{i}^{S}(A)}\leq\frac{1}{|a_{i_0i_0}|-r_{i_0}(A)}\; \text{and}\; \frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_{i}^{\overline{S}}(A)}\leq\frac{1}{|a_{i_0i_0}|-r_{i_0}(A)}.$

Note that for each $i\in S$ ,

$\begin{align} \varphi_{i}^{S}(A): = \max\limits_{j\in S\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mathcal{X}_{ij}^{S}(A), \frac{1}{|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)}\right\} \end{align}$

(3.9)

and

$\mathcal{X}_{ij}^{S}(A): = \frac{|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+r_i^{S}(A)}{(|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)-r_i^{S}(A)(r_{j}^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|)}.$

If $|a_{ii}|-r_i(A)\geq|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)$ , then

$\begin{align*} &(|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)-r_i^{S}(A)(r_{j}^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|) \\& = (|a_{ii}|-r_i(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)+r_i^{S}(A)(|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)) \\&\geq(|a_{jj}|-r_j(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)+r_i^{S}(A)(|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)) \\& = (|a_{jj}|-r_j(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+r_i^{S}(A)), \end{align*}$

which implies that

$\begin{align} \mathcal{X}_{ij}^{S}(A)\leq\frac{1}{|a_{jj}|-r_{j}(A)}\leq\frac{1}{|a_{i_0i_0}|-r_{i_0}(A)}. \end{align}$

(3.10)

If $|a_{ii}|-r_i(A) < |a_{jj}|-r_j(A)$ , then

$\begin{align*} &(|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)-r_i^{S}(A)(r_{j}^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|) \\& = (|a_{ii}|-r_i(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)+r_i^{S}(A)(|a_{jj}|-r_j(A)) \\& > (|a_{ii}|-r_i(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)+r_i^{S}(A)(|a_{ii}|-r_i(A)) \\& = (|a_{ii}|-r_i(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+r_i^{S}(A)), \end{align*}$

which implies that

$\begin{align} \frac{1}{|a_{jj}|-r_{j}(A)} < \mathcal{X}_{ij}^{S}(A) < \frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_{i}(A)}\leq\frac{1}{|a_{i_0i_0}|-r_{i_0}(A)}. \end{align}$

(3.11)

By (3.9), (3.10) and (3.11), it follows that for each $i\in S$ ,

$\varphi_i^{S}(A)\leq\frac{1}{|a_{i_0i_0}|-r_{i_0}(A)}.$

Similarly, for each $i\in \overline{S}$ , we can see that

$\varphi_i^{\overline{S}}(A)\leq\frac{1}{|a_{i_0i_0}|-r_{i_0}(A)}.$

This completes the proof.

Remark 3.3. For SDD matrices, consider the intersection over all possible subsets $S$ of $N$ , and a tighter upper bound for $||A^{-1}||_{\infty}$ can be obtained from Theorem 3.7:

$\begin{eqnarray*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}\leq \min\limits_{S\subseteq N}\varphi^{S}(A)\leq\varphi^{S}(A)\leq\max\limits_{i\in N}\frac{1}{|a_{ii}|-r_i(A)}. \end{eqnarray*}$

Besides SDD matrices, for other subclasses of $H$ -matrices, such as DSDD matrices, $S$ -SDD matrices and Nekrasov matrices, various infinity norm bounds for their inverse have also been derived. For details, see ^{[12,23,28,29,30,31,32,33]} and references therein. A numerical example is given to illustrate the advantage of the proposed bound in Theorem 3.6.

Example 3.1. Consider the matrix in Example 2.1:

$A = \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} 3 &-1 &-3 &0 \\ -1 &3 &0 &-8 \\ 0 &-1 &3 &0\\ 0 & 0 &0 & 8 \end{array} \right].$

By computation, we know that $A$ is a PDSDD matrix for $S = \{1, 3\}$ but neither SDD nor a Nekrasov matrix. Moreover, it is easy to verify that there is no nonempty proper subset $S$ of $N$ such that $A$ is an $S$ -SDD matrix, and so it is not a DSDD matrix. Therefore, neither of the existing bounds for SDD, DSDD, $S$ -SDD, and Nekrasov matrices can be used to estimate $||A^{-1}||_\infty$ . However, by our bound (3.1), we have

$||A^{-1}||_\infty\leq 2.$

The exact value of the infinity norm of the inverse of $A$ is $||A^{-1}||_\infty = 1.$

3.3. A new pseudospectra localization and its application

For a given $\varepsilon > 0$ , denoted by

$\Lambda_\varepsilon(A) = \{\lambda\in \mathbb{C}: \exists\; {\bf x}\in \mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\{0\}, E\in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}, ||E||\leq\varepsilon \; such\; that\; (A+E){\bf x} = \lambda {\bf x}\},$

the $\varepsilon$ -pseudospectrum of a matrix $A$ consists of all eigenvalues of matrices ^[30], which is equivalent to

