This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1
Mathematical Modelling of Continuous Systems
Carlo Tomasi
Duke University
Fall 2004
2
Chapter 1
Introduction
Fields such as robotics or computer vision are interdisciplinary subjects at the intersection of engineering and computer
science. By their nature, they deal with both computers and the physical world. Although the former are in the latter,
the workings of computers are best described in the blackandwhite vocabulary of discrete mathematics, which is
foreign to most classical models of reality, quantum physics notwithstanding.
This class surveys some of the key tools of applied math to be used at the interface of continuous and discrete. It
is not on robotics or computer vision, nor does it cover any other application area. Applications evolve rapidly, but
their mathematical foundations remain. Even if you will not pursue any of these ﬁelds, the mathematics that you learn
in this class will not go wasted. To be sure, applied mathematics is a discipline in itself and, in many universities, a
separate department. Consequently, this class can be a quick tour at best. It does not replace calculus or linear algebra,
which are assumed as prerequisites, nor is it a comprehensive survey of applied mathematics. What is covered is a
compromise between the time available and what is useful and fun to talk about. Even if in some cases you may have
to wait until you take an applied class to fully appreciate the usefulness of a particular topic, I hope that you will enjoy
studying these subjects in their own right.
1.1 Who Should Take This Class
The main goal of this class is to present a collection of mathematical tools for both understanding and solving problems
in ﬁelds that manipulate models of the real world, such as robotics, artiﬁcial intelligence, vision, engineering, or several
aspects of the biological sciences. Several classes at most universities each cover some of the topics presented in this
class, and do so in much greater detail. If you want to understand the full details of any one of the topics in the
syllabus below, you should take one or more of these other classes instead. If you want to understand how these tools
are implemented numerically, you should take one of the classes in the scientiﬁc computing program, which again
cover these issues in much better detail. Finally, if you want to understand robotics, vision, or other applied ﬁelds, you
should take classes in these subjects, since this course is not on applications.
On the other hand, if you do plan to study robotics, vision, or other applied subjects in the future, and you regard
yourself as a user of the mathematical techniques outlined in the syllabus below, then you may beneﬁt from this course.
Of the proofs, we will only see those that add understanding. Of the implementation aspects of algorithms that are
available in, say, Matlab or LApack, we will only see the parts that we need to understand when we use the code.
In brief, we will be able to cover more topics than other classes because we will be often (but not always) un
concerned with rigorous proof or implementation issues. The emphasis will be on intuition and on practicality of the
various algorithms. For instance, why are singular values important, and how do they relate to eigenvalues? What are
the dangers of Newtonstyle minimization? How does a Kalman ﬁlter work, and why do PDEs lead to sparse linear
systems? In this spirit, for instance, we discuss Singular Value Decomposition and Schur decomposition both because
they never fail and because they clarify the structure of an algebraic or a differential linear problem.
3
4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.2 Syllabus
Here is the ideal syllabus, but how much we cover depends on how fast we go.
1. Introduction
2. Unknown numbers
2.1 Algebraic linear systems
2.1.1 Characterization of the solutions to a linear system
2.1.2 Gaussian elimination
2.1.3 The Singular Value Decomposition
2.1.4 The pseudoinverse
2.2 Function optimization
2.2.1 Newton and GaussNewton methods
2.2.2 LevenbergMarquardt method
2.2.3 Constraints and Lagrange multipliers
3. Unknown functions of one real variable
3.1 Ordinary differential linear systems
3.1.1 Eigenvalues and eigenvectors
3.1.2 The Schur decomposition
3.1.3 Ordinary differential linear systems
3.1.4 The matrix zoo
3.1.5 Real, symmetric, positivedeﬁnite matrices
3.2 Statistical estimation
3.2.1 Linear estimation
3.2.2 Weighted least squares
3.2.3 The Kalman ﬁlter
4. Unknown functions of several variables
4.1 Tensor ﬁelds of several variables
4.1.1 Grad, div, curl
4.1.2 Line, surface, and volume integrals
4.1.3 Green’s theorem and potential ﬁelds of two variables
4.1.4 Stokes’ and divergence theorems and potential ﬁelds of three variables
4.1.5 Diffusion and ﬂow problems
4.2 Partial differential equations and sparse linear systems
4.2.1 Finite differences
4.2.2 Direct versus iterative solution methods
4.2.3 Jacobi and GaussSeidel iterations
4.2.4 Successive overrelaxation
4.3 Calculus of variations
4.3.1 EulerLagrange equations
4.3.2 The brachistochrone
1.3. DISCUSSION OF THE SYLLABUS 5
1.3 Discussion of the Syllabus
In robotics, vision, physics, and any other branch of science whose subject belongs to or interacts with the real
world, mathematical models are developed that describe the relationship between different quantities. Some of these
quantities are measured, or sensed, while others are inferred by calculation. For instance, in computer vision, equations
tie the coordinates of points in space to the coordinates of corresponding points in different images. Image points are
data, world points are unknowns to be computed.
Similarly, in robotics, a robot arm is modeled by equations that describe where each link of the robot is as a
function of the conﬁguration of the link’s own joints and that of the links that support it. The desired position of the
end effector, as well as the current conﬁguration of all the joints, are the data. The unknowns are the motions to be
imparted to the joints so that the end effector reaches the desired target position.
Of course, what is data and what is unknown depends on the problem. For instance, the vision system mentioned
above could be looking at the robot arm. Then, the robot’s end effector position could be the unknowns to be solved
for by the vision system. Once vision has solved its problem, it could feed the robot’s endeffector position as data for
the robot controller to use in its own motion planning problem.
Sensed data are invariably noisy, because sensors have inherent limitations of accuracy, precision, resolution,
and repeatability. Consequently, the systems of equations to be solved are typically overconstrained: there are more
equations than unknowns, and it is hoped that the errors that affect the coefﬁcients of one equation are partially
cancelled by opposite errors in other equations. This is the basis of optimization problems: Rather than solving a
minimal system exactly, an optimization problem tries to solve many equations simultaneously, each of them only
approximately, but collectively as well as possible, according to some global criterion. Least squares is perhaps the
most popular such criterion, and we will devote a good deal of attention to it.
In summary, the problems encountered in robotics and vision, as well as other applications of mathematics, are
optimization problems. A fundamental distinction between different classes of problems reﬂects the complexity of the
unknowns. In the simplest case, unknowns are scalars. When there is more than one scalar, the unknown is a vector
of numbers, typically either real or complex. Accordingly, the ﬁrst part of this course will be devoted to describing
systems of algebraic equations, especially linear equations, and optimization techniques for problems whose solution
is a vector of reals. The main tool for understanding linear algebraic systems is the Singular Value Decomposition
(SVD), which is both conceptually fundamental and practically of extreme usefulness. When the systems are nonlinear,
they can be solved by various techniques of function optimization, of which we will consider the basic aspects.
Since physical quantities often evolve over time, many problems arise in which the unknowns are themselves
functions of time. This is our second class of problems. Again, problems can be cast as a set of equations to be solved
exactly, and this leads to the theory of Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs). Here, “ordinary” expresses the fact
that the unknown functions depend on just one variable (e.g., time). The main conceptual tool for addressing ODEs is
the theory of eigenvalues, and the primary computational tool is the Schur decomposition.
Alternatively, problems with time varying solutions can be stated as minimization problems. When viewed glob
ally, these minimization problems lead to the calculus of variations. When the minimization problems above are
studied locally, they become state estimation problems, and the relevant theory is that of dynamic systems and Kalman
ﬁltering.
The third category of problems concerns unknown functions of more than one variable. The images taken by a
moving camera, for instance, are functions of time and space, and so are the unknown quantities that one can compute
fromthe images, such as the distance of points in the world fromthe camera. This leads to Partial Differential equations
(PDEs), or to extensions of the calculus of variations. In this class, we will see how PDEs arise, and how they can be
solved numerically.
6 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.4 Books
The class will be based on these lecture notes, and additional notes handed out when necessary. Other useful references
include the following.
• R. Courant and D. Hilbert, Methods of Mathematical Physics, Volume I and II, John Wiley and Sons, 1989.
• D. A. Danielson, Vectors and Tensors in Engineering and Physics, AddisonWesley, 1992.
• J. W. Demmel, Applied Numerical Linear Algebra, SIAM, 1997.
• A. Gelb et al., Applied Optimal Estimation, MIT Press, 1974.
• P. E. Gill, W. Murray, and M. H. Wright, Practical Optimization, Academic Press, 1993.
• G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations, 2nd Edition, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989, or
3rd edition, 1997.
• W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky, and W. T. Vetterling, Numerical Recipes in C, 2nd Edition,
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
• G. Strang, Introduction to Applied Mathematics, Wellesley Cambridge Press, 1986.
• A. E. Taylor and W. R. Mann, Advanced Calculus, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, 1983.
• L. N. Trefethen and D. Bau, III, Numerical Linear Algebra, SIAM, 1997.
• R. Weinstock, Calculus of Variations, Dover, 1974.
Chapter 2
Algebraic Linear Systems
An algebraic linear system is a set of m equations in n unknown scalars, which appear linearly. Without loss of
generality, an algebraic linear system can be written as follows:
Ax = b (2.1)
where A is an m× n matrix, x is an ndimensional vector that collects all of the unknowns, and b is a known vector
of dimension m. In this chapter, we only consider the cases in which the entries of A, b, and x are real numbers.
Two reasons are usually offered for the importance of linear systems. The ﬁrst is apparently deep, and refers
to the principle of superposition of effects. For instance, in dynamics, superposition of forces states that if force
f
1
produces acceleration a
1
(both possibly vectors) and force f
2
produces acceleration a
2
, then the combined force
f
1
+ αf
2
produces acceleration a
1
+ αa
2
. This is Newton’s second law of dynamics, although in a formulation less
common than the equivalent f = ma. Because Newton’s laws are at the basis of the entire ediﬁce of Mechanics,
linearity appears to be a fundamental principle of Nature. However, like all physical laws, Newton’s second law is an
abstraction, and ignores viscosity, friction, turbulence, and other nonlinear effects. Linearity, then, is perhaps more in
the physicist’s mind than in reality: if nonlinear effects can be ignored, physical phenomena are linear!
A more pragmatic explanation is that linear systems are the only ones we know how to solve in general. This
argument, which is apparently more shallow than the previous one, is actually rather important. Here is why. Given
two algebraic equations in two variables,
f(x, y) = 0
g(x, y) = 0 ,
we can eliminate, say, y and obtain the equivalent system
F(x) = 0
y = h(x) .
Thus, the original system is as hard to solve as it is to ﬁnd the roots of the polynomial F in a single variable. Unfortu
nately, if f and g have degrees d
f
and d
g
, the polynomial F has generically degree d
f
d
g
.
Thus, the degree of a system of equations is, roughly speaking, the product of the degrees. For instance, a system of
m quadratic equations corresponds to a polynomial of degree 2
m
. The only case in which the exponential is harmless
is when its base is 1, that is, when the system is linear.
In this chapter, we ﬁrst review a few basic facts about vectors in sections 2.1 through 2.4. More speciﬁcally, we
develop enough language to talk about linear systems and their solutions in geometric terms. In contrast with the
promise made in the introduction, these sections contain quite a few proofs. This is because a large part of the course
material is based on these notions, so we want to make sure that the foundations are sound. In addition, some of the
proofs lead to useful algorithms, and some others prove rather surprising facts. Then, in section 2.5, we characterize
the solutions of linear algebraic systems.
7
8 CHAPTER 2. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS
2.1 Linear (In)dependence
Given n vectors a
1
, . . . , a
n
and n real numbers x
1
, . . . , x
n
, the vector
b =
n
j=1
x
j
a
j
(2.2)
is said to be a linear combination of a
1
, . . . , a
n
with coefﬁcients x
1
, . . . , x
n
.
The vectors a
1
, . . . , a
n
are linearly dependent if they admit the null vector as a nonzero linear combination. In
other words, they are linearly dependent if there is a set of coefﬁcients x
1
, . . . , x
n
, not all of which are zero, such that
n
j=1
x
j
a
j
= 0 . (2.3)
For later reference, it is useful to rewrite the last two equalities in a different form. Equation (2.2) is the same as
Ax = b (2.4)
and equation (2.3) is the same as
Ax = 0 (2.5)
where
A =
_
a
1
· · · a
n
¸
, x =
_
¸
_
x
1
.
.
.
x
n
_
¸
_ , b =
_
¸
_
b
1
.
.
.
b
m
_
¸
_ .
If you are not convinced of these equivalences, take the time to write out the components of each expression for a
small example. This is important. Make sure that you are comfortable with this.
Thus, the columns of a matrix A are dependent if there is a nonzero solution to the homogeneous system (2.5).
Vectors that are not dependent are independent.
Theorem 2.1.1 The vectors a
1
, . . . , a
n
are linearly dependent iff
1
at least one of them is a linear combination of the
others.
Proof. In one direction, dependency means that there is a nonzero vector x such that
n
j=1
x
j
a
j
= 0 .
Let x
k
be nonzero for some k. We have
n
j=1
x
j
a
j
= x
k
a
k
+
n
j=1, j=k
x
j
a
j
= 0
so that
a
k
= −
n
j=1, j=k
x
j
x
k
a
j
(2.6)
as desired. The converse is proven similarly: if
a
k
=
n
j=1, j=k
x
j
a
j
1
“iff” means “if and only if.”
2.2. BASIS 9
for some k, then
n
j=1
x
j
a
j
= 0
by letting x
k
= −1 (so that x is nonzero). ∆
2
We can make the ﬁrst part of the proof above even more speciﬁc, and state the following
Lemma 2.1.2 If n nonzero vectors a
1
, . . . , a
n
are linearly dependent then at least one of them is a linear combination
of the ones that precede it.
Proof. Just let k be the last of the nonzero x
j
. Then x
j
= 0 for j > k in (2.6), which then becomes
a
k
=
n
j<k
x
j
x
k
a
j
as desired. ∆
2.2 Basis
A set a
1
, . . . , a
n
is said to be a basis for a set B of vectors if the a
j
are linearly independent and every vector in B can
be written as a linear combination of them. B is said to be a vector space if it contains all the linear combinations of
its basis vectors. In particular, this implies that every linear space contains the zero vector. The basis vectors are said
to span the vector space.
Theorem 2.2.1 Given a vector b in the vector space B and a basis a
1
, . . . , a
n
for B, the coefﬁcients x
1
, . . . , x
n
such
that
b =
n
j=1
x
j
a
j
are uniquely determined.
Proof. Let also
b =
n
j=1
x
j
a
j
.
Then,
0 = b −b =
n
j=1
x
j
a
j
−
n
j=1
x
j
a
j
=
n
j=1
(x
j
−x
j
)a
j
but because the a
j
are linearly independent, this is possible only when x
j
−x
j
= 0 for every j. ∆
The previous theorem is a very important result. An equivalent formulation is the following:
If the columns a
1
, . . . , a
n
of A are linearly independent and the system Ax = b admits a solution, then
the solution is unique.
2
This symbol marks the end of a proof.
10 CHAPTER 2. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS
Pause for a minute to verify that this formulation is equivalent.
Theorem 2.2.2 Two different bases for the same vector space B have the same number of vectors.
