Arxiv:1710.03995V1 [Math.FA]

Home , Trace inequality

arXiv:1710.03995v1 [math.FA] 11 Oct 2017 o el 8.Rliguo h oa eopsto fmtie,astra a (1.2) matrices, of decomposition polar following: the the rearrang upon is the Relying corollary of analogue [8]. matricial reals a as for result the consider may One seeg [4]). e.g. (see (1.1) oee,w nwta aiyo nqaiisi ai ee nfact, in here, valid (1.3) is inequalities of family a that know we However, . . . olwn iglrvleieult od o aaadpout swell: (1.4) as products Hadamard for holds inequality value singular following onadJhsni 2 n 1] hi eutsy htif that says result Their [10]. and wa [2] results in scattered Johnson of and improvement Horn common at wa already a (1.4) have and products and (1.3) Hadamard researchers, of to inequalities approach value unified Singular a [11]. furthermore, [19], [17], [9], [3], 653943. OESNUA AU NQAIISVACONVEXITY VIA INEQUALITIES VALUE SINGULAR SOME o let Now e sdnt h ree iglrvle fany of values singular ordered the denote us Let 2010 ercl htsvrldffrn roso hsrsl a efound be can result this of proofs different several that recall We hssuywsspotdb h ai ui FFlosi,Pr Fellowship, IF Curie Marie the by supported was study This phrases. and words Key ≥ σ n ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics aaadpout ttsthat states products Hadamard where ooti oefrhrsnua au nqaiisa well. te as inequalities this value addition, singular In further some arguments. obtain convexity to via result this of m etr fany of vectors umn Abstract. ( A ) ◦ . eoeteHdmr rdc fmtie;ie ( i.e. matrices; of product Hadamard the denote o any For X σ i =1 X i k i ( =1 k · sthe is ) σ X i =1 σ k i If ( i A ( σ c AB ,B A, 1 i ◦ ( ( i X Z hsnua au.I hsppr esaloe ipeproof simple a offer shall we paper, this In value. singular th rc,snua au,cneiy norms. convexity, value, singular trace, B ) ) ∗ n ) Y ≥ X ≤ i ∈ × =1 n ≤ | ◦ Tr . . . n X M i B =1 X k σ i matrix =1 ) k n i ≥ AB 1. ( ≤ ( σ AB C σ c i ZOLT X i n ( Introduction ) i =1 ≤ | k A ( ( , Z A ) Z, o emn’ rc nqaiysae that states inequality trace Neumann’s von ) c eoeteEcienlntso h col- the of lengths Euclidean the denote ) σ ≤ ) i rmr 51,1A9 eodr 56,60A99. 15A60, Secondary 15A39; 15A18, Primary X i ( NL AN σ i ´ hnafnaetlieult eae to related inequality fundamental a then =1 X n ( i X 1 i B ( =1 ) n B c σ o l 1 all for ) i i ( EKA o l 1 all for ) ´ σ ( Y A i ) ( σ ) A i σ ( ) i B σ ( B 1 ) i ( B ) n . ) × . ≤ n hiu sapplied is chnique jc Mmns,Gatno. Grant ’Moments’, oject ≤ k matrix ≤ A ≤ c k 1 k ◦ n, ( ≤ Z B ≤ ie yAndo, by given s n, ) mn inequality ement ) nteliterature the in ij n. ≥ A rce many tracted = rvddin provided s . . . by ightforward a ij σ ≥ b 1 ij ( c A . n The ) ( Z ≥ ) 2 ZOLTAN´ LEKA´ denote the ordered Euclidean lengths of the column vectors of any n n matrix Z, then, for any decomposition A = X∗Y, ×

k k (1.5) σ (A B) c (X)c (Y )σ (B) 1 k n. i ◦ ≤ i i i ≤ ≤ i=1 i=1 X X This result is obviously much stronger than (1.4). For a general review and thorough exposition on singular value inequalities, we refer the reader to [1], [4] and [10]. Our goal is to offer a new proof of the previous inequality (1.5) by means of convexity arguments and exploit this technique to deduce further inequalities as well. Briefly, the main idea here is to tackle a chain of convex optimization problems over the unit balls of matrices with respect to different matrix norms. Then, with an adequate description of the extreme points of these balls, we can readily establish the above inequalities.