$\begin{eqnarray} \Lambda_\varepsilon(A) = \{z\in \mathbb{C}:||(A-zI)^{-1}||^{-1}\leq\varepsilon\}, \end{eqnarray}$

(3.12)

where the convention is $||A^{-1}||^{-1} = 0$ if $A$ is singular ^[30]. This implies that the infinity norm bounds of the inverse of a given matrix could be used to generate new pseudospectra localizations. For details, see ^[13,25,30]. So, in this section, we shall give a new pseudospectra localization using the obtained bound in Section 3.2. Before that, a useful lemma is given that will be used later.

Lemma 3.2. Let $A$ be an arbitrary matrix and $S$ be any subset of $N$ . Then,

$\begin{eqnarray*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}\geq \mu(A): = \min\left\{f(A), g(A)\right\}, \end{eqnarray*}$

where

$f(A): = \max\limits_{i\in S}\min\left\{|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A), \min\limits_{j\in S\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mu_{ij}^{S}(A), |a_{jj}|-r_j(A)\right\}\right\}$

and

$g(A): = \max\limits_{i\in \overline{S}}\min\left\{|a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A), \min\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mu_{ij}^{\overline{S}}(A), |a_{jj}|-r_j(A)\right\}\right\}$

with the convention $||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}$ if $A$ is singular, and $\mu_{ij}^{S}(A) = 0$ if $\; |a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+r_i^{S}(A) = 0$ ; otherwise,

$\mu_{ij}^{S}(A) = \frac{(|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A))(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)-r_i^{S}(A)(r_{j}^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|)}{|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+r_i^{S}(A)}.$

Proof. For any given subset $S$ of $N$ , if $A$ is a PDSDD matrix, then it follows from Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 3.5 that

$\begin{align*} ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}&\geq \min\left\{\max\limits_{i\in S^{\star}}\min\left\{|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A), \min\limits_{j\in S\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mu_{ij}^{S}(A), |a_{jj}|-r_j(A)\right\}\right\}, \right. \\ &\; \; \; \; \; \left. \max\limits_{i\in \overline{S}^{\star}}\min\left\{|a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A), \min\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mu_{ij}^{\overline{S}}(A), |a_{jj}|-r_j(A)\right\}\right\}\right\} \\& = \mu(A). \end{align*}$

If $A$ is not a PDSDD matrix, then it follows from Lemma 3.1 that at least one of the following conditions holds: ( $i$ ) $|a_{ii}|\leq r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)$ for all $i\in S$ ; ( $ii$ ) $|a_{ii}| > r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)$ for some $i\in S$ ; but for some $j\in S\setminus \{i\}$ , $|a_{jj}|\leq r_j(A)$ or

$\big(|a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)\big)\big(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|\big)\leq r_i^{S}(A)(r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|);$

( $iii$ ) $|a_{ii}|\leq r_i^{S}(A)$ for all $i\in \overline{S}$ ; ( $iv$ ) $|a_{ii}| > r_i^{S}(A)$ for some $i\in \overline{S}$ ; but for some $j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i\}$ , $|a_{jj}|\leq r_j(A)$ or

$\big(|a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A)\big)\big(|a_{jj}|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|\big)\leq r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|).$

This implies that $\mu(A)\leq 0\leq ||A^{-1}||_{\infty}^{-1}$ . The proof is complete.

Now, a new pseudospectra localization for matrices is given based on Lemma 3.2.

Theorem 3.8. ( $\varepsilon$ -pseudo PDSDD set) Let $A = [a_{ij}] \in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ and $S$ be any subset of $N$ . Then,

$\begin{eqnarray*} \Lambda_\varepsilon(A)\subseteq \Theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon): = \theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon)\bigcup\theta^{\overline{S}}(A, \varepsilon), \end{eqnarray*}$

where

$\theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon): = \bigcap\limits_{i\in S}\left(\Gamma_i^{\overline{S}}(A, \varepsilon)\bigcup\left(\bigcup\limits_{j\in S\setminus \{i\}}\big(\widehat{V}_{ij}^{\overline{S}}(A, \varepsilon)\cup\Gamma_j(A, \varepsilon)\big)\right)\right)$

and

$\theta^{\overline{S}}(A, \varepsilon): = \bigcap\limits_{i\in \overline{S}}\left(\Gamma_i^{S}(A, \varepsilon)\bigcup\left(\bigcup\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i\}}\big(\widehat{V}_{ij}^{S}(A, \varepsilon)\cup\Gamma_j(A, \varepsilon)\big)\right)\right)$

with

$\Gamma_i^{S}(A, \varepsilon): = \left\{z\in \mathbb{C}:|z-a_{ii}|\leq r_i^{S}(A)+\varepsilon\right\},$