Proof. Let a
1
, . . . , a
n
and a
1
, . . . , a
n
be two different bases for B. Then each a
j
is in B (why?), and can therefore
be written as a linear combination of a
1
, . . . , a
n
. Consequently, the vectors of the set
G = a
1
, a
1
, . . . , a
n
must be linearly dependent. We call a set of vectors that contains a basis for B a generating set for B. Thus, G is a
generating set for B.
The rest of the proof now proceeds as follows: we keep removing a vectors from G and replacing them with a
vectors in such a way as to keep Ga generating set for B. Then we show that we cannot run out of a vectors before we
run out of a
vectors, which proves that n ≥ n
. We then switch the roles of a and a
vectors to conclude that n
≥ n.
This proves that n = n
.
From lemma 2.1.2, one of the vectors in G is a linear combination of those preceding it. This vector cannot be a
1
,
since it has no other vectors preceding it. So it must be one of the a
j
vectors. Removing the latter keeps Ga generating
set, since the removed vector depends on the others. Now we can add a
2
to G, writing it right after a
1
:
G = a
1
, a
2
, . . . .
G is still a generating set for B.
Let us continue this procedure until we run out of either a vectors to remove or a
vectors to add. The a vectors
cannot run out ﬁrst. Suppose in fact per absurdum that G is now made only of a
vectors, and that there are still
leftover a
vectors that have not been put into G. Since the a
s form a basis, they are mutually linearly independent.
Since B is a vector space, all the a
s are in B. But then G cannot be a generating set, since the vectors in it cannot
generate the leftover a
s, which are independent of those in G. This is absurd, because at every step we have made
sure that G remains a generating set. Consequently, we must run out of a
s ﬁrst (or simultaneously with the last a).
That is, n ≥ n
.
Now we can repeat the whole procedure with the roles of a vectors and a
vectors exchanged. This shows that
n
≥ n, and the two results together imply that n = n
. ∆
A consequence of this theorem is that any basis for R
m
has m vectors. In fact, the basis of elementary vectors
e
j
= jth column of the m×m identity matrix
is clearly a basis for R
m
, since any vector
b =
_
¸
_
b
1
.
.
.
b
m
_
¸
_
can be written as
b =
m
j=1
b
j
e
j
and the e
j
are clearly independent. Since this elementary basis has m vectors, theorem 2.2.2 implies that any other
basis for R
m
has m vectors.
Another consequence of theorem 2.2.2 is that n vectors of dimension m < n are bound to be dependent, since any
basis for R
m
can only have m vectors.
Since all bases for a space have the same number of vectors, it makes sense to deﬁne the dimension of a space as
the number of vectors in any of its bases.
2.3. INNER PRODUCT AND ORTHOGONALITY 11
2.3 Inner Product and Orthogonality
In this section we establish the geometric meaning of the algebraic notions of norm, inner product, projection, and
orthogonality. The fundamental geometric fact that is assumed to be known is the law of cosines: given a triangle with
sides a, b, c (see ﬁgure 2.1), we have
a
2
= b
2
+c
2
−2bc cos θ
where θ is the angle between the sides of length b and c. A special case of this law is Pythagoras’ theorem, obtained
when θ = ±π/2.
θ
c
b
a
Figure 2.1: The law of cosines states that a
2
= b
2
+c
2
−2bc cos θ.
In the previous section we saw that any vector in R
m
can be written as the linear combination
b =
m
j=1
b
j
e
j
(2.7)
of the elementary vectors that point along the coordinate axes. The length of these elementary vectors is clearly one,
because each of them goes from the origin to the unit point of one of the axes. Also, any two of these vectors form a
90degree angle, because the coordinate axes are orthogonal by construction. How long is b? From equation (2.7) we
obtain
b = b
1
e
1
+
m
j=2
b
j
e
j
and the two vectors b
1
e
1
and
m
j=2
b
j
e
j
are orthogonal. By Pythagoras’ theorem, the square of the length b of b is
b
2
= b
2
1
+
m
j=2
b
j
e
j
2
.
Pythagoras’ theorem can now be applied again to the last sum by singling out its ﬁrst term b
2
e
2
, and so forth. In
conclusion,
b
2
=
m
j=1
b
2
j
.
This result extends Pythagoras’ theorem to m dimensions.
If we deﬁne the inner product of two mdimensional vectors as follows:
b
T
c =
m
j=1
b
j
c
j
,
then
b
2
= b
T
b . (2.8)
Thus, the squared length of a vector is the inner product of the vector with itself. Here and elsewhere, vectors are
column vectors by default, and the symbol
T
makes them into row vectors.
12 CHAPTER 2. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS
Theorem 2.3.1
b
T
c = b c cos θ
where θ is the angle between b and c.
Proof. The law of cosines applied to the triangle with sides b, c, and b −c yields
b −c
2
= b
2
+c
2
−2b c cos θ
and from equation (2.8) we obtain
b
T
b + c
T
c −2b
T
c = b
T
b + c
T
c −2b c cos θ .
Canceling equal terms and dividing by 2 yields the desired result. ∆
Corollary 2.3.2 Two nonzero vectors b and c in R
m
are mutually orthogonal iff b
T
c = 0.
Proof. When θ = ±π/2, the previous theorem yields b
T
c = 0. ∆
Given two vectors b and c applied to the origin, the projection of b onto c is the vector from the origin to the point
p on the line through c that is nearest to the endpoint of b. See ﬁgure 2.2.
p
b
c
Figure 2.2: The vector from the origin to point p is the projection of b onto c. The line from the endpoint of b to p is
orthogonal to c.
Theorem 2.3.3 The projection of b onto c is the vector
p = P
c
b
where P
c
is the following square matrix:
P
c
=
cc
T
c
T
c
.
Proof. Since by deﬁnition point p is on the line through c, the projection vector p has the form p = ac, where
a is some real number. From elementary geometry, the line between p and the endpoint of b is shortest when it is
orthogonal to c:
c
T
(b −ac) = 0
2.4. ORTHOGONAL SUBSPACES AND THE RANK OF A MATRIX 13
which yields
a =
c
T
b
c
T
c
so that
p = ac = c a =
cc
T
c
T
c
b
as advertised. ∆
2.4 Orthogonal Subspaces and the Rank of a Matrix
Linear transformations map spaces into spaces. It is important to understand exactly what is being mapped into what
in order to determine whether a linear system has solutions, and if so how many. This section introduces the notion of
orthogonality between spaces, deﬁnes the null space and range of a matrix, and its rank. With these tools, we will be
able to characterize the solutions to a linear system in section 2.5. In the process, we also introduce a useful procedure
(GramSchmidt) for orthonormalizing a set of linearly independent vectors.
Two vector spaces A and B are said to be orthogonal to one another when every vector in A is orthogonal to every
vector in B. If vector space A is a subspace of R
m
for some m, then the orthogonal complement of A is the set of all
vectors in R
m
that are orthogonal to all the vectors in A.
Notice that complement and orthogonal complement are very different notions. For instance, the complement of
the xy plane in R
3
is all of R
3
except the xy plane, while the orthogonal complement of the xy plane is the z axis.
Theorem 2.4.1 Any basis a
1
, . . . , a
n
for a subspace A of R
m
can be extended into a basis for R
m
by adding m− n
vectors a
n+1
, . . . , a
m
.
Proof. If n = m we are done. If n < m, the given basis cannot generate all of R
m
, so there must be a vector, call
it a
n+1
, that is linearly independent of a
1
, . . . , a
n
. This argument can be repeated until the basis spans all of R
m
, that
is, until m = n. ∆
Theorem 2.4.2 (GramSchmidt) Given n vectors a
1
, . . . , a
n
, the following construction
r = 0
for j = 1 to n
a
j
= a
j
−
r
l=1
(q
T
l
a
j
)q
l
if a
j
= 0
r = r + 1
q
r
=
a
j
a
j
end
end
yields a set of orthonormal
3
vectors q
1
. . . , q
r
that span the same space as a
1
, . . . , a
n
.
Proof. We ﬁrst prove by induction on r that the vectors q
r
are mutually orthonormal. If r = 1, there is little to
prove. The normalization in the above procedure ensures that q
1
has unit norm. Let us now assume that the procedure
3
Orthonormal means orthogonal and with unit norm.
14 CHAPTER 2. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS
above has been performed a number j −1 of times sufﬁcient to ﬁnd r −1 vectors q
1
, . . . , q
r−1
, and that these vectors
are orthonormal (the inductive assumption). Then for any i < r we have
q
T
i
a
j
= q
T
i
a
j
−
r−1
l=1
(q
T
l
a
j
)q
T
i
q
l
= 0
because the term q
T
i
a
j
cancels the ith term (q
T
i
a
j
)q
T
i
q
i
of the sum (remember that q
T
i
q
i
= 1), and the inner products
q
T
i
q
l
are zero by the inductive assumption. Because of the explicit normalization step q
r
= a
j
/a
j
, the vector q
r
, if
computed, has unit norm, and because q
T
i
a
j
= 0, it follwos that q
r
is orthogonal to all its predecessors, q
T
i
q
r
= 0 for
i = 1, . . . , r −1.
Finally, we notice that the vectors q
j
span the same space as the a
j
s, because the former are linear combinations
of the latter, are orthonormal (and therefore independent), and equal in number to the number of linearly independent
vectors in a
1
, . . . , a
n
. ∆
Theorem 2.4.3 If A is a subspace of R
m
and A
⊥
is the orthogonal complement of A in R
m
, then
dim(A) + dim(A
⊥
) = m .
Proof. Let a
1
, . . . , a
n
be a basis for A. Extend this basis to a basis a
1
, . . . , a
m
for R
m
(theorem 2.4.1). Orthonor
malize this basis by the GramSchmidt procedure (theorem 2.4.2) to obtain q
1
, . . . , q
m
. By construction, q
1
, . . . , q
n
span A. Because the new basis is orthonormal, all vectors generated by q
n+1
, . . . , q
m
are orthogonal to all vectors
generated by q
1
, . . . , q
n
, so there is a space of dimension at least m− n that is orthogonal to A. On the other hand,
the dimension of this orthogonal space cannot exceed m−n, because otherwise we would have more than m vectors
in a basis for R
m
. Thus, the dimension of the orthogonal space A
⊥
is exactly m−n, as promised. ∆
We can now start to talk about matrices in terms of the subspaces associated with them. The null space null(A) of
an m× n matrix A is the space of all ndimensional vectors that are orthogonal to the rows of A. The range of A is
the space of all mdimensional vectors that are generated by the columns of A. Thus, x ∈ null(A) iff Ax = 0, and
b ∈ range(A) iff Ax = b for some x.
From theorem 2.4.3, if null(A) has dimension h, then the space generated by the rows of A has dimension r =
n −h, that is, A has n −h linearly independent rows. It is not obvious that the space generated by the columns of A
has also dimension r = n −h. This is the point of the following theorem.
Theorem 2.4.4 The number r of linearly independent columns of any m× n matrix A is equal to the number of its
independent rows, and
r = n −h
where h = dim(null(A)).
Proof. We have already proven that the number of independent rows is n − h. Now we show that the number of
independent columns is also n −h, by constructing a basis for range(A).
Let v
1
, . . . , v
h
be a basis for null(A), and extend this basis (theorem 2.4.1) into a basis v
1
, . . . , v
n
for R
n
. Then
we can show that the n −h vectors Av
h+1
, . . . , Av
n
are a basis for the range of A.
First, these n − h vectors generate the range of A. In fact, given an arbitrary vector b ∈ range(A), there must be
a linear combination of the columns of A that is equal to b. In symbols, there is an ntuple x such that Ax = b. The
ntuple x itself, being an element of R
n
, must be some linear combination of v
1
, . . . , v
n
, our basis for R
n
:
x =
n
j=1
c
j
v
j
.
2.5. THE SOLUTIONS OF A LINEAR SYSTEM 15
Thus,
b = Ax = A
n
j=1
c
j
v
j
=
n
j=1
c
j
Av
j
=
n
j=h+1
c
j
Av
j
since v
1
, . . . , v
h
span null(A), so that Av
j
= 0 for j = 1, . . . , h. This proves that the n −h vectors Av
h+1
, . . . , Av
n
generate range(A).
Second, we prove that the n − h vectors Av
h+1
, . . . , Av
n
are linearly independent. Suppose, per absurdum, that
they are not. Then there exist numbers x
h+1
, . . . , x
n
, not all zero, such that
n
j=h+1
x
j
Av
j
= 0
so that
A
n
j=h+1
x
j
v
j
= 0 .
But then the vector
n
j=h+1
x
j
v
j
is in the null space of A. Since the vectors v
1
, . . . , v
h
are a basis for null(A), there
must exist coefﬁcients x
1
, . . . , x
h
such that
n
j=h+1
x
j
v
j
=
h
j=1
x
j
v
j
,
in conﬂict with the assumption that the vectors v
1
, . . . , v
n
are linearly independent. ∆
Thanks to this theorem, we can deﬁne the rank of Ato be equivalently the number of linearly independent columns
or of linearly independent rows of A:
rank(A) = dim(range(A)) = n −dim(null(A)) .
2.5 The Solutions of a Linear System
Thanks to the results of the previous sections, we now have a complete picture of the four spaces associated with an
m×n matrix A of rank r and nullspace dimension h:
range(A); dimension r = rank(A)
null(A); dimension h
range(A)
⊥
; dimension m−r
null(A)
⊥
; dimension r = n −h .
The space range(A)
⊥
is called the left nullspace of the matrix, and null(A)
⊥
is called the rowspace of A. A
frequently used synonym for “range” is column space. It should be obvious from the meaning of these spaces that
null(A)
⊥
= range(A
T
)
range(A)
⊥
= null(A
T
)
where A
T
is the transpose of A, deﬁned as the matrix obtained by exchanging the rows of A with its columns.
Theorem 2.5.1 The matrix A transforms a vector x in its null space into the zero vector, and an arbitrary vector x
into a vector in range(A).
16 CHAPTER 2. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS
This allows characterizing the set of solutions to linear system as follows. Let
Ax = b
be an m×n system (m can be less than, equal to, or greater than n). Also, let
r = rank(A)
be the number of linearly independent rows or columns of A. Then,
b ∈ range(A) ⇒ no solutions
b ∈ range(A) ⇒ ∞
n−r
solutions
with the convention that ∞
0
= 1. Here, ∞
k
is the cardinality of a kdimensional vector space.
In the ﬁrst case above, there can be no linear combination of the columns (no x vector) that gives b, and the system
is said to be incompatible. In the second, compatible case, three possibilities occur, depending on the relative sizes of
r, m, n:
• When r = n = m, the system is invertible. This means that there is exactly one x that satisﬁes the system, since
the columns of A span all of R
n
. Notice that invertibility depends only on A, not on b.
• When r = n and m > n, the system is redundant. There are more equations than unknowns, but since b is in
the range of A there is a linear combination of the columns (a vector x) that produces b. In other words, the
equations are compatible, and exactly one solution exists.
4
• When r < n the system is underdetermined. This means that the null space is nontrivial (i.e., it has dimension
h > 0), and there is a space of dimension h = n −r of vectors x such that Ax = 0. Since b is assumed to be in
the range of A, there are solutions x to Ax = b, but then for any y ∈ null(A) also x + y is a solution:
Ax = b , Ay = 0 ⇒ A(x + y) = b
and this generates the ∞
h
= ∞
n−r
solutions mentioned above.