n 2. Some weighted norms on R and Mn Rn We say that an n-tuple w + is a weight if its non-negative entries are ar- ∈ ↓ ranged decreasingly w1 ... wn 0. Given a vector x Rn, denote xi the decreasingly ordered components≥ ≥ of≥ its entrywise modulus.∈ For any x |Rn| , the weighted vector k-norm is deﬁned by ∈

k x w = w x ↓, k k(k) i| i| i=1 X where w is a weight and w1 ... wk > 0. We just simply write (k) for the ≥ ≥ n k·k n vector k-norm when w1 = ... = wk =1. We notice that the usual ℓ1 and ℓ∞ norms now are denoted by (n) and (1), respectively. Determining the dual norm w k·k k·k ∗ of the weighted vector k-norm may be a bit tricky. For instance, this has k·k(k) been done in the earlier papers [18], [14, Lemma 1], and particularly in [5]. In fact,

w x (1) x (2) x (k−1) x (n) x ∗ = max k k , k k ,..., k k , k k . k k(k) w w + w w + ... + w w + ... + w 1 1 2 1 k−1 1 k

∗ 1 For simplicity, we recall that (k) = max ( (1), k (n)), see [4]. These observations may lead to a descriptionk·k of the extremek·k pointsk·k of the unit ball w B(k) in Rn with respect to w . Indeed, we may infer that k·k(k) −1 − j k 1 (2.1) ext w w E w E , B(k) ⊆ i j ∪ i n ≤ ≤ − i=1 ! i=1 ! 1 j[k 1 X X n where Ei is the set of vectors in R with i non-zero coordinates which are +1 or 1 (see [14, Lemma 2]). A diﬀerent approach to obtain ext w is presented in [16],− B(k) however, the inclusion (2.1) is enough for the rest of the paper. Given an n n matrix A, its ordered singular values are denoted by σ1(A) ... σ (A). The× weighted Ky Fan k-norms of A are deﬁned by ≥ ≥ n k A w = w σ (A). k k(k) i i i=1 X We recall that these norms are unitarily invariant; i.e. A w = UAV w for any k k(k) k k(k) unitary U and V. The set of n n partial isometries of rank-k is denoted by Rk. From (2.1) and a simple application× of the singular value decomposition, we readily SOME SINGULAR VALUE INEQUALITIES VIA CONVEXITY 3 get the inclusion

−1 − j k 1 (2.2) ext Bw w R w R (k) ⊆ i j ∪ i n ≤ ≤ − i=1 ! i=1 ! 1 j[k 1 X X (see e.g. [16] and [6]). It is somewhat interesting that a very similar result holds for a class of unitarily invariant norms deﬁned through the s-numbers in inﬁnite dimensional Hilbert spaces [6]. We notice that the extreme points with respect to the Ky Fan k-norms are given by

(2.3) ext B = R R /k, (k) 1 ∪ n see [4, Exercise IV.2.12]. In the next section we shall need another weighted norm on the linear space of n n matrices. For any matrix A, let c1(A) ... cn(A) be the decreasingly arranged× Euclidean norms of the column vectors≥ of A.≥ Then one can consider the weighted norm of A by k A w = w c (A). k kc,k i i i=1 X Bw To get a description of the extreme points of the unit ball c,k with respect to the norm w , let C denote the set of n n matrices which has exactly k non-zero k·kc,k k × column vectors and each non-zero column vector is a (Euclidean) unit vector. Then a simple reasoning gives the inclusion

−1 − j k 1 (2.4) ext Bw w C w C . c,k ⊆ i j ∪ i n ≤ ≤ − i=1 ! i=1 ! 1 j[k 1 X X Bw Indeed, we need to check that if A ext c,k then c(A) = (c1(A),...,cn(A)) w 1 ∈ w ∈ ext (k). If c(A) = 2 (x + y), where x, y (k), let Oi denote the rotation of the B n ∈ B T Euclidean space R such that Oi((0,..., 0,ci(A), 0,..., 0) ) = ith row vector of A. Now let X and Y denote the matrices such that their ith rows are given by T T Oi((0,..., 0, xi, 0,..., 0) ) and Oi((0,..., 0,yi, 0,..., 0) ), respectively. Then it is simple to see that A = 1 (X + Y ) and X, Y Bw . Furthermore, we notice that 2 ∈ c,k the extreme points with respect to the c,k norms (i.e. w = (1,..., 1)) are given by k·k

(2.5) ext B = C C /k c,k 1 ∪ n

3. Proof of the Ando–Horn–Johnson inequality We start with two preliminary lemmas. We notice that these inequalities es- sentially include the extremal cases in (1.5). Throughout the paper we say that A M (C) is a contraction if σ (A) 1. ∈ n 1 ≤