$\Gamma_j(A, \varepsilon): = \left\{z\in \mathbb{C}:|z-a_{jj}|\leq r_j(A)+\varepsilon\right\},$

and

$\begin{eqnarray*} \widehat{V}_{ij}^{S}(A, \varepsilon): = \left\{z\in \mathbb{C}:(|z-a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A)-\varepsilon)(|z-a_{jj}|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|)\right.\\ \left.\leq r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+\varepsilon)\right\}. \end{eqnarray*}$

Proof. From Lemma 3.2 and (3.12), we immediately get

$\begin{align} \Lambda_\varepsilon(A) = \{z\in \mathbb{C}:||(A-zI)^{-1}||^{-1}\leq\varepsilon\}\subseteq\{z\in \mathbb{C}:\mu(A-zI)\leq\varepsilon\}, \end{align}$

(3.13)

where $\mu(A-zI)$ is defined as in Lemma 3.2. Note that $r_i^S(A-zI) = r_i^S(A)$ and $r_i^{\overline{S}}(A-zI) = r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)$ . Therefore, for any $\lambda\in \Lambda_\varepsilon(A)$ , it follows from (3.13) that

$f(A-\lambda I)\leq \varepsilon\; \text{or}\; g(A-\lambda I)\leq \varepsilon,$

where $f(A-\lambda I)$ and $g(A-\lambda I)$ are given by Lemma 3.2.

Case Ⅰ. If $f(A-\lambda I)\leq \varepsilon$ , then for all $i\in S$ , $|a_{ii}-\lambda|\leq r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)+\varepsilon$ or $|a_{ii}-\lambda| > r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)+\varepsilon$ for some $i\in S$ ; but for some $j\in S\setminus \{i\}$ , $|a_{jj}-\lambda|\leq r_j(A)+\varepsilon$ or $\mu_{ij}^{S}(A-\lambda I)\leq\varepsilon$ , i.e.,

$\begin{align} \frac{(|a_{ii}-\lambda|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A))(|a_{jj}-\lambda|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)-r_i^{S}(A)(r_{j}^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|)}{|a_{jj}-\lambda|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+r_i^{S}(A)}\leq\varepsilon. \end{align}$

(3.14)

If $|a_{jj}-\lambda|-r_j^{S}(A) > 0$ , then it follows from (3.14) that

$\big(|a_{ii}-\lambda|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)-\varepsilon\big)\big(|a_{jj}-\lambda|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|\big)\leq r_i^{S}(A)(r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|+\varepsilon).$

If $|a_{jj}-\lambda|-r_j^{S}(A)\leq0$ , then $|a_{jj}-\lambda|\leq r_j^{S}(A)+\varepsilon\leq r_j(A)+\varepsilon$ . These imply that $\lambda\in\theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon)$ .

Case Ⅱ. If $g(A-\lambda I)\leq \varepsilon$ , then for all $i\in \overline{S}$ , $|a_{ii}-\lambda|\leq r_i^S(A)+\varepsilon$ or $|a_{ii}-\lambda| > r_i^{S}(A)+\varepsilon$ for some $i\in \overline{S}$ ; but for some $j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i\}$ , $|a_{jj}-\lambda|\leq r_j(A)+\varepsilon$ or $\mu_{ij}^{\overline{S}}(A-\lambda I)\leq\varepsilon$ , i.e.,

$\begin{align} \frac{(|a_{ii}-\lambda|-r_i^{S}(A))(|a_{jj}-\lambda|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|)-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_{j}^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)}{|a_{jj}-\lambda|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|+r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)}\leq\varepsilon. \end{align}$

(3.15)

If $|a_{jj}-\lambda|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A) > 0$ , then it follows from (3.15) that

$\big(|a_{ii}-\lambda|-r_i^{S}(A)-\varepsilon\big)\big(|a_{jj}-\lambda|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|\big)\leq r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+\varepsilon).$

If $|a_{jj}-\lambda|-r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)\leq0$ , then $|a_{jj}-\lambda|\leq r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+\varepsilon\leq r_j(A)+\varepsilon$ . These imply that $\lambda\in\theta^{\overline{S}}(A, \varepsilon)$ .

From Case Ⅰ and Case Ⅱ, the conclusion follows.