Notice that if r = n then n cannot possibly exceed m, so the ﬁrst two cases exhaust the possibilities for r = n. Also,
r cannot exceed either m or n. All the cases are summarized in ﬁgure 2.3.
Of course, listing all possibilities does not provide an operational method for determining the type of linear system
for a given pair A, b. Gaussian elimination, and particularly its version called reduction to echelon form is such a
method, and is summarized in the next section.
2.6 Gaussian Elimination
Gaussian elimination is an important technique for solving linear systems. In addition to always yielding a solution,
no matter whether the system is invertible or not, it also allows determining the rank of a matrix.
Other solution techniques exist for linear systems. Most notably, iterative methods solve systems in a time that
depends on the accuracy required, while direct methods, like Gaussian elimination, are done in a ﬁnite amount of
time that can be bounded given only the size of a matrix. Which method to use depends on the size and structure
(e.g., sparsity) of the matrix, whether more information is required about the matrix of the system, and on numerical
considerations. More on this in chapter 3.
Consider the m×n system
Ax = b (2.9)
4
Notice that the technical meaning of “redundant” has a stronger meaning than “with more equations than unknowns.” The case r < n < mis
possible, has more equations (m) than unknowns (n), admits a solution if b ∈ range(A), but is called “underdetermined” because there are fewer
(r) independent equations than there are unknowns (see next item). Thus, “redundant” means “with exactly one solution and with more equations
than unknowns.”
2.6. GAUSSIAN ELIMINATION 17
yes no
yes no
yes no
underdetermined
redundant invertible
b in range(A)
r = n
m = n
incompatible
Figure 2.3: Types of linear systems.
which can be square or rectangular, invertible, incompatible, redundant, or underdetermined. In short, there are no
restrictions on the system. Gaussian elimination replaces the rows of this system by linear combinations of the rows
themselves until A is changed into a matrix U that is in the socalled echelon form. This means that
• Nonzero rows precede rows with all zeros. The ﬁrst nonzero entry, if any, of a row, is called a pivot.
• Below each pivot is a column of zeros.
• Each pivot lies to the right of the pivot in the row above.
The same operations are applied to the rows of A and to those of b, which is transformed to a new vector c, so equality
is preserved and solving the ﬁnal system yields the same solution as solving the original one.
Once the system is transformed into echelon form, we compute the solution x by backsubstitution, that is, by
solving the transformed system
Ux = c .
2.6.1 Reduction to Echelon Form
The matrix A is reduced to echelon form by a process in m − 1 steps. The ﬁrst step is applied to U
(1)
= A and
c
(1)
= b. The kth step is applied to rows k, . . . , m of U
(k)
and c
(k)
and produces U
(k+1)
and c
(k+1)
. The last step
produces U
(m)
= U and c
(m)
= c. Initially, the “pivot column index” p is set to one. Here is step k, where u
ij
denotes
entry i, j of U
(k)
:
Skip nopivot columns If u
ip
is zero for every i = k, . . . , m, then increment p by 1. If p exceeds n stop.
5
Row exchange Now p ≤ n and u
ip
is nonzero for some k ≤ i ≤ m. Let l be one such value of i
6
. If l = k, exchange
rows l and k of U
(k)
and of c
(k)
.
Triangularization The new entry u
kp
is nonzero, and is called the pivot. For i = k + 1, . . . , m, subtract row k of
U
(k)
multiplied by u
ip
/u
kp
from row i of U
(k)
, and subtract entry k of c
(k)
multiplied by u
ip
/u
kp
from entry i
of c
(k)
. This zeros all the entries in the column below the pivot, and preserves the equality of left and righthand
side.
When this process is ﬁnished, U is in echelon form. In particular, if the matrix is square and if all columns have a
pivot, then U is uppertriangular.
5
“Stop” means that the entire algorithm is ﬁnished.
6
Different ways of selecting l here lead to different numerical properties of the algorithm. Selecting the largest entry in the column leads to
better roundoff properties.
18 CHAPTER 2. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS
2.6.2 Backsubstitution
A system
Ux = c (2.10)
in echelon form is easily solved for x. To see this, we ﬁrst solve the system symbolically, leaving undetermined vari
ables speciﬁed by their name, and then transformthis solution procedure into one that can be more readily implemented
numerically.
Let r be the index of the last nonzero row of U. Since this is the number of independent rows of U, r is the rank
of U. It is also the rank of A, because A and U admit exactly the same solutions and are equal in size. If r < m, the
last m−r equations yield a subsystem of the following form:
_
¸
_
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
_ =
_
¸
_
c
r+1
.
.
.
c
m
_
¸
_ .
Let us call this the residual subsystem. If on the other hand r = m (obviously r cannot exceed m), there is no residual
subsystem.
If there is a residual system (i.e., r < m) and some of c
r+1
, . . . , c
m
are nonzero, then the equations corresponding
to these nonzero entries are incompatible, because they are of the form 0 = c
i
with c
i
= 0. Since no vector x can
satisfy these equations, the linear system admits no solutions: it is incompatible.
Let us now assume that either there is no residual system, or if there is one it is compatible, that is, c
r+1
= . . . =
c
m
= 0. Then, solutions exist, and they can be determined by backsubstitution, that is, by solving the equations
starting from the last one and replacing the result in the equations higher up.
Backsubstitutions works as follows. First, remove the residual system, if any. We are left with an r ×n system. In
this system, call the variables corresponding to the r columns with pivots the basic variables, and call the other n −r
the free variables. Say that the pivot columns are j
1
, . . . , j
r
. Then symbolic backsubstitution consists of the following
sequence:
for i = r downto 1
x
j
i
=
1
u
ij
i
_
_
c
i
−
n
l=ji+1
u
il
x
l
_
_
end
This is called symbolic backsubstitution because no numerical values are assigned to free variables. Whenever they
appear in the expressions for the basic variables, free variables are speciﬁed by name rather than by value. The ﬁnal
result is a solution with as many free parameters as there are free variables. Since any value given to the free variables
leaves the equality of system (2.10) satisﬁed, the presence of free variables leads to an inﬁnity of solutions.
When solving a system in echelon form numerically, however, it is inconvenient to carry around nonnumeric
symbol names (the free variables). Here is an equivalent solution procedure that makes this unnecessary. The solution
obtained by backsubstitution is an afﬁne function
7
of the free variables, and can therefore be written in the form
x = v
0
+x
j
1
v
1
+. . . +x
j
n−r
v
n−r
(2.11)
where the x
j
i
are the free variables. The vector v
0
is the solution when all free variables are zero, and can therefore be
obtained by replacing each free variable by zero during backsubstitution. Similarly, the vector v
i
for i = 1, . . . , n −r
can be obtained by solving the homogeneous system
Ux = 0
with x
ji
= 1 and all other free variables equal to zero. In conclusion, the general solution can be obtained by running
backsubstitution n−r +1 times, once for the nonhomogeneous system, and n−r times for the homogeneous system,
with suitable values of the free variables. This yields the solution in the form (2.11).
Notice that the vectors v
1
, . . . , v
n−r
form a basis for the null space of U, and therefore of A.
7
An afﬁne function is a linear function plus a constant.
2.6. GAUSSIAN ELIMINATION 19
2.6.3 An Example
An example will clarify both the reduction to echelon form and backsubstitution. Consider the system
Ax = b
where
U
(1)
= A =
_
_
1 3 3 2
2 6 9 5
−1 −3 3 0
_
_
, c
(1)
= b =
_
_
1
5
5
_
_
.
Reduction to echelon form transforms A and b as follows. In the ﬁrst step (k = 1), there are no nopivot columns,
so the pivot column index p stays at 1. Throughout this example, we choose a trivial pivot selection rule: we pick the
ﬁrst nonzero entry at or below row k in the pivot column. For k = 1, this means that u
(1)
11
= a
11
= 1 is the pivot. In
other words, no row exchange is necessary.
8
The triangularization step subtracts row 1 multiplied by 2/1 from row 2,
and subtracts row 1 multiplied by 1/1 from row 3. When applied to both U
(1)
and c
(1)
this yields
U
(2)
=
_
_
1 3 3 2
0 0 3 1
0 0 6 2
_
_
, c
(2)
=
_
_
1
3
6
_
_
.
Notice that now (k = 2) the entries u
(2)
ip
are zero for i = 2, 3, for both p = 1 and p = 2, so p is set to 3: the second
pivot column is column 3, and u
(2)
23
is nonzero, so no row exchange is necessary. In the triangularization step, row 2
multiplied by 6/3 is subtracted from row 3 for both U
(2)
and c
(2)
to yield
U = U
(3)
=
_
_
1 3 3 2
0 0 3 1
0 0 0 0
_
_
, c = c
(3)
=
_
_
1
3
0
_
_
.
There is one zero row in the lefthand side, and the rank of U and that of A is r = 2, the number of nonzero rows.
The residual system is 0 = 0 (compatible), and r < n = 4, so the system is underdetermined, with ∞
n−r
= ∞
2
solutions.
In symbolic backsubstitution, the residual subsystem is ﬁrst deleted. This yields the reduced system
_
1 3 3 2
0 0 3 1
_
x =
_
1
3
_
(2.12)
The basic variables are x
1
and x
3
, corresponding to the columns with pivots. The other two variables, x
2
and
x
4
, are free. Backsubstitution applied ﬁrst to row 2 and then to row 1 yields the following expressions for the pivot
variables:
x
3
=
1
u
23
(c
2
−u
24
x
4
) =
1
3
(3 −x
4
) = 1 −
1
3
x
4
x
1
=
1
u
11
(c
1
−u
12
x
2
−u
13
x
3
−u
14
x
4
) =
1
1
(1 −3x
2
−3x
3
−2x
4
)
= 1 −3x
2
−(3 −x
4
) −2x
4
= −2 −3x
2
−x
4
so the general solution is
x =
_
¸
¸
_
−2 −3x
2
−x
4
x
2
1 −
1
3
x
4
x
4
_
¸
¸
_
=
_
¸
¸
_
−2
0
1
0
_
¸
¸
_
+x
2
_
¸
¸
_
−3
1
0
0
_
¸
¸
_
+x
4
_
¸
¸
_
−1
0
−
1
3
1
_
¸
¸
_
.
8
Selecting the largest entry in the column at or below row k is a frequent choice, and this would have caused rows 1 and 2 to be switched.
20 CHAPTER 2. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS
This same solution can be found by the numerical backsubstitution method as follows. Solving the reduced system
(2.12) with x
2
= x
4
= 0 by numerical backsubstitution yields
x
3
=
1
3
(3 −1 · 0) = 1
x
1
=
1
1
(1 −3 · 0 −3 · 1 −2 · 0) = −2
so that
v
0
=
_
¸
¸
_
−2
0
1
0
_
¸
¸
_
.
Then v
1
is found by solving the nonzero part (ﬁrst two rows) of Ux = 0 with x
2
= 1 and x
4
= 0 to obtain
x
3
=
1
3
(−1 · 0) = 0
x
1
=
1
1
(−3 · 1 −3 · 0 −2 · 0) = −3
so that
v
1
=
_
¸
¸
_
−3
1
0
0
_
¸
¸
_
.
Finally, solving the nonzero part of Ux = 0 with x
2
= 0 and x
4
= 1 leads to
x
3
=
1
3
(−1 · 1) = −
1
3
x
1
=
1
1
(−3 · 0 −3 ·
_
−
1
3
_
−2 · 1) = −1
so that
v
2
=
_
¸
¸
_
−1
0
−
1
3
1
_
¸
¸
_
and
x = v
0
+x
2
v
1
+x
4
v
2
=
_
¸
¸
_
−2
0
1
0
_
¸
¸
_
+x
2
_
¸
¸
_
−3
1
0
0
_
¸
¸
_
+x
4
_
¸
¸
_
−1
0
−
1
3
1
_
¸
¸
_
just as before.
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, Gaussian elimination is a direct method, in the sense that the answer
can be found in a number of steps that depends only on the size of the matrix A. In the next chapter, we study a different
2.6. GAUSSIAN ELIMINATION 21
method, based on the socalled the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). This is an iterative method, meaning that an
exact solution usually requires an inﬁnite number of steps, and the number of steps necessary to ﬁnd an approximate
solution depends on the desired number of correct digits.
This state of affairs would seem to favor Gaussian elimination over the SVD. However, the latter yields a much
more complete answer, since it computes bases for all the four spaces mentioned above, as well as a set of quantities,
called the singular values, which provide great insight into the behavior of the linear transformation represented by
the matrix A. Singular values also allow deﬁning a notion of approximate rank which is very useful in a large number
of applications. It also allows ﬁnding approximate solutions when the linear system in question is incompatible. In
addition, for reasons that will become apparent in the next chapter, the computation of the SVD is numerically well
behaved, much more so than Gaussian elimination. Finally, very efﬁcient algorithms for the SVD exist. For instance,
on a regular workstation, one can compute several thousand SVDs of 5 × 5 matrices in one second. More generally,
the number of ﬂoating point operations necessary to compute the SVD of an m×n matrix is amn
2
+bn
3
where a, b
are small numbers that depend on the details of the algorithm.
22 CHAPTER 2. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS
Chapter 3
The Singular Value Decomposition
In section 2, we saw that a matrix transforms vectors in its domain into vectors in its range (column space), and vectors
in its null space into the zero vector. No nonzero vector is mapped into the left null space, that is, into the orthogonal
complement of the range. In this section, we make this statement more speciﬁc by showing how unit vectors
1
in the
rowspace are transformed by matrices. This describes the action that a matrix has on the magnitudes of vectors as
well. To this end, we ﬁrst need to introduce the notion of orthogonal matrices, and interpret them geometrically as
transformations between systems of orthonormal coordinates. We do this in section 3.1. Then, in section 3.2, we use
these new concepts to introduce the allimportant concept of the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). The chapter
concludes with some basic applications and examples.
3.1 Orthogonal Matrices
Let S be an ndimensional subspace of R
m
(so that we necessarily have n ≤ m), and let v
1
, . . . , v
n
be an orthonormal
basis for S. Consider a point P in S. If the coordinates of P in R
m
are collected in an mdimensional vector
p =
_
¸
_
p
1
.
.
.
p
m
_
¸
_ ,
and since P is in S, it must be possible to write p as a linear combination of the v
j
s. In other words, there must exist
coefﬁcients
q =
_
¸
_
q
1
.
.
.
q
n
_
¸
_
such that
p = q
1
v
1
+. . . +q
n
v
n
= V q
where
V =
_
v
1
· · · v
n
¸
is an m×n matrix that collects the basis for S as its columns. Then for any i = 1, . . . , n we have
v
T
i
p = v
T
i
n
j=1
q
j
v
j
=
n
j=1
q
j
v
T
i
v
j
= q
i
,
since the v
j
are orthonormal. This is important, and may need emphasis:
1
Vectors with unit norm.
23
24 CHAPTER 3. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION
If
p =
n
j=1
q
j
v
j
and the vectors of the basis v
1
, . . . , v
n
are orthonormal, then the coefﬁcients q
j
are the signed mag
nitudes of the projections of p onto the basis vectors:
q
j
= v
T
j
p . (3.1)
In matrix form,
q = V
T
p . (3.2)
Also, we can collect the n
2
equations
v
T
i
v
j
=
_
1 if i = j
0 otherwise
into the following matrix equation:
V
T
V = I (3.3)
where I is the n ×n identity matrix. A matrix V that satisﬁes equation (3.3) is said to be orthogonal. Thus, a matrix
is orthogonal if its columns are orthonormal. Since the left inverse of a matrix V is deﬁned as the matrix L such that
LV = I , (3.4)
comparison with equation (3.3) shows that the left inverse of an orthogonal matrix V exists, and is equal to the
transpose of V .