Lemma 3.1. Let X, Y be n n matrices such that ci(X),ci(Y ) 1 for all 1 i n. If S is contraction, then × ≤ ≤ ≤ σ (X∗Y S) 1. 1 ◦ ≤ Proof. First, assume that S is unitary: S U = (u ). Then we need to check that ≡ ij (X∗Y U)z z k ◦ k2 ≤k k2 4 ZOLTAN´ LEKA´ for all z Cn. Indeed, setting X∗ = (x∗ ... x∗ )T and Y = (y ... y ), ∈ 1 n 1 n n n 2 (X∗Y U)z 2 = x∗,y u z k ◦ k2 h i j i ij j i=1 j=1 X X n n 2 ∗ 2 xi 2 uij zj y ≤ k k j 2 i=1 j=1 X X n n n 2 u z (y ) ≤ ij j j k i=1 k=1 j=1 X X X n n n 2 = u z (y )  ij j j k  k=1 i=1 j=1 X X X n  n  = z (y ) 2 | j j k| j=1 ! kX=1 X n = z 2 y 2 | j | k j k2 j=1 X z 2. ≤k k2 Since every contraction S is the convex sum of unitaries, the proof is complete.

We recall that Lemma 3.1 was settled in [13, p. 6] with a completely diﬀerent method.

Lemma 3.2. Let X, Y be n n matrices such that ci(X) = ci(Y )=1 for all 1 i n. If Q is a rank-one partial× isometry, then ≤ ≤ n σ (X∗Y Q) 1. i ◦ ≤ i=1 X Proof. Let u and v be unit vectors such that Q = uv∗. Then X∗Y uv∗ = ((u 1) X)∗((v 1) Y ). ◦ ⊗ ◦ ⊗ ◦ Notice that X˜ = (u 1) X and Y˜ = (v 1) Y have Hilbert–Schmidt norms at most 1, because the Euclidean⊗ ◦ norm of all⊗ entries◦ is at most 1. Thus von Neumann’s trace inequality implies n n n σ (X∗Y Q)= σ (X˜ ∗Y˜ ) σ (X˜ ∗)σ (Y˜ ) i ◦ i ≤ i i i=1 i=1 i=1 X X X n 1/2 n 1/2 σ2(X˜) σ2(Y˜ ) ≤ i i i=1 ! i=1 ! X X 1. ≤

Theorem 3.3. Let A = X∗Y and B be n n matrices. Then × k k σ (A B) c (X)c (Y )σ (B) i ◦ ≤ i i i i=1 i=1 X X holds for all 1 k n. ≤ ≤ SOME SINGULAR VALUE INEQUALITIES VIA CONVEXITY 5

Proof. From a continuity argument we may assume that ci(X) and ci(Y ) are non- zero reals. Let c(Z) denote the vector (c1(Z),...,cn(Z)) for any Z Mn(C). Notice that we need to prove ∈

max X∗Y B : B Bc(X)c(Y ) =1, k ◦ k(k) ∈ (k) n o for any ﬁxed X and Y. Since the objective function is convex in B, we have the following two cases relying on (2.4). j −1 Case 1. B = ( i=1 ci(X)ci(Y )) Bj , where Bj is a rank-j partial isometry and 1 j k 1. We check that ≤ ≤ − P k j σ (X∗Y B ) c (X)c (Y ), i ◦ j ≤ i i i=1 i=1 X X or equivalently,

max X∗Y B : X Bc(Y ) =1 k ◦ j k(k) ∈ c,j n o for any ﬁxed Y and Bj . l −1 First, if X = ( i=1 ci(Y )) Xl, where 1 l j 1, and Xl Cl, we have by (2.5) that ≤ ≤ − ∈ P max X∗Y B : Y B = max X∗Y B : Y C C /l k l ◦ j k(k) ∈ c,l k l ◦ j k(k) ∈ 1 ∪ n ∗ max Xl Y Bj (k) : Y C1 or X l C1 ≤ Xl,Y ∈Cn k ◦ k ∈ ∈ 1, ≤ where the last inequality follows from Lemma 3.1. Secondly, if X = ( j c (Y ))−1X , where X C , it is enough to see that i=1 i n n ∈ n max X∗Y B P: Y B = max X∗Y B : Y C C /j =1. k n ◦ j k(k) ∈ c,j k n ◦ j k(k) ∈ 1 ∪ n Again, if Y C we can simply apply Lemma 3.1. If Y = Y /j, where Y C , ∈ 1 n n ∈ n note that Bj /j has trace class norm 1. Hence it may be assumed that Bj /j is a rank-one partial isometry and Lemma 3.2 completes the proof. k −1 Case 2. B = ( i=1 ci(X)ci(Y )) U, where U is unitary. We claim that