As an application, using Theorem 3.8, we next give a lower bound for distance to instability. Denote by $Red(A)\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ the real matrix associated with a given matrix $A = [a_{ij}]\in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ in the following way:

$(Red(A))_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} Re(a_{ii}), &j = i, \\ |a_{ij}|, &j\neq i. \end{array} \right.$

Theorem 3.9. Consider $A = [a_{ij}]\in \mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ , such that $Red(A)$ is a PDSDD matrix with all diagonal elements negative. Then, $\mu(\mathit{\text{Red}}(A)) > 0$ and

$\begin{eqnarray} \Lambda_\varepsilon(A)\subseteq\Theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon) \subset \mathbb{C}^{-}\; for\; all\; 0 < \varepsilon < \mu(Red(A)), \end{eqnarray}$

(3.16)

where $\mathbb{C}^{-}$ is the open left half plane of $\mathbb{C}$ , $\mu(\mathit{\text{Red}}(A))$ is defined as in Lemma 3.2, and $\Lambda_\varepsilon(A)$ denotes the infinity norm $\varepsilon$ -pseudospectrum of $A$ .

Proof. Since $Red(A)$ is a PDSDD matrix, it follows from Lemma 3.2 that $\mu(\text{Red}(A)) > 0$ . To prove (3.16), for $0 < \varepsilon < \mu(Red(A))$ , it suffices to show that $Re(z) < 0$ for each $z\in \Theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon)$ . It follows from Theorem 3.8 that $z\in \theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon)$ or $z\in \theta^{\overline{S}}(A, \varepsilon)$ . We only consider the case of $z\in \theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon)$ , and the case of $z\in \theta^{\overline{S}}(A, \varepsilon)$ can be proved similarly. Since $z\in \theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon)$ , it follows that for all $i\in S$ , either ( $i$ ) $|a_{ii}-z|\leq r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)+\varepsilon$ or ( $ii$ ) $|a_{ii}-z| > r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)+\varepsilon$ for some $i\in S$ ; but for some $j\in S\setminus \{i\}$ , $|a_{jj}-z|\leq r_j(A)+\varepsilon$ or

$\begin{align} \big(|a_{ii}-z|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)-\varepsilon\big)\big(|a_{jj}-z|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|\big)\leq r_i^{S}(A)(r_j^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|+\varepsilon). \end{align}$

(3.17)

Note that

$\begin{eqnarray*} \mu(Red(A)) = \min\left\{f(Red(A)), g(Red(A)) \right\}, \end{eqnarray*}$

where

$\begin{align*} f(Red(A)): = \max\limits_{i\in S}\min\left\{|Re(a_{ii})|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(Red(A)), \min\limits_{j\in S\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mu_{ij}^{S}(Red(A)), |Re(a_{jj})|-r_j(Red(A))\right\}\right\} \end{align*}$

and

$\begin{align*} g(Red(A)): = \max\limits_{i\in \overline{S}}\min\left\{|Re(a_{ii})|-r_i^{S}(Red(A)), \min\limits_{j\in \overline{S}\setminus \{i\}}\left\{\mu_{ij}^{\overline{S}}(Red(A)), |Re(a_{jj})|-r_j(Red(A))\right\}\right\} \end{align*}$

with $\mu_{ij}^{S}(Red(A))$ defined as in Lemma 3.2.

For case ( $i$ ), i.e., $|a_{ii}-z|\leq r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)+\varepsilon$ for all $i\in S$ , we have

$\begin{align*} Re(z)-Re(a_{ii})\leq|Re(z)-Re(a_{ii})| = |Re(z-a_{ii})| &\leq|z-a_{ii}| \\&\leq r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)+\varepsilon \\& < r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)+|Re(a_{ii})|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A) \\& = -Re(a_{ii}), \end{align*}$

which implies that $Re(z) < 0$ .

For case ( $ii$ ), i.e., $|z-a_{ii}| > r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)+\varepsilon$ for some $i\in S$ , if $|a_{jj}-z|\leq r_j(A)+\varepsilon$ , then

$\begin{align*} Re(z)-Re(a_{jj})\leq|Re(z)-Re(a_{jj})| = |Re(z-a_{jj})| &\leq|z-a_{jj}| \\&\leq r_j(A)+\varepsilon \\& < r_j(A)+|Re(a_{jj})|-r_j(A) \\& = -Re(a_{jj}), \end{align*}$

which implies that $Re(z) < 0$ . If (3.17) holds, then

$\begin{align} Re(z)-Re(a_{jj})\leq|Re(z)-Re(a_{jj})|& = |Re(z-a_{jj})| \\&\leq|z-a_{jj}| \\&\leq \frac{r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+\varepsilon)}{|z-a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A)-\varepsilon}+r_j^{S}(A)-|a_{ji}|. \end{align}$

(3.18)

{If $|z-a_{ii}| < |Re(a_{ii})|$ , then $Re(z)-Re(a_{ii})\leq|z-a_{ii}| < |Re(a_{ii})|$ , which leads to $Re(z) < 0$ . Otherwise, since}