Of course, this argument requires V to be full rank, so that the solution L to equation (3.4) is unique. However, V
is certainly full rank, because it is made of orthonormal columns.
Notice that V R = I cannot possibly have a solution when m > n, because the m × m identity matrix has m
linearly independent
2
columns, while the columns of V R are linear combinations of the n columns of V , so V R can
have at most n linearly independent columns.
Of course, this result is still valid when V is m×m and has orthonormal columns, since equation (3.3) still holds.
However, for square, fullrank matrices (r = m = n), the distinction between left and right inverse vanishes. In fact,
suppose that there exist matrices L and R such that LV = I and V R = I. Then L = L(V R) = (LV )R = R, so the
left and the right inverse are the same. Thus, for square orthogonal matrices, V
T
is both the left and the right inverse:
V
T
V = V V
T
= I ,
and V
T
is then simply said to be the inverse of V :
V
T
= V
−1
.
Since the matrix V V
T
contains the inner products between the rows of V (just as V
T
V is formed by the inner
products of its columns), the argument above shows that the rows of a square orthogonal matrix are orthonormal as
well. We can summarize this discussion as follows:
Theorem 3.1.1 The left inverse of an orthogonal m×n matrix V with m ≥ n exists and is equal to the transpose of
V :
V
T
V = I .
In particular, if m = n, the matrix V
−1
= V
T
is also the right inverse of V :
V square ⇒ V
−1
V = V
T
V = V V
−1
= V V
T
= I .
2
Nay, orthonormal.
3.1. ORTHOGONAL MATRICES 25
Sometimes, when m = n, the geometric interpretation of equation (3.2) causes confusion, because two interpreta
tions of it are possible. In the interpretation given above, the point P remains the same, and the underlying reference
frame is changed from the elementary vectors e
j
(that is, from the columns of I) to the vectors v
j
(that is, to the
columns of V ). Alternatively, equation (3.2) can be seen as a transformation, in a ﬁxed reference system, of point P
with coordinates p into a different point Q with coordinates q. This, however, is relativity, and should not be surpris
ing: If you spin clockwise on your feet, or if you stand still and the whole universe spins counterclockwise around
you, the result is the same.
3
Consistently with either of these geometric interpretations, we have the following result:
Theorem 3.1.2 The norm of a vector x is not changed by multiplication by an orthogonal matrix V :
V x = x .
Proof.
V x
2
= x
T
V
T
V x = x
T
x = x
2
.
∆
We conclude this section with an obvious but useful consequence of orthogonality. In section 2.3 we deﬁned the
projection p of a vector b onto another vector c as the point on the line through c that is closest to b. This notion of
projection can be extended from lines to vector spaces by the following deﬁnition: The projection p of a point b ∈ R
n
onto a subspace C is the point in C that is closest to b.
Also, for unit vectors c, the projection matrix is cc
T
(theorem 2.3.3), and the vector b − p is orthogonal to c. An
analogous result holds for subspace projection, as the following theorem shows.
Theorem 3.1.3 Let U be an orthogonal matrix. Then the matrix UU
T
projects any vector b onto range(U). Further
more, the difference vector between b and its projection p onto range(U) is orthogonal to range(U):
U
T
(b −p) = 0 .
Proof. A point p in range(U) is a linear combination of the columns of U:
p = Ux
where x is the vector of coefﬁcients (as many coefﬁcients as there are columns in U). The squared distance between b
and p is
b −p
2
= (b −p)
T
(b −p) = b
T
b + p
T
p −2b
T
p = b
T
b + x
T
U
T
Ux −2b
T
Ux .
Because of orthogonality, U
T
U is the identity matrix, so
b −p
2
= b
T
b + x
T
x −2b
T
Ux .
The derivative of this squared distance with respect to x is the vector
2x −2U
T
b
3
At least geometrically. One solution may be more efﬁcient than the other in other ways.
26 CHAPTER 3. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION
x
b
2
v
1
u σ
v
u
3
2
x
1
x
2
2
b
b
3
1
2
u σ
1 1
b
Figure 3.1: The matrix in equation (3.5) maps a circle on the plane into an ellipse in space. The two small boxes are
corresponding points.
which is zero iff
x = U
T
b ,
that is, when
p = Ux = UU
T
b
as promised.
For this value of p the difference vector b −p is orthogonal to range(U), in the sense that
U
T
(b −p) = U
T
(b −UU
T
b) = U
T
b −U
T
b = 0 .
∆
3.2 The Singular Value Decomposition
In these notes, we have often used geometric intuition to introduce newconcepts, and we have then translated these into
algebraic statements. This approach is successful when geometry is less cumbersome than algebra, or when geometric
intuition provides a strong guiding element. The geometric picture underlying the Singular Value Decomposition is
crisp and useful, so we will use geometric intuition again. Here is the main intuition:
An m × n matrix A of rank r maps the rdimensional unit hypersphere in rowspace(A) into an r
dimensional hyperellipse in range(A).
This statement is stronger than saying that A maps rowspace(A) into range(A), because it also describes what
happens to the magnitudes of the vectors: a hypersphere is stretched or compressed into a hyperellipse, which is a
quadratic hypersurface that generalizes the twodimensional notion of ellipse to an arbitrary number of dimensions. In
three dimensions, the hyperellipse is an ellipsoid, in one dimension it is a pair of points. In all cases, the hyperellipse
in question is centered at the origin.
For instance, the rank2 matrix
A =
1
√
2
_
_
√
3
√
3
−3 3
1 1
_
_
(3.5)
transforms the unit circle on the plane into an ellipse embedded in threedimensional space. Figure 3.1 shows the map
b = Ax .
3.2. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION 27
Two diametrically opposite points on the unit circle are mapped into the two endpoints of the major axis of the
ellipse, and two other diametrically opposite points on the unit circle are mapped into the two endpoints of the minor
axis of the ellipse. The lines through these two pairs of points on the unit circle are always orthogonal. This result can
be generalized to any m×n matrix.
Simple and fundamental as this geometric fact may be, its proof by geometric means is cumbersome. Instead, we
will prove it algebraically by ﬁrst introducing the existence of the SVD and then using the latter to prove that matrices
map hyperspheres into hyperellipses.
Theorem 3.2.1 If A is a real m×n matrix then there exist orthogonal matrices
U =
_
u
1
· · · u
m
¸
∈ R
m×m
V =
_
v
1
· · · v
n
¸
∈ R
n×n
such that
U
T
AV = Σ = diag(σ
1
, . . . , σ
p
) ∈ R
m×n
where p = min(m, n) and σ
1
≥ . . . ≥ σ
p
≥ 0. Equivalently,
A = UΣV
T
.
Proof. Let x and y be unit vectors in R
n
and R
m
, respectively, and consider the bilinear form
z = y
T
Ax .
The set
S = {x, y  x ∈ R
n
, y ∈ R
m
, x = y = 1}
is compact, so that the scalar function z(x, y) must achieve a maximum value on S, possibly at more than one point
4
.
Let u
1
, v
1
be two unit vectors in R
m
and R
n
respectively where this maximum is achieved, and let σ
1
be the corre
sponding value of z:
max
x=y=1
y
T
Ax = u
T
1
Av
1
= σ
1
.
It is easy to see that u
1
is parallel to the vector Av
1
. If this were not the case, their inner product u
T
1
Av
1
could
be increased by rotating u
1
towards the direction of Av
1
, thereby contradicting the fact that u
T
1
Av
1
is a maximum.
Similarly, by noticing that
u
T
1
Av
1
= v
T
1
A
T
u
1
and repeating the argument above, we see that v
1
is parallel to A
T
u
1
.
By theorems 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, u
1
and v
1
can be extended into orthonormal bases for R
m
and R
n
, respectively.
Collect these orthonormal basis vectors into orthogonal matrices U
1
and V
1
. Then
U
T
1
AV
1
= S
1
=
_
σ
1
0
T
0 A
1
_
.
In fact, the ﬁrst column of AV
1
is Av
1
= σ
1
u
1
, so the ﬁrst entry of U
T
1
AV
1
is u
T
1
σ
1
u
1
= σ
1
, and its other entries
are u
T
j
Av
1
= 0 because Av
1
is parallel to u
1
and therefore orthogonal, by construction, to u
2
, . . . , u
m
. A similar
argument shows that the entries after the ﬁrst in the ﬁrst row of S
1
are zero: the row vector u
T
1
A is parallel to v
T
1
, and
therefore orthogonal to v
2
, . . . , v
n
, so that u
T
1
Av
2
= . . . = u
T
1
Av
n
= 0.
The matrix A
1
has one fewer row and column than A. We can repeat the same construction on A
1
and write
U
T
2
A
1
V
2
= S
2
=
_
σ
2
0
T
0 A
2
_
4
Actually, at least at two points: if u
T
1
Av
1
is a maximum, so is (−u
1
)
T
A(−v
1
).
28 CHAPTER 3. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION
so that
_
1 0
T
0 U
T
2
_
U
T
1
AV
1
_
1 0
T
0 V
2
_
=
_
_
σ
1
0 0
T
0 σ
2
0
T
0 0 A
2
_
_
.
This procedure can be repeated until A
k
vanishes (zero rows or zero columns) to obtain
U
T
AV = Σ
where U
T
and V are orthogonal matrices obtained by multiplying together all the orthogonal matrices used in the
procedure, and
Σ = diag(σ
1
, . . . , σ
p
) .
Since matrices U and V are orthogonal, we can premultiply the matrix product in the theorem by U and postmultiply
it by V
T
to obtain
A = UΣV
T
,
which is the desired result.
It only remains to show that the elements on the diagonal of Σ are nonnegative and arranged in nonincreasing
order. To see that σ
1
≥ . . . ≥ σ
p
(where p = min(m, n)), we can observe that the successive maximization problems
that yield σ
1
, . . . , σ
p
are performed on a sequence of sets each of which contains the next. To show this, we just need
to show that σ
2
≤ σ
1
, and induction will do the rest. We have
σ
2
= max
ˆ
x=
ˆ
y=1
ˆy
T
A
1
ˆx = max
ˆ
x=
ˆ
y=1
_
0 ˆy
¸
T
S
1
_
0
ˆx
_
= max
ˆ
x=
ˆ
y=1
_
0 ˆy
¸
T
U
T
1
AV
1
_
0
ˆx
_
= max
x = y = 1
x
T
v
1
= y
T
u
1
= 0
y
T
Ax ≤ σ
1
.
To explain the last equality above, consider the vectors
x = V
1
_
0
ˆx
_
and y = U
1
_
0
ˆy
_
.
The vector x is equal to the unit vector [0 ˆx]
T
transformed by the orthogonal matrix V
1
, and is therefore itself a unit
vector. In addition, it is a linear combination of v
2
, . . . , v
n
, and is therefore orthogonal to v
1
. A similar argument
shows that y is a unit vector orthogonal to u
1
. Because x and y thus deﬁned belong to subsets (actually subspheres)
of the unit spheres in R
n
and R
m
, we conclude that σ
2
≤ σ
1
.
The σ
i
are nonnegative because all these maximizations are performed on unit hyperspheres. The σ
i
s are maxima
of the function z(x, y) which always assumes both positive and negative values on any hypersphere: If z(x, y) is
negative, then z(−x, y) is positive, and if x is on a hypersphere, so is −x. ∆
We can now review the geometric picture in ﬁgure 3.1 in light of the singular value decomposition. In the process,
we introduce some nomenclature for the three matrices in the SVD. Consider the map in ﬁgure 3.1, represented by
equation (3.5), and imagine transforming point x (the small box at x on the unit circle) into its corresponding point
b = Ax (the small box on the ellipse). This transformation can be achieved in three steps (see ﬁgure 3.2):
1. Write x in the frame of reference of the two vectors v
1
, v
2
on the unit circle that map into the major axes of the
ellipse. There are a few ways to do this, because axis endpoints come in pairs. Just pick one way, but order
v
1
, v
2
so they map into the major and the minor axis, in this order. Let us call v
1
, v
2
the two right singular
vectors of A. The corresponding axis unit vectors u
1
, u
2
on the ellipse are called left singular vectors. If we
deﬁne
V =
_
v
1
v
2
¸
,
3.2. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION 29
2
x
1
x
v
2
v
1
2 2
2
v’
1
v’
2
y
y
1
u
3
y
3
u σ
2 2
u σ
1 1
σ
2 2
u’
σ
1 1
u’
x
ξ
ξ
1
ξ
η
η
1
y
η
Figure 3.2: Decomposition of the mapping in ﬁgure 3.1.
the new coordinates ξ of x become
ξ = V
T
x
because V is orthogonal.
2. Transform ξ into its image on a “straight” version of the ﬁnal ellipse. “Straight” here means that the axes of the
ellipse are aligned with the y
1
, y
2
axes. Otherwise, the “straight” ellipse has the same shape as the ellipse in
ﬁgure 3.1. If the lengths of the halfaxes of the ellipse are σ
1
, σ
2
(major axis ﬁrst), the transformed vector η has
coordinates
η = Σξ
where
Σ =
_
_
σ
1
0
0 σ
2
0 0
_
_
is a diagonal matrix. The real, nonnegative numbers σ
1
, σ
2
are called the singular values of A.
3. Rotate the reference frame in R
m
= R
3
so that the “straight” ellipse becomes the ellipse in ﬁgure 3.1. This
rotation brings η along, and maps it to b. The components of η are the signed magnitudes of the projections of
b along the unit vectors u
1
, u
2
, u
3
that identify the axes of the ellipse and the normal to the plane of the ellipse,
so
b = Uη
where the orthogonal matrix
U =
_
u
1
u
2
u
3
¸
collects the left singular vectors of A.
30 CHAPTER 3. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION
We can concatenate these three transformations to obtain
b = UΣV
T
x
or
A = UΣV
T
since this construction works for any point x on the unit circle. This is the SVD of A.
The singular value decomposition is “almost unique”. There are two sources of ambiguity. The ﬁrst is in the
orientation of the singular vectors. One can ﬂip any right singular vector, provided that the corresponding left singular
vector is ﬂipped as well, and still obtain a valid SVD. Singular vectors must be ﬂipped in pairs (a left vector and its
corresponding right vector) because the singular values are required to be nonnegative. This is a trivial ambiguity. If
desired, it can be removed by imposing, for instance, that the ﬁrst nonzero entry of every left singular value be positive.
The second source of ambiguity is deeper. If the matrix A maps a hypersphere into another hypersphere, the axes
of the latter are not deﬁned. For instance, the identity matrix has an inﬁnity of SVDs, all of the form
I = UIU
T
where U is any orthogonal matrix of suitable size. More generally, whenever two or more singular values coincide,
the subspaces identiﬁed by the corresponding left and right singular vectors are unique, but any orthonormal basis can
be chosen within, say, the right subspace and yield, together with the corresponding left singular vectors, a valid SVD.
Except for these ambiguities, the SVD is unique.
Even in the general case, the singular values of a matrix A are the lengths of the semiaxes of the hyperellipse E
deﬁned by
E = {Ax : x = 1} .