P c(Y ) max X∗Y U : X B =1. k ◦ k(k) ∈ c,k n o l −1 If X = ( i=1 ci(Y )) Xl, where Xl Cl and 1 l k 1, then the claim exactly follows from the argument used in Case∈ 1. Otherwise,≤ ≤ from− (2.4) we may assume P that X ( k c (Y ))−1X and X C . Now by 2.5 ∈ i=1 i n n ∈ n max X∗PY B : Y B = max X∗Y B : Y C C /k =1. k n ◦ j k(k) ∈ c,k k n ◦ j k(k) ∈ 1 ∪ n Indeed, if Y C1, we can apply Lemma 3.1. Lastly, if Y = Yn/k, where Yn Cn, we have ∈ ∈

k 1 σ (X∗Y U) σ (X∗Y U) 1 k i n n ◦ ≤ 1 n n ◦ ≤ i=1 X by Lemma 3.2. The proof is complete now. 6 ZOLTAN´ LEKA´

4. Remarks 4.1. von Neumann’s trace inequality. We note that an analogue reasoning gives that the only extremal case in the von Neumann inequality (1.1) is when A = xy∗ is a rank-one partial isometry and B is unitary. Indeed, we need to maximize the convex function A Tr AB over the unit ball Bσ(B) and consider (2.2) and 7→ | | (n) the equality (2.3). Then we readily get TrAB = y,Bx y 2 Bx 2 = σ1(B), and the proof is complete. Certain convexity| | arguments|h i| were ≤k alsok k usedk in [7] to obtain von Neumann’s fundamental result.

4.2. Unitarily invariant norms of bilinear forms. We also remark that using the previous technique it is straightforward to get the inequality (1.3) as well. However, we leave the proof to the interested reader and now turn to a result of Horn, Mathias and Nakamura [11]. For simplicity, let denote a symmetric bilinear form on Mn(C) Mn(C). Every deﬁnes a bilinear form• by × • •R Tr(A B)C = Tr(B C)A. • •R Then one has the following characterization [11, Theorem 1] of singular value inequalities related to . • Theorem 4.1. Let A and B n n matrices. Then × k k σ (A B) σ (A)σ (B) for all 1 k n i • ≤ i i ≤ ≤ i=1 i=1 X X if and only if σ (A B) σ (A)σ (B) and σ (A B) σ (A)σ (B). 1 • ≤ 1 1 1 •R ≤ 1 1 − j 1 Proof. ’ =’: First, let A = σ (B) A , where A is a rank-j isometry and ⇐ i j j i=1 ! 1 j k 1. Notice that X ≤ ≤ − max A B : B B = max A B : B = U/j for some unitary U {k j • k(k) ∈ (j)} {k j • k(k) or B rank-1 partial isometry } = max A B : A or B is rank-1 partial isometry . {k j • k(k) j } But, for any rank-1 partial isometry X and contraction Z, X Z = Tr X(Z Y ) σ (Z Y ) σ (Z)σ (Y ) 1, k • k(k) •R ≤ 1 •R ≤ 1 1 ≤ where Y B(k)∗ . ∈ − k 1 Lastly, if A = σi(B) U, where U is a unitary, we get i=1 ! X max U B : B B = max U B : B R R /k {k • k(k) ∈ (k)} {k • k(k) ∈ 1 ∪ n } = max U B : B R {k • k(k) ∈ 1} max σ (U B): B R ∨ { 1 • ∈ n} max σ (B)σ (U X): B R ,X B ∗ ≤ { 1 1 •R ∈ 1 ∈ (k) } max σ (U B): B R ∨ { 1 • ∈ n} 1. ≤ The function A A B is convex on the unit ball Bσ(B), hence with (2.2) 7→ k • k(k) (k) at hand the proof is complete. SOME SINGULAR VALUE INEQUALITIES VIA CONVEXITY 7