$\begin{align*} 0 < \varepsilon& < \frac{(|Re(a_{ii})|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A))(|Re(a_{jj})|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)-r_i^{S}(A)(r_{j}^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|)}{|Re(a_{jj})|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+r_i^{S}(A)} \\&\leq\frac{(|z-a_{ii}|-r_i^{\overline{S}}(A))(|Re(a_{jj})|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|)-r_i^{S}(A)(r_{j}^{\overline{S}}(A)+|a_{ji}|)}{|Re(a_{jj})|-r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+r_i^{S}(A)}, \end{align*}$

it follows that

$\begin{eqnarray*} \frac{r_i^{\overline{S}}(A)(r_j^{S}(A)+|a_{ji}|+\varepsilon)}{|z-a_{ii}|-r_i^{S}(A)-\varepsilon}+r_j^{S}(A)-|a_{ji}| < |Re(a_{jj})|, \end{eqnarray*}$

which together with (3.18) yields that

$\begin{eqnarray*} Re(z)-Re(a_{jj}) < |Re(a_{jj})| = -Re(a_{jj}), \end{eqnarray*}$

and thus $Re(z) < 0$ . This completes the proof.

The following example shows that the bound $\mu(Red(A))$ in Theorem 3.9 is better than those of ^[13] and ^[30] in some cases.

Example 3.2. Consider the matrix $A\in \mathbb{R}^{10\times 10}$ in ^[13], where

$A = \left[ \begin{array}{*{20}c} -78 &-7 &10 &5 &10 &8 &3 &5 &1 &7 \\ 4 &-95 &9 &-3 &3 &5 &3 &5 &5 &2 \\ 4 &4 &-58 &6 &8 &1 &-3 &4 &4 &6 \\ 9 &7 &8 &-87 &2 &5 &6 &-8 &8 &3 \\ 0 &2 &-4 &2 &-90 &1 &7 &2 &6 &7\\ 10 &9 &3 &6 &-3 &-80 &8 &2 &6 &9\\ -9 &6 &5 &4 &8 &7 &-86 &7 &1 &10\\ 7 &9 &1 &7 &7 &-3 &4 &-93 &11 &3\\ 10 &8 &4 &4 &3 &5 &6 &4 &-45 &-5\\ 4 &2 &2 &10 &9 &9 &2 &10 &-3 &-47 \end{array} \right].$

It follows from ^[13] that $A$ is a DZ-type matrix, and $\varepsilon = \mu(Red(A)) = 0.66$ . On the other hand, it is easy to verify that $A$ is also a PDSDD matrix for $S = \{1, 2, 3, 4, 9\}$ . Hence, from Theorem 3.9, we can get a new lower bound for distance to instability $\varepsilon = \mu(Red(A)) = 4.17$ and plot the corresponding pseudospectrum as shown in , where $\Gamma _\varepsilon(A)$ , $\mathcal{D}(A, \varepsilon)$ , $\Theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon)$ , the pseudospectrum ${\Lambda _\varepsilon }(A)$ and the eigenvalues of $A$ are represented by a blue solid boundary, a green dotted boundary, a red solid boundary, a gray area, and a black " $\times$ , " respectively.

Figure 1. Localization sets for

$\varepsilon$ -pseudospectrum for

$\varepsilon = \mu(Red(A)) = 4.17$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

As can be seen from , the sets ${\Gamma _\varepsilon }(A)$ of ^[30] and $\mathcal{D}(A, \varepsilon)$ of ^[13] propagate far into the right half-plane of $\mathbb{C}$ , but the localization set $\Theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon)$ touches the $y$ -axis. This implies that we cannot use ${\Gamma _\varepsilon }(A)$ and $\mathcal{D}(A, \varepsilon)$ to determine the stability of $A$ . However, using the localization set $\Theta^{S}(A, \varepsilon)$ , we can determine that $A$ is a stable matrix.