The SVD reveals a great deal about the structure of a matrix. If we deﬁne r by
σ
1
≥ . . . ≥ σ
r
> σ
r+1
= . . . = 0 ,
that is, if σ
r
is the smallest nonzero singular value of A, then
rank(A) = r
null(A) = span{v
r+1
, . . . , v
n
}
range(A) = span{u
1
, . . . , u
r
} .
The sizes of the matrices in the SVD are as follows: U is m× m, Σ is m× n, and V is n × n. Thus, Σ has the
same shape and size as A, while U and V are square. However, if m > n, the bottom (m−n) ×n block of Σ is zero,
so that the last m− n columns of U are multiplied by zero. Similarly, if m < n, the rightmost m× (n − m) block
of Σ is zero, and this multiplies the last n −m rows of V . This suggests a “small,” equivalent version of the SVD. If
p = min(m, n), we can deﬁne U
p
= U(:, 1 : p), Σ
p
= Σ(1 : p, 1 : p), and V
p
= V (:, 1 : p), and write
A = U
p
Σ
p
V
T
p
where U
p
is m×p, Σ
p
is p ×p, and V
p
is n ×p.
Moreover, if p−r singular values are zero, we can let U
r
= U(:, 1 : r), Σ
r
= Σ(1 : r, 1 : r), and V
r
= V (:, 1 : r),
then we have
A = U
r
Σ
r
V
T
r
=
r
i=1
σ
i
u
i
v
T
i
,
which is an even smaller, minimal, SVD.
Finally, both the 2norm and the Frobenius norm
A
F
=
¸
¸
¸
_
m
i=1
n
j=1
a
ij

2
3.3. THE PSEUDOINVERSE 31
and
A
2
= sup
x=0
Ax
x
are neatly characterized in terms of the SVD:
A
2
F
= σ
2
1
+. . . +σ
2
p
A
2
= σ
1
.
In the next few sections we introduce fundamental results and applications that testify to the importance of the
SVD.
3.3 The Pseudoinverse
One of the most important applications of the SVD is the solution of linear systems in the least squares sense. A linear
system of the form
Ax = b (3.6)
arising froma reallife application may or may not admit a solution, that is, a vector x that satisﬁes this equation exactly.
Often more measurements are available than strictly necessary, because measurements are unreliable. This leads to
more equations than unknowns (the number m of rows in A is greater than the number n of columns), and equations
are often mutually incompatible because they come from inexact measurements (incompatible linear systems were
deﬁned in chapter 2). Even when m ≤ n the equations can be incompatible, because of errors in the measurements
that produce the entries of A. In these cases, it makes more sense to ﬁnd a vector x that minimizes the norm
Ax −b
of the residual vector
r = Ax −b .
where the double bars henceforth refer to the Euclidean norm. Thus, x cannot exactly satisfy any of the m equations
in the system, but it tries to satisfy all of them as closely as possible, as measured by the sum of the squares of the
discrepancies between left and righthand sides of the equations.
In other circumstances, not enough measurements are available. Then, the linear system (3.6) is underdetermined,
in the sense that it has fewer independent equations than unknowns (its rank r is less than n, see again chapter 2).
Incompatibility and underdeterminacy can occur together: the system admits no solution, and the leastsquares
solution is not unique. For instance, the system
x
1
+x
2
= 1
x
1
+x
2
= 3
x
3
= 2
has three unknowns, but rank 2, and its ﬁrst two equations are incompatible: x
1
+ x
2
cannot be equal to both 1 and
3. A leastsquares solution turns out to be x = [1 1 2]
T
with residual r = Ax − b = [1 − 1 0], which has norm
√
2
(admittedly, this is a rather high residual, but this is the best we can do for this problem, in the leastsquares sense).
However, any other vector of the form
x
=
_
_
1
1
2
_
_
+α
_
_
−1
1
0
_
_
is as good as x. For instance, x
= [0 2 2], obtained for α = 1, yields exactly the same residual as x (check this).
In summary, an exact solution to the system (3.6) may not exist, or may not be unique, as we learned in chapter 2.
An approximate solution, in the leastsquares sense, always exists, but may fail to be unique.
32 CHAPTER 3. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION
If there are several leastsquares solutions, all equally good (or bad), then one of them turns out to be shorter than
all the others, that is, its norm x is smallest. One can therefore redeﬁne what it means to “solve” a linear system so
that there is always exactly one solution. This minimum norm solution is the subject of the following theorem, which
both proves uniqueness and provides a recipe for the computation of the solution.
Theorem 3.3.1 The minimumnorm least squares solution to a linear system Ax = b, that is, the shortest vector x
that achieves the
min
x
Ax −b ,
is unique, and is given by
ˆx = V Σ
†
U
T
b (3.7)
where
Σ
†
=
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
1/σ
1
0 · · · 0
.
.
.
1/σ
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
.
.
.
0 0 · · · 0
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
is an n ×m diagonal matrix.
The matrix
A
†
= V Σ
†
U
T
is called the pseudoinverse of A.
Proof. The minimumnorm Least Squares solution to
Ax = b
is the shortest vector x that minimizes
Ax −b
that is,
UΣV
T
x −b .
This can be written as
U(ΣV
T
x −U
T
b) (3.8)
because U is an orthogonal matrix, UU
T
= I. But orthogonal matrices do not change the norm of vectors they are
applied to (theorem 3.1.2), so that the last expression above equals
ΣV
T
x −U
T
b
or, with y = V
T
x and c = U
T
b,
Σy −c .
In order to ﬁnd the solution to this minimization problem, let us spell out the last expression. We want to minimize the
norm of the following vector:
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
σ
1
0 · · · 0
0
.
.
.
· · · 0
σ
r
.
.
. 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
y
1
.
.
.
y
r
y
r+1
.
.
.
y
n
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
−
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
c
1
.
.
.
c
r
c
r+1
.
.
.
c
m
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
.
3.4. LEASTSQUARES SOLUTION OF A HOMOGENEOUS LINEAR SYSTEMS 33
The last m−r differences are of the form
0 −
_
¸
_
c
r+1
.
.
.
c
m
_
¸
_
and do not depend on the unknown y. In other words, there is nothing we can do about those differences: if some or
all the c
i
for i = r +1, . . . , m are nonzero, we will not be able to zero these differences, and each of them contributes
a residual c
i
 to the solution. In each of the ﬁrst r differences, on the other hand, the last n − r components of y are
multiplied by zeros, so they have no effect on the solution. Thus, there is freedom in their choice. Since we look for
the minimumnorm solution, that is, for the shortest vector x, we also want the shortest y, because x and y are related
by an orthogonal transformation. We therefore set y
r+1
= . . . = y
n
= 0. In summary, the desired y has the following
components:
y
i
=
c
i
σ
i
for i = 1, . . . , r
y
i
= 0 for i = r + 1, . . . , n .
When written as a function of the vector c, this is
y = Σ
+
c .
Notice that there is no other choice for y, which is therefore unique: minimum residual forces the choice of y
1
, . . . , y
r
,
and minimumnorm solution forces the other entries of y. Thus, the minimumnorm, leastsquares solution to the
original system is the unique vector
ˆx = V y = V Σ
+
c = V Σ
+
U
T
b
as promised. The residual, that is, the norm of Ax − b when x is the solution vector, is the norm of Σy − c, since
this vector is related to Ax −b by an orthogonal transformation (see equation (3.8)). In conclusion, the square of the
residual is
Ax −b
2
= Σy −c
2
=
m
i=r+1
c
2
i
=
m
i=r+1
(u
T
i
b)
2
which is the projection of the righthand side vector b onto the complement of the range of A. ∆
3.4 LeastSquares Solution of a Homogeneous Linear Systems
Theorem 3.3.1 works regardless of the value of the righthand side vector b. When b = 0, that is, when the system is
homogeneous, the solution is trivial: the minimumnorm solution to
Ax = 0 (3.9)
is
x = 0 ,
which happens to be an exact solution. Of course it is not necessarily the only one (any vector in the null space of A
is also a solution, by deﬁnition), but it is obviously the one with the smallest norm.
Thus, x = 0 is the minimumnorm solution to any homogeneous linear system. Although correct, this solution is
not too interesting. In many applications, what is desired is a nonzero vector x that satisﬁes the system (3.9) as well
as possible. Without any constraints on x, we would fall back to x = 0 again. For homogeneous linear systems, the
meaning of a leastsquares solution is therefore usually modiﬁed, once more, by imposing the constraint
x = 1
34 CHAPTER 3. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION
on the solution. Unfortunately, the resulting constrained minimization problem does not necessarily admit a unique
solution. The following theorem provides a recipe for ﬁnding this solution, and shows that there is in general a whole
hypersphere of solutions.
Theorem 3.4.1 Let
A = UΣV
T
be the singular value decomposition of A. Furthermore, let v
n−k+1
, . . . , v
n
be the k columns of V whose correspond
ing singular values are equal to the last singular value σ
n
, that is, let k be the largest integer such that
σ
n−k+1
= . . . = σ
n
.
Then, all vectors of the form
x = α
1
v
n−k+1
+. . . +α
k
v
n
(3.10)
with
α
2
1
+. . . +α
2
k
= 1 (3.11)
are unitnorm least squares solutions to the homogeneous linear system
Ax = 0,
that is, they achieve the
min
x=1
Ax .
Note: when σ
n
is greater than zero the most common case is k = 1, since it is very unlikely that different singular
values have exactly the same numerical value. When A is rank deﬁcient, on the other case, it may often have more
than one singular value equal to zero. In any event, if k = 1, then the minimumnorm solution is unique, x = v
n
. If
k > 1, the theorem above shows how to express all solutions as a linear combination of the last k columns of V .
Proof. The reasoning is very similar to that for the previous theorem. The unitnorm Least Squares solution to
Ax = 0
is the vector x with x = 1 that minimizes
Ax
that is,
UΣV
T
x .
Since orthogonal matrices do not change the norm of vectors they are applied to (theorem 3.1.2), this norm is the same
as
ΣV
T
x
or, with y = V
T
x,
Σy .
Since V is orthogonal, x = 1 translates to y = 1. We thus look for the unitnorm vector y that minimizes the
norm (squared) of Σy, that is,
σ
2
1
y
2
1
+. . . +σ
2
n
y
2
n
.
This is obviously achieved by concentrating all the (unit) mass of y where the σs are smallest, that is by letting
y
1
= . . . = y
n−k
= 0. (3.12)
From y = V
T
x we obtain x = V y = y
1
v
1
+. . . +y
n
v
n
, so that equation (3.12) is equivalent to equation (3.10) with
α
1
= y
n−k+1
, . . . , α
k
= y
n
, and the unitnorm constraint on y yields equation (3.11). ∆
Section 3.5 shows a sample use of theorem 3.4.1.
3.5. SVD LINE FITTING 35
3.5 SVD Line Fitting
The Singular Value Decomposition of a matrix yields a simple method for ﬁtting a line to a set of points on the plane.
3.5.1 Fitting a Line to a Set of Points
Let p
i
= (x
i
, y
i
)
T
be a set of m ≥ 2 points on the plane, and let
ax +by −c = 0
be the equation of a line. If the lefthand side of this equation is multiplied by a nonzero constant, the line does not
change. Thus, we can assume without loss of generality that
n = a
2
+b
2
= 1 , (3.13)
where the unit vector n = (a, b)
T
, orthogonal to the line, is called the line normal.
The distance from the line to the origin is c (see ﬁgure 3.3), and the distance between the line n and a point p
i
is
equal to
d
i
= ax
i
+by
i
−c = p
T
i
n −c . (3.14)
p
i
a
b
c
Figure 3.3: The distance between point p
i
= (x
i
, y
i
)
T
and line ax +by −c = 0 is ax
i
+by
i
−c.
The bestﬁt line minimizes the sum of the squared distances. Thus, if we let d = (d
1
, . . . , d
m
) and P =
(p
1
. . . , p
m
)
T
, the bestﬁt line achieves the
min
n=1
d
2
= min
n=1
Pn −c1
2
. (3.15)
In equation (3.15), 1 is a vector of m ones.
3.5.2 The Best Line Fit
Since the third line parameter c does not appear in the constraint (3.13), at the minimum (3.15) we must have
∂d
2
∂c
= 0 . (3.16)
If we deﬁne the centroid p of all the points p
i
as
p =
1
m
P
T
1 ,
36 CHAPTER 3. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION
equation (3.16) yields
∂d
2
∂c
=
∂
∂c
_
n
T
P
T
−c1
T
_
(Pn −1c)
=
∂
∂c
_
n
T
P
T
Pn +c
2
1
T
1 −2n
T
P
T
c1
_
= 2
_
mc −n
T
P
T
1
_
= 0
from which we obtain
c =
1
m
n
T
P
T
1 ,
that is,
c = p
T
n .
By replacing this expression into equation (3.15), we obtain
min
n=1
d
2
= min
n=1
Pn −1p
T
n
2
= min
n=1
Qn
2
,
where Q = P − 1p
T
collects the centered coordinates of the m points. We can solve this constrained minimization
problem by theorem 3.4.1. Equivalently, and in order to emphasize the geometric meaning of signular values and
vectors, we can recall that if n is on a circle, the shortest vector of the form Qn is obtained when n is the right singular
vector v
2
corresponding to the smaller σ
2
of the two singular values of Q. Furthermore, since Qv
2
has norm σ
2
, the
residue is
min
n=1
d = σ
2
and more speciﬁcally the distances d
i
are given by
d = σ
2
u
2
where u
2
is the left singular vector corresponding to σ
2
. In fact, when n = v
2
, the SVD
Q = UΣV
T
=
2
i=1
σ
i
u
i
v
T
i
yields
Qn = Qv
2
=
2
i=1
σ
i
u
i
v
T
i
v
2
= σ
2
u
2
because v
1
and v
2
are orthonormal vectors.
To summarize, to ﬁt a line (a, b, c) to a set of m points p
i
collected in the m × 2 matrix P = (p
1
. . . , p
m
)
T
,
proceed as follows:
1. compute the centroid of the points (1 is a vector of m ones):
p =
1
m
P
T
1
2. form the matrix of centered coordinates:
Q = P −1p
T
3. compute the SVD of Q:
Q = UΣV
T
3.5. SVD LINE FITTING 37
4. the line normal is the second column of the 2 ×2 matrix V :
n = (a, b)
T
= v
2
,
5. the third coefﬁcient of the line is
c = p
T
n
6. the residue of the ﬁt is
min
n=1
d = σ
2
The following matlab code implements the line ﬁtting method.
function [l, residue] = linefit(P)
% check input matrix sizes
[m n] = size(P);
if n ˜= 2, error(’matrix P must be m x 2’), end
if m < 2, error(’Need at least two points’), end
one = ones(m, 1);
% centroid of all the points
p = (P’ * one) / m;
% matrix of centered coordinates
Q = P  one * p’;
[U Sigma V] = svd(Q);
% the line normal is the second column of V
n = V(:, 2);
% assemble the three line coefficients into a column vector
l = [n ; p’ * n];
% the smallest singular value of Q
% measures the residual fitting error
residue = Sigma(2, 2);
A useful exercise is to think how this procedure, or something close to it, can be adapted to ﬁt a set of data points
in R
m
with an afﬁne subspace of given dimension n. An afﬁne subspace is a linear subspace plus a point, just like an
arbitrary line is a line through the origin plus a point. Here “plus” means the following. Let L be a linear space. Then
an afﬁne space has the form
A = p +L = {a  a = p + l and l ∈ L} .