’= ’: We need to check that σ (A B) σ (A)σ (B) follows. In fact, ⇒ 1 •R ≤ 1 1 σ (A B) = max Tr (A B)X : X R 1 •R { •R ∈ 1} = max Tr A(B X): X R { • ∈ 1} n σ (A) σ (X B) ≤ 1 k • kX=1 σ (A)σ (B), ≤ 1 1 where the first inequality comes from von Neumann’s inequality. 4.3. Fan products. Given A and B n n matrices, the Fan product is defined by × aiibii if i = j, (A⋆B)ij = − (aij bij otherwise, see [12]. Then it is simple to check that Tr (A⋆B)C = Tr A(BT ⋆ C). Moreover, one has the inequalities σ (A⋆B) σ (A)σ (B) and σ (AT ⋆B) σ (A)σ (B). 1 ≤ 1 1 1 ≤ 1 1 This can be directly proved by the method of [13]. In fact, for any x Rn, define the map ∈ Θ(x) = diag( x , x ,...,x ) M (C). − 1 2 n ∈ n If A = (a1,...,an) and B = (b1,...,bn), let Φ(A) = (Θ(a ) ... Θ(a )) 1 | | n and Ψ(B)= b ... b . 1 ⊕ ⊕ n Then A⋆B = Φ(A)Ψ(B). Additionally, Φ and Ψ are contractive, hence σ (Φ(A)Ψ(B)) σ (Φ(A))σ (Ψ(B)) 1 ≤ 1 1 ≤ σ1(A)σ1(B). Now Theorem 4.1 implies that we have a family of inequalities (1.4) related to the Fan product. Simple counterexamples show that Lemma 3.1 does not hold with ⋆, hence (1.5) either: for instance, X = Y = 1/√3(1 1), where 1 = (1, 1, 1)T R3, and U is the unitary ⊗ ∈ 2 1 2 1 U = 22 1 . 3 −1 2 2 −   4.4. Some open problems. The above examples show that one can deduce singular value inequalities if an adequate description of extreme points is at hand. In general, however, such a catalog is not available, and for instance, we cannot apply our technique to prove (or disprove) the following problems concerning partial traces (denoted by Tr1).

Question 1. Let A, B are n n Hermitian matrices. Does it follow that × Tr [(A I + I A)(B I I B)] 2σ (A) Tr (B I I B) k 1 ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ − ⊗ k(k) ≤ 1 k 1 ⊗ − ⊗ k(k) for all 1 k n? ≤ ≤ Question 2. Let A, B are n n Hermitian matrices. Does it follow that × k Tr [(A I + I A)(B I I B)] 2 σ (A)σ (Tr (B I I B)) k 1 ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ − ⊗ k(k) ≤ i i 1 ⊗ − ⊗ i=1 X for all 1 k n? ≤ ≤ 8 ZOLTAN´ LEKA´

It is known that if the Hermitians A and B are commuting then the previous inequalities hold as it can be seen in [14], [15]. References

[1] T. Ando, Majorizations and inequalities in matrix theory, Linear Algebra Appl., 199 (1994), 17–67. [2] T. Ando, R. Horn and C. Johnson, The singular values of a Hadamard product: a basic inequality, Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 21 (1987), 345–364. [3] R.B. Bapat and V.S. Sunder, On majorization and Schur products, Linear Algebra Appl., 76 (1985), 107–117. [4] R. Bhatia, Matrix analysis, Springer–Verlag New York, 1997. [5] D. Bertsimas, D. Pachamanova and M. Sim, Robust linear optimization under general norms, Operations Research Letters, 32 (2004), 510–516. [6] J.-T Chan, C-K. Li and C.C.N. Tu, A class of unitarily invariant norms on B(H), Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 2001. [7] R.D. Grigorieff, A note on von Neumann’s trace inequality, Math. Nachr. 151 (1991), 327– 328. [8] G.H. Hardy, J.E. Littlewood and G. Pólya, Inequalities, Cambridge University Press, 1952. [9] R. Horn and C. Johnson, Hadamard and conventional submultiplicativity for unitarily invariant norms on matrices, Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 20 1987, 19–106. [10] R. Horn and C. Johnson, Topics in Matrix Analysis, University Press, 1991. [11] R. Horn, R. Mathias and Y. Nakamura, Inequalities for unitarily invariant norms and bilinear matrix products, Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 30 (1991), 303–314. [12] R. Huang, Some inequalities for the Hadamard product and the Fan product of matrices, Linear Alg. Appl., 428 (2008), 1551–1559. [13] C. Johnson and P. Nylen, Largest singular value submultiplicativity, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 12 (1991), 1–6. [14] Z. Léka, On the Leibniz rule for random variables, to appear in Math. Inequal. Appl. [15] Z. Léka, Rearrangements and Leibniz-type rules of mean oscillations, preprint. [16] C.K. Li and N.K. Tsing, Duality between some linear preserver problems II. Isometries with respect to c-spectral norms and matrices with fixed singular values, Linear Algebra Appl., 110 (1988), 181–212. [17] K. Okubo, Hölder-type norm inequalities for Schur products of matrices, Linear Algebra Appl., 91 (1987), 13–28. [18] B. Wu, C. Ding, D. Sun and K.-C. Toh, On the Moreau–Yosida regularization of the vector k-norm related functions, SIAM J. Optim., 24 (2014), 766–794. [19] F. Zhang, Another proof of a singular value inequality concerning Hadamard products of matrices, Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 21 (1987), 307–311.

Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, United Kingdom E-mail address: [email protected]