4. Conclusions

This paper proposes a new class of nonsingular $H$ -matrices called PDSDD matrices, which is similar to but different from $S$ -SDD matrices. By its non-singularity, a new eigenvalue localization set for matrices is presented, which improves some existing results in ^[8] and ^[27]. Furthermore, an infinity norm bound for the inverse of PDSDD matrices is obtained, which improves the well-known Varah's bound for strictly diagonally dominant matrices. Meanwhile, utilizing the proposed infinity norm bound, a new pseudospectra localization for matrices is given, and a lower bound for distance to instability is provided as well. In addition, applying the proposed infinity norm bound to explore the error bounds for linear complementarity problems of PDSDD matrices is also an interesting problem. It is worth studying in the future.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions and comments. This work was partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundations of China (61962059 and 31600299), the Young Science and Technology Nova Program of Shaanxi Province (2022KJXX-01), the Science and Technology Project of Yan'an (2022SLGYGG-007), the Scientific Research Program Funded by Yunnan Provincial Education Department (2022J0949).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Fruth V, Mitoseriu L, Berger D, et al. (2007) Preparation and characterization of BiFeO₃ ceramic. Prog Solid State Ch 35: 193–202. doi: 10.1016/j.progsolidstchem.2007.01.019
[2]	Chengang X, Dunmin L, Kwok KW (2008) Structure, electrical properties and depolarization temperature of (Bi_0.5Na_0.5)TiO₃–BaTiO₃ lead-free piezoelectric ceramics. Solid State Sci 10: 934–940. doi: 10.1016/j.solidstatesciences.2007.11.003
[3]	Hagiyev MS, Ismaizade IH, Abiyev AK (1984) Pyroelectric properties of (Na_½Bi_½)TiO₃ ceramics. Ferroelectrics 56: 215–217. doi: 10.1080/00150198408221371
[4]	Suchanicz J, Nowakowska-Malczyk M, Kania A, et al. (2021). Effects of electric field poling on structural, thermal, vibrational, dielectric and ferroelectric properties of Na_0.5Bi_0.5TiO₃ single crystals. J Alloy Compd 854: 157227. doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2020.157227
[5]	Chen M, Xu Q, Kim BH, et al. (2008) Structure and electrical properties of (Na_0.5Bi_0.5)_1–xBa_xTiO₃ piezoelectric ceramics. J Eur Ceram Soc 28: 843–849. doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2007.08.007
[6]	Wang G, Zhongming F, Murakami S, et al. (2019) Origin of the large electrostrain in BiFeO₃–BaTiO₃ based lead-free ceramics. J Mater Chem A 7: 21254–21263. doi: 10.1039/C9TA07904A
[7]	Wang D, Wang M, Liu F (2015) Sol-gel synthesis of Nd-doped BiFeO₃ multiferroic and its characterization. Ceram Int 41: 8768–8772. doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.03.100
[8]	Li ZJ, Hou ZL, Song WL, et al. (2016) Mg-substitution for promoting magnetic and ferroelectric properties of BiFeO₃ multiferroic nanoparticles. Mater Lett 175: 207–211. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2016.04.016
[9]	Cheng S, Zhang BP, Zhao L, et al. (2019) Enhanced insulating and piezoelectric properties of BiFeO₃–BaTiO₃–Bi_0.5Na_0.5TiO₃ ceramics with high Curie temperature. J Am Ceram Soc 102: 7355–7365. doi: 10.1111/jace.16602
[10]	Dorcet V, Marchet P, Trolliard G (2007) Structural and dielectric studies of the Na_0.5Bi_0.5TiO₃–BiFeO₃ system. J Eur Ceram Soc 27: 4371–4374. doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2007.02.173
[11]	Wu J, Wang J (2009) Multiferroic behaviour and orientation dependence of lead-free (1–x)BiFeO₃–x(Bi0.50Na_0.50)TiO₃ thin films. J Phys D Appl Phys 42: 195405. doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/42/19/195405
[12]	Hieno A, Sakamoto W, Moriya M, et al. (2011) Synthesis of BiFeO₃–Bi_0.5Na_0.5TiO₃ thin films by chemical solution deposition and their properties. Jpn J Appl Phys 50: 09NB04. doi: 10.7567/JJAP.50.09NB04
[13]	Ji WJ, Chen YB, Zhang ST, et al. (2012) Microstructure and electric properties of lead-free 0.8Bi_1/2Na_1/2TiO₃–0.2Bi_1/2K_1/2TiO₃ ceramics. Ceram Int 38: 1683–1686. doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2011.09.061
[14]	Kim C Y, Sekino T, Niihara K (2003) Synthesis of bismuth sodium titanate nanosized powders by solution/sol-gel process. J Am Ceram Soc 86: 1464–1467. doi: 10.1111/j.1151-2916.2003.tb03497.x