Hint: minimizing the distance between a point and a subspace is equivalent to maximizing the norm of the projection
of the point onto the subspace. The ﬁtting problem (including ﬁtting a line to a set of points) can be cast either as a
maximization or a minimization problem.
38 CHAPTER 3. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION
Chapter 4
Function Optimization
There are three main reasons why most problems in robotics, vision, and arguably every other science or endeavor
take on the form of optimization problems. One is that the desired goal may not be achievable, and so we try to get as
close as possible to it. The second reason is that there may be more ways to achieve the goal, and so we can choose
one by assigning a quality to all the solutions and selecting the best one. The third reason is that we may not know
how to solve the system of equations f(x) = 0, so instead we minimize the norm f(x), which is a scalar function of
the unknown vector x.
We have encountered the ﬁrst two situations when talking about linear systems. The case in which a linear system
admits exactly one exact solution is simple but rare. More often, the system at hand is either incompatible (some say
overconstrained) or, at the opposite end, underdetermined. In fact, some problems are both, in a sense. While these
problems admit no exact solution, they often admit a multitude of approximate solutions. In addition, many problems
lead to nonlinear equations.
Consider, for instance, the problem of Structure From Motion (SFM) in computer vision. Nonlinear equations
describe how points in the world project onto the images taken by cameras at given positions in space. Structure from
motion goes the other way around, and attempts to solve these equations: image points are given, and one wants to
determine where the points in the world and the cameras are. Because image points come from noisy measurements,
they are not exact, and the resulting system is usually incompatible. SFM is then cast as an optimization problem.
On the other hand, the exact system (the one with perfect coefﬁcients) is often close to being underdetermined. For
instance, the images may be insufﬁcient to recover a certain shape under a certain motion. Then, an additional criterion
must be added to deﬁne what a “good” solution is. In these cases, the noisy system admits no exact solutions, but has
many approximate ones.
The term “optimization” is meant to subsume both minimization and maximization. However, maximizing the
scalar function f(x) is the same as minimizing −f(x), so we consider optimization and minimization to be essentially
synonyms. Usually, one is after global minima. However, global minima are hard to ﬁnd, since they involve a universal
quantiﬁer: x
∗
is a global minimum of f if for every other x we have f(x) ≥ f(x
∗
). Global minization techniques
like simulated annealing have been proposed, but their convergence properties depend very strongly on the problem at
hand. In this chapter, we consider local minimization: we pick a starting point x
0
, and we descend in the landscape of
f(x) until we cannot go down any further. The bottom of the valley is a local minimum.
Local minimization is appropriate if we know how to pick an x
0
that is close to x
∗
. This occurs frequently in
feedback systems. In these systems, we start at a local (or even a global) minimum. The system then evolves and
escapes from the minimum. As soon as this occurs, a control signal is generated to bring the system back to the
minimum. Because of this immediate reaction, the old minimum can often be used as a starting point x
0
when looking
for the new minimum, that is, when computing the required control signal. More formally, we reach the correct
minimum x
∗
as long as the initial point x
0
is in the basin of attraction of x
∗
, deﬁned as the largest neighborhood of x
∗
in which f(x) is convex.
Good references for the discussion in this chapter are Matrix Computations, Practical Optimization, and Numerical
Recipes in C, all of which are listed with full citations in section 1.4.
39
40 CHAPTER 4. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION
4.1 Local Minimization and Steepest Descent
Suppose that we want to ﬁnd a local minimum for the scalar function f of the vector variable x, starting from an initial
point x
0
. Picking an appropriate x
0
is crucial, but also very problemdependent. We start from x
0
, and we go downhill.
At every step of the way, we must make the following decisions:
• Whether to stop.
• In what direction to proceed.
• How long a step to take.
In fact, most minimization algorithms have the following structure:
k = 0
while x
k
is not a minimum
compute step direction p
k
with p
k
= 1
compute step size α
k
x
k+1
= x
k
+α
k
p
k
k = k + 1
end.
Different algorithms differ in how each of these instructions is performed.
It is intuitively clear that the choice of the step size α
k
is important. Too small a step leads to slow convergence,
or even to lack of convergence altogether. Too large a step causes overshooting, that is, leaping past the solution. The
most disastrous consequence of this is that we may leave the basin of attraction, or that we oscillate back and forth
with increasing amplitudes, leading to instability. Even when oscillations decrease, they can slow down convergence
considerably.
What is less obvious is that the best direction of descent is not necessarily, and in fact is quite rarely, the direction
of steepest descent, as we now show. Consider a simple but important case,
f(x) = c + a
T
x +
1
2
x
T
Qx (4.1)
where Q is a symmetric, positive deﬁnite matrix. Positive deﬁnite means that for every nonzero x the quantity x
T
Qx
is positive. In this case, the graph of f(x) −c is a plane a
T
x plus a paraboloid.
Of course, if f were this simple, no descent methods would be necessary. In fact the minimum of f can be found
by setting its gradient to zero:
∂f
∂x
= a +Qx = 0
so that the minimum x
∗
is the solution to the linear system
Qx = −a . (4.2)
Since Q is positive deﬁnite, it is also invertible (why?), and the solution x
∗
is unique. However, understanding the
behavior of minimization algorithms in this simple case is crucial in order to establish the convergence properties of
these algorithms for more general functions. In fact, all smooth functions can be approximated by paraboloids in a
sufﬁciently small neighborhood of any point.
Let us therefore assume that we minimize f as given in equation (4.1), and that at every step we choose the
direction of steepest descent. In order to simplify the mathematics, we observe that if we let
˜ e(x) =
1
2
(x −x
∗
)
T
Q(x −x
∗
)
then we have
˜ e(x) = f(x) −c +
1
2
x
∗T
Qx
∗
= f(x) −f(x
∗
) (4.3)
4.1. LOCAL MINIMIZATION AND STEEPEST DESCENT 41
so that ˜ e and f differ only by a constant. In fact,
˜ e(x) =
1
2
(x
T
Qx + x
∗T
Qx
∗
−2x
T
Qx
∗
) =
1
2
x
T
Qx + a
T
x +
1
2
x
∗T
Qx
∗
= f(x) −c +
1
2
x
∗T
Qx
∗
and from equation (4.2) we obtain
f(x
∗
) = c + a
T
x
∗
+
1
2
x
∗T
Qx
∗
= c −x
∗T
Qx
∗
+
1
2
x
∗T
Qx
∗
= c −
1
2
x
∗T
Qx
∗
.
The result (4.3),
˜ e(x) = f(x) −f(x
∗
) ,
is rather interesting in itself. It says that adding a linear term a
T
x (and a constant c) to a paraboloid
1
2
x
T
Qx merely
shifts the bottom of the paraboloid, both in position (x
∗
rather than 0) and value (c −
1
2
x
∗T
Qx
∗
rather than zero).
Adding the linear term does not “warp” or “tilt” the shape of the paraboloid in any way.
Since ˜ e is simpler, we consider that we are minimizing ˜ e rather than f. In addition, we can let
y = x −x
∗
,
that is, we can shift the origin of the domain to x
∗
, and study the function
e(y) =
1
2
y
T
Qy
instead of f or ˜ e, without loss of generality. We will transform everything back to f and x once we are done. Of
course, by construction, the new minimum is at
y
∗
= 0
where e reaches a value of zero:
e(y
∗
) = e(0) = 0 .
However, we let our steepest descent algorithm ﬁnd this minimum by starting from the initial point
y
0
= x
0
−x
∗
.
At every iteration k, the algorithm chooses the direction of steepest descent, which is in the direction
p
k
= −
g
k
g
k
opposite to the gradient of e evaluated at y
k
:
g
k
= g(y
k
) =
∂e
∂y
¸
¸
¸
¸
y=y
k
= Qy
k
.
We select for the algorithm the most favorable step size, that is, the one that takes us from y
k
to the lowest point in
the direction of p
k
. This can be found by differentiating the function
e(y
k
+αp
k
) =
1
2
(y
k
+αp
k
)
T
Q(y
k
+αp
k
)
with respect to α, and setting the derivative to zero to obtain the optimal step α
k
. We have
∂e(y
k
+αp
k
)
∂α
= (y
k
+αp
k
)
T
Qp
k
and setting this to zero yields
α
k
= −
(Qy
k
)
T
p
k
p
T
k
Qp
k
= −
g
T
k
p
k
p
T
k
Qp
k
= g
k
p
T
k
p
k
p
T
k
Qp
k
= g
k
g
T
k
g
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
. (4.4)
42 CHAPTER 4. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION
Thus, the basic step of our steepest descent can be written as follows:
y
k+1
= y
k
+g
k
g
T
k
g
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
p
k
that is,
y
k+1
= y
k
−
g
T
k
g
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
g
k
. (4.5)
How much closer did this step bring us to the solution y
∗
= 0? In other words, how much smaller is e(y
k+1
),
relative to the value e(y
k
) at the previous step? The answer is, often not much, as we shall now prove. The arguments
and proofs below are adapted from D. G. Luenberger, Introduction to Linear and Nonlinear Programming, Addison
Wesley, 1973.
From the deﬁnition of e and from equation (4.5) we obtain
e(y
k
) −e(y
k+1
)
e(y
k
)
=
y
T
k
Qy
k
−y
T
k+1
Qy
k+1
y
T
k
Qy
k
=
y
T
k
Qy
k
−
_
y
k
−
g
T
k
g
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
g
k
_
T
Q
_
y
k
−
g
T
k
g
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
g
k
_
y
T
k
Qy
k
=
2
g
T
k
g
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
g
T
k
Qy
k
−
_
g
T
k
g
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
_
2
g
T
k
Qg
k
y
T
k
Qy
k
=
2g
T
k
g
k
g
T
k
Qy
k
−(g
T
k
g
k
)
2
y
T
k
Qy
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
.
Since Q is invertible we have
g
k
= Qy
k
⇒ y
k
= Q
−1
g
k
and
y
T
k
Qy
k
= g
T
k
Q
−1
g
k
so that
e(y
k
) −e(y
k+1
)
e(y
k
)
=
(g
T
k
g
k
)
2
g
T
k
Q
−1
g
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
.
This can be rewritten as follows by rearranging terms:
e(y
k+1
) =
_
1 −
(g
T
k
g
k
)
2
g
T
k
Q
−1
g
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
_
e(y
k
) (4.6)
so if we can bound the expression in parentheses we have a bound on the rate of convergence of steepest descent. To
this end, we introduce the following result.
Lemma 4.1.1 (Kantorovich inequality) Let Qbe a positive deﬁnite, symmetric, n×n matrix. For any vector y there
holds
(y
T
y)
2
y
T
Q
−1
y y
T
Qy
≥
4σ
1
σ
n
(σ
1
+σ
n
)
2
where σ
1
and σ
n
are, respectively, the largest and smallest singular values of Q.
4.1. LOCAL MINIMIZATION AND STEEPEST DESCENT 43
Proof. Let
Q = UΣU
T
be the singular value decomposition of the symmetric (hence V = U) matrix Q. Because Q is positive deﬁnite, all its
singular values are strictly positive, since the smallest of them satisﬁes
σ
n
= min
y=1
y
T
Qy > 0
by the deﬁnition of positive deﬁniteness. If we let
z = U
T
y
we have
(y
T
y)
2
y
T
Q
−1
y y
T
Qy
=
(y
T
U
T
Uy)
2
y
T
UΣ
−1
U
T
y y
T
UΣU
T
y
=
(z
T
z)
2
z
T
Σ
−1
z z
T
Σz
=
1/
n
i=1
θ
i
σ
i
n
i=1
θ
i
/σ
i
=
φ(σ)
ψ(σ)
(4.7)
where the coefﬁcients
θ
i
=
z
2
i
z
2
add up to one. If we let
σ =
n
i=1
θ
i
σ
i
, (4.8)
then the numerator φ(σ) in (4.7) is 1/σ. Of course, there are many ways to choose the coefﬁcients θ
i
to obtain a
particular value of σ. However, each of the singular values σ
j
can be obtained by letting θ
j
= 1 and all other θ
i
to
zero. Thus, the values 1/σ
j
for j = 1, . . . , n are all on the curve 1/σ. The denominator ψ(σ) in (4.7) is a convex
combination of points on this curve. Since 1/σ is a convex function of σ, the values of the denominator ψ(σ) of (4.7)
must be in the shaded area in ﬁgure 4.1. This area is delimited from above by the straight line that connects point
(σ
1
, 1/σ
1
) with point (σ
n
, 1/σ
n
), that is, by the line with ordinate
λ(σ) = (σ
1
+σ
n
−σ)/(σ
1
σ
n
) .
For the same vector of coefﬁcients θ
i
, the values of φ(σ), ψ(σ), and λ(σ) are on the vertical line corresponding to
the value of σ given by (4.8). Thus an appropriate bound is
φ(σ)
ψ(σ)
≥ min
σ
1
≤σ≤σ
n
φ(σ)
λ(σ)
= min
σ
1
≤σ≤σ
n
1/σ
(σ
1
+σ
n
−σ)/(σ
1
σ
n
)
.
The minimum is achieved at σ = (σ
1
+σ
n
)/2, yielding the desired result. ∆
Thanks to this lemma, we can state the main result on the convergence of the method of steepest descent.
Theorem 4.1.2 Let
f(x) = c + a
T
x +
1
2
x
T
Qx
be a quadratic function of x, with Q symmetric and positive deﬁnite. For any x
0
, the method of steepest descent
x
k+1
= x
k
−
g
T
k
g
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
g
k
(4.9)
where
g
k
= g(x
k
) =
∂f
∂x
¸
¸
¸
¸
x=x
k
= a +Qx
k
44 CHAPTER 4. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION
σ
2 1
σ σ σ
n
λ(σ)
φ(σ)
ψ(σ)
φ,ψ,λ
σ
Figure 4.1: Kantorovich inequality.
converges to the unique minimum point
x
∗
= −Q
−1
a
of f. Furthermore, at every step k there holds
f(x
k+1
) −f(x
∗
) ≤
_
σ
1
−σ
n
σ
1
+σ
n
_
2
(f(x
k
) −f(x
∗
))
where σ
1
and σ
n
are, respectively, the largest and smallest singular value of Q.
Proof. From the deﬁnitions
y = x −x
∗
and e(y) =
1
2
y
T
Qy (4.10)
we immediately obtain the expression for steepest descent in terms of f and x. By equations (4.3) and (4.6) and the
Kantorovich inequality we obtain
f(x
k+1
) −f(x
∗
) = e(y
k+1
) =
_
1 −
(g
T
k
g
k
)
2
g
T
k
Q
−1
g
k
g
T
k
Qg
k
_
e(y
k
) ≤
_
1 −
4σ
1
σ
n
(σ
1
+σ
n
)
2
_
e(y
k
) (4.11)
=
_
σ
1
−σ
n
σ
1
+σ
n
_
2
(f(x
k
) −f(x
∗
)) . (4.12)
Since the ratio in the last term is smaller than one, it follows immediately that f(x
k
) − f(x
∗
) → 0 and hence, since
the minimum of f is unique, that x
k
→x
∗
. ∆
The ratio κ(Q) = σ
1
/σ
n
is called the condition number of Q. The larger the condition number, the closer the
fraction (σ
1
− σ
n
)/(σ
1
+ σ
n
) is to unity, and the slower convergence. It is easily seen why this happens in the case
4.1. LOCAL MINIMIZATION AND STEEPEST DESCENT 45
p
0
x
*
x
0 1
p
Figure 4.2: Trajectory of steepest descent.
in which x is a twodimensional vector, as in ﬁgure 4.2, which shows the trajectory x
k
superimposed on a set of
isocontours of f(x).
There is one good, but very precarious case, namely, when the starting point x
0
is at one apex (tip of either axis)
of an isocontour ellipse. In that case, one iteration will lead to the minimum x
∗
. In all other cases, the line in the
direction p
k
of steepest descent, which is orthogonal to the isocontour at x
k
, will not pass through x
∗
. The minimum
of f along that line is tangent to some other, lower isocontour. The next step is orthogonal to the latter isocontour (that
is, parallel to the gradient). Thus, at every step the steepest descent trajectory is forced to make a ninetydegree turn.
If isocontours were circles (σ
1
= σ
n
) centered at x
∗
, then the ﬁrst turn would make the new direction point to x
∗
, and
minimization would get there in just one more step. This case, in which κ(Q) = 1, is consistent with our analysis,
because then
σ
1
−σ
n
σ
1
+σ
n
= 0 .
The more elongated the isocontours, that is, the greater the condition number κ(Q), the farther away a line orthogonal
to an isocontour passes from x
∗
, and the more steps are required for convergence.
For general (that is, nonquadratic) f, the analysis above applies once x
k
gets close enough to the minimum, so
that f is well approximated by a paraboloid. In this case, Q is the matrix of second derivatives of f with respect to x,
and is called the Hessian of f. In summary, steepest descent is good for functions that have a well conditioned Hessian
near the minimum, but can become arbitrarily slow for poorly conditioned Hessians.
To characterize the speed of convergence of different minimization algorithms, we introduce the notion of the
order of convergence. This is deﬁned as the largest value of q for which the
lim
k→∞
x
k+1
−x
∗
x
k
−x
∗
q
is ﬁnite. If β is this limit, then close to the solution (that is, for large values of k) we have
x
k+1
−x
∗
≈ βx
k
−x
∗
q
for a minimization method of order q. In other words, the distance of x
k
from x
∗
is reduced by the qth power at every
step, so the higher the order of convergence, the better. Theorem 4.1.2 implies that steepest descent has at best a linear
order of convergence. In fact, the residuals f(x
k
) − f(x
∗
) in the values of the function being minimized converge
46 CHAPTER 4. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION
linearly. Since the gradient of f approaches zero when x
k
tends to x
∗
, the arguments x
k
to f can converge to x
∗
even
more slowly.
To complete the steepest descent algorithm we need to specify how to check whether a minimum has been reached.
One criterion is to check whether the value of f(x
k
) has signiﬁcantly decreased from f(x
k−1
). Another is to check
whether x
k
is signiﬁcantly different from x
k−1
. Close to the minimum, the derivatives of f are close to zero, so
f(x
k
) − f(x
k−1
) may be very small but x
k
− x
k−1
may still be relatively large. Thus, the check on x
k
is more
stringent, and therefore preferable in most cases. In fact, usually one is interested in the value of x
∗
, rather than in that
of f(x
∗
). In summary, the steepest descent algorithm can be stopped when
x
k
−x
k−1
<
where the positive constant is provided by the user.
In our analysis of steepest descent, we used the Hessian Qin order to compute the optimal step size α (see equation
(4.4)). We used Qbecause it was available, but its computation during steepest descent would in general be overkill. In
fact, only gradient information is necessary to ﬁnd p
k
, and a line search in the direction of p
k
can be used to determine
the step size α
k
. In contrast, the Hessian of f(x) requires computing
_
n
2
_
second derivatives if x is an ndimensional
vector.
Using line search to ﬁnd α
k
guarantees that a minimum in the direction p
k
is actually reached even when the
parabolic approximation is inadequate. Here is how line search works.
Let
h(α) = f(x
k
+αp
k
) (4.13)
be the scalar function of one variable that is obtained by restricting the function f to the line through the current point
x
k
and in the direction of p
k
. Line search ﬁrst determines two points a, c that bracket the desired minimum α
k
, in the
sense that a ≤ α
k
≤ c, and then picks a point between a and c, say, b = (a + c)/2. The only difﬁculty here is to
ﬁnd c. In fact, we can set a = 0, corresponding through equation (4.13) to the starting point x
k
. A point c that is on
the opposite side of the minimum with respect to a can be found by increasing α through values α
1
= a, α
2
, . . . until
h(α
i
) is greater than h(α
i−1
). Then, if we can assume that h is convex between α
1
and α
i
, we can set c = α
i
. In
fact, the derivative of h at a is negative, so the function is initially decreasing, but it is increasing between α
i−1
and
α
i
= c, so the minimum must be somewhere between a and c. Of course, if we cannot assume convexity, we may ﬁnd
the wrong minimum, but there is no generalpurpose ﬁx to this problem.
Line search now proceeds by shrinking the bracketing triple (a, b, c) until c−a is smaller than the desired accuracy
in determining α
k
. Shrinking works as follows:
if b −a > c −b
u = (a +b)/2
if f(u) > f(b)
(a, b, c) = (u, b, c)
otherwise
(a, b, c) = (a, u, b)
end
otherwise
u = (b +c)/2
if f(u) > f(b)
(a, b, c) = (a, b, u)
otherwise
(a, b, c) = (b, u, c)
end
end.
4.2. NEWTON’S METHOD 47
It is easy to see that in each case the bracketing triple (a, b, c) preserves the property that f(b) ≤ f(a) and
f(b) ≤ f(c), and therefore the minimum is somewhere between a and c. In addition, at every step the interval (a, c)
shrinks to 3/4 of its previous size, so line search will ﬁnd the minimum in a number of steps that is logarithmic in the
desired accuracy.
4.2 Newton’s Method
If a function can be well approximated by a paraboloid in the region in which minimization is performed, the analysis
in the previous section suggests a straightforward ﬁx to the slow convergence of steepest descent. In fact, equation
(4.2) tells us how to jump in one step from the starting point x
0
to the minimum x
∗
. Of course, when f(x) is not
exactly a paraboloid, the new value x
1
will be different from x
∗
. Consequently, iterations are needed, but convergence
can be expected to be faster. This is the idea of Newton’s method, which we now summarize. Let
f(x
k
+ ∆x) ≈ f(x
k
) + g
T
k
∆x +
1
2
∆x
T
Q
k
∆x (4.14)
be the ﬁrst terms of the Taylor series expansion of f about the current point x
k
, where
g
k
= g(x
k
) =
∂f
∂x
¸
¸
¸
¸
x=x
k
and
Q
k
= Q(x
k
) =
∂
2
f
∂x∂x
T
¸
¸
¸
¸
x=x
k
=
_
¸
¸
_
∂
2
f
∂x
2
1
· · ·
∂
2
f
∂x1∂xn
.
.
.
.
.
.
∂
2
f
∂xn∂x1
· · ·
∂
2
f
∂x
2
n
_
¸
¸
_
x=x
k
are the gradient and Hessian of f evaluated at the current point x
k
. Notice that even when f is a paraboloid, the
gradient g
k
is different from a as used in equation (4.1). In fact, a and Q are the coefﬁcients of the Taylor expansion
of f around point x = 0, while g
k
and Q
k
are the coefﬁcients of the Taylor expansion of f around the current point
x
k
. In other words, gradient and Hessian are constantly reevaluated in Newton’s method.
To the extent that approximation (4.14) is valid, we can set the derivatives of f(x
k
+ ∆x) with respect to ∆x to
zero, and obtain, analogously to equation (4.2), the linear system
Q
k
∆x = −g
k
, (4.15)
whose solution ∆x
k
= α
k
p
k
yields at the same time the step direction p
k
= ∆x
k
/∆x
k
and the step size α
k
=
∆x
k
. The direction is of course undeﬁned once the algorithm has reached a minimum, that is, when α
k
= 0.
A minimization algorithm in which the step direction p
k
and size α
k
are deﬁned in this manner is called Newton’s
method. The corresponding p
k
is termed the Newton direction, and the step deﬁned by equation (4.15) is the Newton
step.
The greater speed of Newton’s method over steepest descent is borne out by analysis: while steepest descent has a
linear order of convergence, Newton’s method is quadratic. In fact, let
y(x) = x −Q(x)
−1
g(x)
be the place reached by a Newton step starting at x (see equation (4.15)), and suppose that at the minimum x
∗
the
Hessian Q(x
∗
) is nonsingular. Then
y(x
∗
) = x
∗
because g(x
∗
) = 0, and
x
k+1
−x
∗
= y(x
k
) −x
∗
= y(x
k
) −y(x
∗
) .
48 CHAPTER 4. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION
From the meanvalue theorem, we have
x
k+1
−x
∗
= y(x
k
) −y(x
∗
) ≤
_
_
_
_
_
∂y
∂x
T
_
x=x
∗
(x
k
−x
∗
)
_
_
_
_
+
1
2
¸
¸
¸
¸
∂
2
y
∂x∂x
T
¸
¸
¸
¸
x=
ˆ
x
x
k
−x
∗
2
where ˆx is some point on the line between x
∗
and x
k
. Since y(x
∗
) = x
∗
, the ﬁrst derivatives of y at x
∗
are zero, so that
the ﬁrst term in the righthand side above vanishes, and
x
k+1
−x
∗
≤ c x
k
−x
∗
2
where c depends on thirdorder derivatives of f near x
∗
. Thus, the convergence rate of Newton’s method is of order at
least two.
For a quadratic function, as in equation (4.1), steepest descent takes many steps to converge, while Newton’s
method reaches the minimum in one step. However, this single iteration in Newton’s method is more expensive,
because it requires both the gradient g
k
and the Hessian Q
k
to be evaluated, for a total of n +
_
n
2
_
derivatives. In
addition, the Hessian must be inverted, or, at least, system (4.15) must be solved. For very large problems, in which
the dimension n of x is thousands or more, storing and manipulating a Hessian can be prohibitive. In contrast, steepest
descent requires the gradient g
k
for selecting the step direction p
k
, and a line search in the direction p
k
to ﬁnd the
step size. The method of conjugate gradients, discussed in the next section, is motivated by the desire to accelerate
convergence with respect to the steepest descent method, but without paying the storage cost of Newton’s method.
4.3 Conjugate Gradients
Newton’s method converges faster (quadratically) than steepest descent (linear convergence rate) because it uses more
information about the function f being minimized. Steepest descent locally approximates the function with planes,
because it only uses gradient information. All it can do is to go downhill. Newton’s method approximates f with
paraboloids, and then jumps at every iteration to the lowest point of the current approximation. The bottom line is that
fast convergence requires work that is equivalent to evaluating the Hessian of f.
Prima facie, the method of conjugate gradients discussed in this section seems to violate this principle: it achieves
fast, superlinear convergence, similarly to Newton’s method, but it only requires gradient information. This paradox,
however, is only apparent. Conjugate gradients works by taking n steps for each of the steps in Newton’s method.
It effectively solves the linear system (4.2) of Newton’s method, but it does so by a sequence of n onedimensional
minimizations, each requiring one gradient computation and one line search.
Overall, the work done by conjugate gradients is equivalent to that done by Newton’s method. However, system
(4.2) is never constructed explicitly, and the matrix Q is never stored. This is very important in cases where x has
thousands or even millions of components. These highdimensional problems arise typically from the discretization
of partial differential equations. Say for instance that we want to compute the motion of points in an image as a
consequence of camera motion. Partial differential equations relate image intensities over space and time to the motion
of the underlying image features. At every pixel in the image, this motion, called the motion ﬁeld, is represented by
a vector whose magnitude and direction describe the velocity of the image feature at that pixel. Thus, if an image
has, say, a quarter of a million pixels, there are n = 500, 000 unknown motion ﬁeld values. Storing and inverting a
500, 000 ×500, 000 Hessian is out of the question. In cases like these, conjugate gradients saves the day.
The conjugate gradients method described in these notes is the socalled PolakRibi` ere variation. It will be intro
duced in three steps. First, it will be developed for the simple case of minimizing a quadratic function with positive
deﬁnite and known Hessian. This quadratic function f(x) was introduced in equation (4.1). We know that in this case
minimizing f(x) is equivalent to solving the linear system (4.2). Rather than an iterative method, conjugate gradients
is a direct method for the quadratic case. This means that the number of iterations is ﬁxed. Speciﬁcally, the method
converges to the solution in n steps, where n is the number of components of x. Because of the equivalence with
a linear system, conjugate gradients for the quadratic case can also be seen as an alternative method for solving a
linear system, although the version presented here will only work if the matrix of the system is symmetric and positive
deﬁnite.
4.3. CONJUGATE GRADIENTS 49
Second, the assumption that the Hessian Q in expression (4.1) is known will be removed. As discussed above, this
is the main reason for using conjugate gradients.
Third, the conjugate gradients method will be extended to general functions f(x). In this case, the method is no
longer direct, but iterative, and the cost of ﬁnding the minimum depends on the desired accuracy. This occurs because
the Hessian of f is no longer a constant, as it was in the quadratic case. As a consequence, a certain property that holds
in the quadratic case is now valid only approximately. In spite of this, the convergence rate of conjugate gradients is
superlinear, somewhere between Newton’s method and steepest descent. Finding tight bounds for the convergence rate
of conjugate gradients is hard, and we will omit this proof. We rely instead on the intuition that conjugate gradients
solves system (4.2), and that the quadratic approximation becomes more and more valid as the algorithm converges
to the minimum. If the function f starts to behave like a quadratic function early, that is, if f is nearly quadratic in a
large neighborhood of the minimum, convergence is fast, as it requires close to the n steps that are necessary in the
quadratic case, and each of the steps is simple. This combination of fast convergence, modest storage requirements,
and low computational cost per iteration explains the popularity of conjugate gradients methods for the optimization
of functions of a large number of variables.
4.3.1 The Quadratic Case
Suppose that we want to minimize the quadratic function
f(x) = c + a
T
x +
1
2
x
T
Qx (4.16)
where Q is a symmetric, positive deﬁnite matrix, and x has n components. As we saw in our discussion of steepest
descent, the minimum x
∗
is the solution to the linear system
Qx = −a . (4.17)
We know how to solve such a system. However, all the methods we have seen so far involve explicit manipulation
of the matrix Q. We now consider an alternative solution method that does not need Q, but only the quantity
g
k
= Qx
k
+ a
that is, the gradient of f(x), evaluated at n different points x
1
, . . . , x
n
. We will see that the conjugate gradients method
requires n gradient evaluations and n line searches in lieu of each n ×n matrix inversion in Newton’s method.
Formal proofs can be found in Elijah Polak, Optimization — Algorithms and consistent approximations, Springer,
NY, 1997. The arguments offered below appeal to intuition.
Consider the case n = 3, in which the variable x in f(x) is a threedimensional vector. Then the quadratic function
f(x) is constant over ellipsoids, called isosurfaces, centered at the minimum x
∗
. How can we start from a point x
0
on one of these ellipsoids and reach x
∗
by a ﬁnite sequence of onedimensional searches? In connection with steepest
descent, we noticed that for poorly conditioned Hessians orthogonal directions lead to many small steps, that is, to
slow convergence.