[15]	Ma YJ, Cho JH, Lee YH, et al. (2006) Hydrothermal synthesis of (Bi_1/2Na_1/2)TiO₃ piezoelectric ceramics. Mater Chem Phys 98: 5–8. doi: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2004.09.045
[16]	Van Hal HAM, Groen WA, Maassen S, et al. (2001) Mechanochemical synthesis of BaTiO₃, Bi_0.5Na_0.5TiO₃ and Ba₂NaNb₅O₁₅ dielectric ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc 21: 1689–1692. doi: 10.1016/S0955-2219(01)00095-4
[17]	Patil KC, Aruna ST, Ekambaram S (1997) Combustion synthesis. Curr Opin Solid St M 2: 158–165. doi: 10.1016/S1359-0286(97)80060-5
[18]	Fityk 0.9.2 a curve fitting and data analysis program, 2010. Available from: http://www.unipress.waw.pl/fityk/.Marcin Wojdyr.
[19]	Larson AC, Von Dreele RB (2004) General Structure Analysis System (GSAS), Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LAUR 86-748.
[20]	Cullity BD, Stock SR (2001) Elements of X-ray Diffraction, 3 Eds., New York: Prentice Hall Publication.
[21]	Rietveld HM (1967) Line profiles of neutron powder-diffraction peaks for structure refinement. Acta Crystallogr 22: 151–152. doi: 10.1107/S0365110X67000234
[22]	Warren BE, Averbach BL (1950) The effect of cold-work distortion on X-ray patterns. J Appl Phys 21: 595–599. doi: 10.1063/1.1699713
[23]	Suryanarayana C, Norton MG (1998) Part I Basics, X-ray Diffraction: A Practical Approach, New York: Plenum Press.
[24]	Xavier E (2004) Introduction to the behavior of ceramic pastes (in Spanish). Available from: https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=178d6249-68f8-445a-b6b6-19140255a435.
[25]	Moreno R (2005) Rheology of ceramic suspensions. Available from: http://boletines.secv.es/upload/20070111131337.contenido_adicional_45[1].pdf.
[26]	Nakamoto K (2008) Infrared and Raman Spectra of Inorganic and Coordination Compounds: Part A: Theory and Applications in Inorganic Chemistry, 6 Eds., John Wiley & Sons.
[27]	Chen Z, He X (2010) Low-temperature preparation of nanoplated bismuth titanate microspheres by a sol-gel-hydrothermal method. J Alloy Compd 497: 312–315. doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.03.053
[28]	Li JB, Wang H, Hou YD, et al. (2004) Low-temperature preparation of Na_0.5Bi_0.5TiO₃ nano whiskers by a sol-gel-hydrothermal method. Nanotechnology 15: 777–780. doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/15/7/010
[29]	Ng CY, Razak KA (2011) Properties of praseodymium-doped bismuth potassium titanate (Bi_0.5K_0.5TiO₃) synthesised using the soft combustion technique. J Alloy Compd 509: 942–947. doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.09.136
[30]	Ardelean I, Cora S, Ioncu V (2006) Structural investigation of CuO–Bi₂O₃–B₂O₃ glasses by FT-IR, Raman and UV-VIS spectroscopies. Optoelectron Adv M 8: 1843–1847.
[31]	Ardelean I, Cora S, Rusu D (2008) EPR and FT-IR spectroscopic studies of Bi₂O₃–B₂O₃–CuO glasses. Physica B 403: 3682–3685. doi: 10.1016/j.physb.2008.06.016
[32]	Bhushan B, Basumallick A, Bandopadhyay SK, et al. (2009) Effect of alkaline earth metal doping on thermal, optical, magnetic and dielectric properties of BiFeO₃ nanoparticles. J Phys D Appl Phys 42: 065004–065011. doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/42/6/065004
[33]	Ramadevudu G (2011) FTIR and some physical properties of alkaline earth borate glasses containing heavy metal oxides. Int J Eng Sci Technol 3: 6998–7005.
[34]	Gurmeet L, Verma N (2014) Synthesis and characterization of BiFeO₃ nanowires and their applications in dye-sensitized solar cells. Mat Sci Semicon Proc 21: 206–211. doi: 10.1016/j.mssp.2013.11.029
[35]	Chiang YM, Birnie DP, Kingery V (1997) Physical Ceramics-Principles for Ceramic Science and Engineering, John Wiley & Sons.
[36]	Karthik T, Rao TD, Srinivas A, et al. (2012) A-site cation disorder and Size variance effects on the physical properties of multiferroic Bi_0.9RE_0.1FeO₃ ceramics (RE = Gd³⁺, Tb³⁺, Dy³⁺). arXiv: 1206.5606. Available from: https://arXiv.org/abs/1206.5606.
[37]	Reddy R, Rao R, Viswanath R (1989) Correlation between electronegativity differences and bond energies. J Am Chem Soc 111: 2914–2915. doi: 10.1021/ja00190a028
[38]	Jones GO, Thomas PA (2002) Investigation of the structure and phase transitions in the novel A-site substituted distorted perovskite compound Na_0.5Bi_0.5TiO₃. Acta Crystallogr B 58: 168–178. doi: 10.1107/S0108768101020845
[39]	Oxford Cryosystems, Crystallographica Search-Match, Version 2, 1, 1, 1. Available from: http://www.crystallographica.co.uk.
[40]	Kumar MM, Srinivas A, Suryanarayana SV (2000) Structure property relations in BiFeO₃/BaTiO₃ solid solutions. J Appl Phys 87: 855–862. doi: 10.1063/1.371953
[41]	Bhalla AS, Guo R, Roy R (2000) The perovskite structure-a review of its role in ceramic science and technology. Mater Res Innov 4: 3–26. doi: 10.1007/s100190000062
[42]	Kayser GP (2014) New double perovskites obtained under extreme conditions of pressure and temperature [Doctoral Dissertation]. University Complutense of Madrid, Spain.
[43]	Wang D, Angel RJ (2011) Octahedral tilts, symmetry-adapted displacive modes and polyhedral volume ratios in perovskite structures. Acta Crystallogr B 67: 302–314. doi: 10.1107/S0108768111018313
[44]	Rao KS, Rajulu KCV, Tilak B, et al. (2010) Effect of Ba²⁺ in BNT ceramics on dielectric and conductivity properties. Nat Sci 2: 357–367.
[45]	Lee WC, Huang CY, Tsao LK, et al. (2009) Chemical composition and tolerance factor at the morphotropic phase boundary in (Bi0_.5Na_0.5)TiO₃-based piezoelectric ceramics. J Eur Ceram Soc 29: 1443–1448. doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2008.08.028
[46]	Ramana EV, Suryanarayana SV, Bhima ST (2010) Synthesis and magnetoelectric studies on Na_0.5Bi_0.5TiO₃–BiFeO₃ solid solution ceramics. Solid State Sci 12: 956–962. doi: 10.1016/j.solidstatesciences.2010.02.009
[47]	Shannon RD (1976) Revised effective ionic radii and systematic studies of interatomic distances in halides and chalcogenides. Acta Crystallogr A 32: 751–767. doi: 10.1107/S0567739476001551
[48]	Shahmoradi Y, Souri D (2019) Growth of silver nanoparticles within the tellurovanadate amorphous matrix: Optical band gap and band tailing properties, beside the Williamson–Hall estimation of crystallite size and lattice strain. Ceram Int 5: 7857–7864. doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.01.094
[49]	Izumi F, Ikeda T (2014) Implementation of the Williamson–Hall and Halder–Wagner Methods into RIETAN-FP, Nagoya Institute of Technology, 3: 33–38.
[50]	Patle LB, Labhane PK, Huse VR, et al. (2015) Structural analysis of Cu doped TiO₂ nanoparticles using Williamson–Hall method. IJSRSET 1: 66–70.
[51]	Suryanarayana C, Norton MG (1998) Determination of crystallite size and lattice strain, X-ray Diffraction: A Practical Approach, New York: Plenum Press.
[52]	Thompson P, Cox DE, Hastings JB (1987) Rietveld refinement of Debye–Scherrer synchrotron X-ray data from Al₂O₃. J Appl Crystallogr 20: 79–83. doi: 10.1107/S0021889887087090
[53]	Ramana E, Mahajan A, Graca M, et al. (2014) Ferroelectric and magnetic properties of magnetoelectric (Na_0.5Bi_0.5)TiO₃–BiFeO₃ synthesized by acetic acid assisted sol-gel method. J Eur Ceram Soc 34: 4201–4211. doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2014.06.027
[54]	Dorcet V, Marchet P, Peña O, et al. (2009) Properties of the solid solution (1—x)Na_0.5Bi_0.5TiO₃–(x)BiFeO₃. J Magn Magn Mater 321: 1762–1766. doi: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2009.02.014
[55]	Yao J, Ge W, Luo L, et al. (2010) Hierarchical domains in Na_1/2Bi_1/2TiO₃ single crystals: Ferroelectric phase transformations within the geometrical restrictions of a ferroelastic inheritance. Appl Phys Lett 96: 222905. doi: 10.1063/1.3443717
[56]	Lee JH, Lee GJ, Pham TL, et al. (2020) Suppression of dielectric loss at high temperature in (Bi_1/2Na_1/2)TiO₃ ceramic by controlling A-site cation deficiency and heat treatment. J Sens Sci Technol 29: 7–13. doi: 10.5369/JSST.2019.29.1.7
[57]	Dorcet V, Trolliard G, Boullay P (2008) Reinvestigation of phase transitions in Na_0.5Bi_0.5TiO₃ by TEM. Part I: First order rhombohedral to orthorhombic phase transition. Chem Mater 20: 5061–5073. doi: 10.1021/cm8004634
[58]	He H, Lu X, Li M, et al. (2020) Thermal and compositional driven relaxor ferroelectric behaviors of lead-free Bi_0.5Na_0.5TiO₃–SrTiO₃ Ceramics. J Mater Chem C 7: 2411–2418. doi: 10.1039/C9TC04864B
[59]	Li W, Chen K, Yao Y, et al. (2004) Correlation among oxygen vacancies in bismuth titanate ferroelectric ceramics. Appl Phys Lett 85: 4717–4719. doi: 10.1063/1.1823583

This article has been cited by:

Frédérique Rodieux, Flavia Storelli, François Curtin, Sergio Manzano, Alain Gervaix, Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, Jules Desmeules, Youssef Daali, Caroline F. Samer, Evaluation of Pupillometry for CYP2D6 Phenotyping in Children Treated with Tramadol, 2023, 16, 1424-8247, 1227, 10.3390/ph16091227

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)