When the ellipsoids are spheres, on the other hand, this works much better. The ﬁrst step takes from x
0
to x
1
, and
the line between x
0
and x
1
is tangent to an isosurface at x
1
. The next step is in the direction of the gradient, so that
the new direction p
1
is orthogonal to the previous direction p
0
. This would then take us to x
∗
right away. Suppose
however that we cannot afford to compute this special direction p
1
orthogonal to p
0
, but that we can only compute
some direction p
1
orthogonal to p
0
(there is an n − 1dimensional space of such directions!). It is easy to see that in
that case n steps will take us to x
∗
. In fact, since isosurfaces are spheres, each line minimization is independent of the
others: The ﬁrst step yields the minimum in the space spanned by p
0
, the second step then yields the minimum in the
space spanned by p
0
and p
1
, and so forth. After n steps we must be done, since p
0
. . . , p
n−1
span the whole space.
In summary, any set of orthogonal directions, with a line search in each direction, will lead to the minimum for
spherical isosurfaces. Given an arbitrary set of ellipsoidal isosurfaces, there is a onetoone mapping with a spherical
system: if Q = UΣU
T
is the SVD of the symmetric, positive deﬁnite matrix Q, then we can write
1
2
x
T
Qx =
1
2
y
T
y
50 CHAPTER 4. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION
where
y = Σ
1/2
U
T
x . (4.18)
Consequently, there must be a condition for the original problem (in terms of Q) that is equivalent to orthogonality for
the spherical problem. If two directions q
i
and q
j
are orthogonal in the spherical context, that is, if
q
T
i
q
j
= 0 ,
what does this translate into in terms of the directions p
i
and p
j
for the ellipsoidal problem? We have
q
i,j
= Σ
1/2
U
T
p
i,j
,
so that orthogonality for q
i,j
becomes
p
T
i
UΣ
1/2
Σ
1/2
U
T
p
j
= 0
or
p
T
i
Qp
j
= 0 . (4.19)
This condition is called Qconjugacy, or Qorthogonality: if equation (4.19) holds, then p
i
and p
j
are said to be
Qconjugate or Qorthogonal to each other. We will henceforth simply say “conjugate” for brevity.
In summary, if we can ﬁnd n directions p
0
, . . . , p
n−1
that are mutually conjugate, and if we do line minimization
along each direction p
k
, we reach the minimum in at most n steps. Of course, we cannot use the transformation (4.18)
in the algorithm, because Σ and especially U
T
are too large. So now we need to ﬁnd a method for generating n
conjugate directions without using either Q or its SVD. We do this in two steps. First, we ﬁnd conjugate directions
whose deﬁnitions do involve Q. Then, in the next subsection, we rewrite these expressions without Q.
Here is the procedure, due to Hestenes and Stiefel (Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems, J.
Res. Bureau National Standards, section B, Vol 49, pp. 409436, 1952), which also incorporates the steps from x
0
to
x
n
:
g
0
= g(x
0
)
p
0
= −g
0
for k = 0 . . . , n −1
α
k
= arg min
α≥0
f(x
k
+αp
k
)
x
k+1
= x
k
+α
k
p
k
g
k+1
= g(x
k+1
)
γ
k
=
g
T
k+1
Qp
k
p
T
k
Qp
k
p
k+1
= −g
k+1
+γ
k
p
k
end
where
g
k
= g(x
k
) =
∂f
∂x
¸
¸
¸
¸
x=x
k
is the gradient of f at x
k
.
It is simple to see that p
k
and p
k+1
are conjugate. In fact,
p
T
k
Qp
k+1
= p
T
k
Q(−g
k+1
+γ
k
p
k
)
= −p
T
k
Qg
k+1
+
g
T
k+1
Qp
k
p
T
k
Qp
k
p
T
k
Qp
k
= −p
T
k
Qg
k+1
+ g
T
k+1
Qp
k
= 0 .
It is somewhat more cumbersome to show that p
i
and p
k+1
for i = 0, . . . , k are also conjugate. This can be done by
induction. The proof is based on the observation that the vectors p
k
are found by a generalization of GramSchmidt
(theorem 2.4.2) to produce conjugate rather than orthogonal vectors. Details can be found in Polak’s book mentioned
earlier.
4.3. CONJUGATE GRADIENTS 51
4.3.2 Removing the Hessian
The algorithm shown in the previous subsection is a correct conjugate gradients algorithm. However, it is computa
tionally inadequate because the expression for γ
k
contains the Hessian Q, which is too large. We now show that γ
k
can be rewritten in terms of the gradient values g
k
and g
k+1
only. To this end, we notice that
g
k+1
= g
k
+α
k
Qp
k
,
or
α
k
Qp
k
= g
k+1
−g
k
.
In fact,
g(x) = a +Qx
so that
g
k+1
= g(x
k+1
) = g(x
k
+α
k
p
k
) = a +Q(x
k
+α
k
p
k
) = g
k
+α
k
Qp
k
.
We can therefore write
γ
k
=
g
T
k+1
Qp
k
p
T
k
Qp
k
=
g
T
k+1
α
k
Qp
k
p
T
k
α
k
Qp
k
=
g
T
k+1
(g
k+1
−g
k
)
p
T
k
(g
k+1
−g
k
)
,
and Q has disappeared.
This expression for γ
k
can be further simpliﬁed by noticing that
p
T
k
g
k+1
= 0
because the line along p
k
is tangent to an isosurface at x
k+1
, while the gradient g
k+1
is orthogonal to the isosurface at
x
k+1
. Similarly,
p
T
k−1
g
k
= 0 .
Then, the denominator of γ
k
becomes
p
T
k
(g
k+1
−g
k
) = −p
T
k
g
k
= (g
k
−γ
k−1
p
k−1
)
T
g
k
= g
T
k
g
k
.
In conclusion, we obtain the PolakRibi` ere formula
γ
k
=
g
T
k+1
(g
k+1
−g
k
)
g
T
k
g
k
.
4.3.3 Extension to General Functions
We now know how to minimize the quadratic function (4.16) in n steps, without ever constructing the Hessian explic
itly. When the function f(x) is arbitrary, the same algorithm can be used.
However, n iterations will not sufﬁce. In fact, the Hessian, which was constant for the quadratic case, now is a
function of x
k
. Strictly speaking, we then lose conjugacy, since p
k
and p
k+1
are associated to different Hessians.
However, as the algorithm approaches the minimum x
∗
, the quadratic approximation becomes more and more valid,
and a few cycles of n iterations each will achieve convergence.
52 CHAPTER 4. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION
Chapter 5
Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors
Given a linear transformation
b = Ax ,
the singular value decomposition A = UΣV
T
of A transforms the domain of the transformation via the matrix V
T
and its range via the matrix U
T
so that the transformed system is diagonal. In fact, the equation b = UΣV
T
x can be
written as follows
U
T
b = ΣV
T
x ,
that is,
c = Σy
where
y = V
T
x and c = U
T
b ,
and where Σ is diagonal. This is a fundamental transformation to use whenever the domain and the range of A are
separate spaces. Often, however, domain and range are intimately related to one another even independently of the
transformation A. The most important example is perhaps that of a system of linear differential equations, of the form
˙ x = Ax
where Ais n×n. For this equation, the fact that Ais square is not a coincidence. In fact, x is assumed to be a function
of some real scalar variable t (often time), and ˙ x is the derivative of x with respect to t:
˙ x =
dx
dt
.
In other words, there is an intimate, preexisting relation between x and ˙ x, and one cannot change coordinates for x
without also changing those for ˙ x accordingly. In fact, if V is an orthogonal matrix and we deﬁne
y = V
T
x ,
then the deﬁnition of ˙ x forces us to transform ˙ x by V
T
as well:
d V
T
x
dt
= V
T
dx
dt
= V
T
˙ x .
In brief, the SVD does nothing useful for systems of linear differential equations, because it diagonalizes Aby two
different transformations, one for the domain and one for the range, while we need a single transformation. Ideally,
we would like to ﬁnd an orthogonal matrix S and a diagonal matrix Λ such that
A = SΛS
T
(5.1)
53
54 CHAPTER 5. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS
so that if we deﬁne
y = S
T
x
we can write the equivalent but diagonal differential system
˙ y = Λy .
This is now much easier to handle, because it is a system of n independent, scalar differential equations, which can be
solved separately. The solutions can then be recombined through
x = Sy .
We will see all of this in greater detail soon.
Unfortunately, writing A in the form (5.1) is not always possible. This stands to reason, because now we are
imposing stronger constraints on the terms of the decomposition. It is like doing an SVD but with the additional
constraint U = V . If we refer back to ﬁgure 3.1, now the circle and the ellipse live in the same space, and the
constraint U = V implies that the vectors v
i
on the circle that map into the axes σ
i
u
i
of the ellipse are parallel to the
axes themselves. This will only occur for very special matrices.
In order to make a decomposition like (5.1) possible, we weaken the constraints in several ways:
• the elements of S and Λ are allowed to be complex, rather than real;
• the elements on the diagonal of Λ are allowed to be negative; in fact, they can be even nonreal;
• S is required to be only invertible, rather than orthogonal.
To distinguish invertible from orthogonal matrices we use the symbol Q for invertible and S for orthogonal. In some
cases, it will be possible to diagonalize A by orthogonal transformations S and S
T
. Finally, for complex matrices we
generalize the notion of transpose by introducing the Hermitian operator: The matrix Q
H
(pronounced “QHermitian”)
is deﬁned to be the complex conjugate of the transpose of Q. If Q happens to be real, conjugate transposition becomes
simply transposition, so the Hermitian is a generalization of the transpose. A matrix S is said to be unitary if
S
H
S = SS
H
= I ,
so unitary generalizes orthogonal for complex matrices. Unitary matrices merely rotate or ﬂip vectors, in the sense
that they do not alter the vectors’ norms. For complex vectors, the norm squared is deﬁned as
x
2
= x
H
x ,
and if S is unitary we have
Sx
2
= x
H
S
H
Sx = x
H
x = x
2
.
Furthermore, if x
1
and x
2
are mutually orthogonal, in the sense that
x
H
1
x
2
= 0 ,
then Sx
1
and Sx
2
are orthogonal as well:
x
H
1
S
H
Sx
2
= x
H
1
x
2
= 0 .
In contrast, a nonunitary transformation Q can change the norms of vectors, as well as the inner products between
vectors. A matrix that is equal to its Hermitian is called a Hermitian matrix.
In summary, in order to diagonalize a square matrix A from a system of linear differential equations we generally
look for a decomposition of A of the form
A = QΛQ
−1
(5.2)
55
where Q and Λ are complex, Q is invertible, and Λ is diagonal. For some special matrices, this may specialize to
A = SΛS
H
with unitary S.
Whenever two matrices A and B, diagonal or not, are related by
A = QBQ
−1
,
they are said to be similar to each other, and the transformation of B into A (and vice versa) is called a similarity
transformation.
The equation A = QΛQ
−1
can be rewritten as follows:
AQ = QΛ
or separately for every column of Q as follows:
Aq
i
= λ
i
q
i
(5.3)
where
Q =
_
q
1
· · · q
n
¸
and Λ = diag(λ
1
, . . . , λ
n
) .
Thus, the columns of q
i
of Q and the diagonal entries λ
i
of Λ are solutions of the eigenvalue/eigenvector equation
Ax = λx , (5.4)
which is how eigenvalues and eigenvectors are usually introduced. In contrast, we have derived this equation from the
requirement of diagonalizing a matrix by a similarity transformation. The columns of Q are called eigenvectors, and
the diagonal entries of Λ are called eigenvalues.
−2 −1 0 1 2
−2
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Figure 5.1: Effect of the transformation (5.5) on a sample of points on the unit circle. The dashed lines are vectors that
do not change direction under the transformation.
That real eigenvectors and eigenvalues do not always exist can be clariﬁed by considering the eigenvalue problem
from a geometrical point of view in the n = 2 case. As we know, an invertible linear transformation transforms the
unit circle into an ellipse. Each point on the unit circle is transformed into some point on the ellipse. Figure 5.1 shows
the effect of the transformation represented by the matrix
A =
_
2/3 4/
√
3
0 2
_
(5.5)
56 CHAPTER 5. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS
for a sample of points on the unit circle. Notice that there are many transformations that map the unit circle into the
same ellipse. In fact, the circle in ﬁgure 5.1 can be rotated, pulling the solid lines along. Each rotation yields another
matrix A, but the resulting ellipse is unchanged. In other words, the curvetocurve transformation from circle to
ellipse is unique, but the pointtopoint transformation is not. Matrices represent pointtopoint transformations.
The eigenvalue problem amounts to ﬁnding axes q
1
, q
2
that are mapped into themselves by the original transfor
mation A (see equation (5.3)). In ﬁgure 5.1, the two eigenvectors are shown as dashed lines. Notice that they do not
correspond to the axes of the ellipse, and that they are not orthogonal. Equation (5.4) is homogeneous in x, so x can
be assumed to be a unit vector without loss of generality.
Given that the directions of the input vectors are generally changed by the transformation A, as evident from ﬁgure
5.1, it is not obvious whether the eigenvalue problem admits a solution at all. We will see that the answer depends
on the matrix A, and that a rather diverse array of situations may arise. In some cases, the eigenvalues and their
eigenvectors exist, but they are complex. The geometric intuition is hidden, and the problem is best treated as an
algebraic one. In other cases, all eigenvalues exist, perhaps all real, but not enough eigenvectors can be found, and the
matrix A cannot be diagonalized. In particularly good cases, there are n real, orthonormal eigenvectors. In bad cases,
we have to give up the idea of diagonalizing A, and we can only triangularize it. This turns out to be good enough for
solving linear differential systems, just as triangularization was sufﬁcient for solving linear algebraic systems.
5.1 Computing Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors Algebraically
Let us rewrite the eigenvalue equation
Ax = λx
as follows:
(A−λI)x = 0 . (5.6)
This is a homogeneous, square system of equations, which admits nontrivial solutions iff the matrix A − λI is rank
deﬁcient. A square matrix B is rankdeﬁcient iff its determinant,
det(B) =
_
b
11
if B is 1 ×1
n
i=1
(−1)
i+1
b
i1
det(B
i1
) otherwise
is zero. In this expression, B
ij
is the algebraic complement of entry b
ij
, deﬁned as the (n − 1) × (n − 1) matrix
obtained by removing row i and column j from B.
Volumes have been written about the properties of the determinant. For our purposes, it is sufﬁcient to recall the
following properties from linear algebra:
• det(B) = det(B
T
);
• det(
_
b
1
· · · b
n
¸
) = 0 iff b
1
, . . . , b
n
are linearly dependent;
• det(
_
b
1
· · · b
i
· · · b
j
· · · b
n
¸
) = −det(
_
b
1
· · · b
j
· · · b
i
· · · b
n
¸
);
• det(BC) = det(B) det(C).
Thus, for system (5.6) to admit nontrivial solutions, we need
det(A−λI) = 0 . (5.7)
From the deﬁnition of determinant, it follows, by very simple induction, that the lefthand side of equation (5.7)
is a polynomial of degree n in λ, and that the coefﬁcient of λ
n
is 1. Therefore, equation (5.7), which is called the
characteristic equation of A, has n complex solutions, in the sense that
det(A−λI) = (−1)
n
(λ −λ
1
) · . . . · (λ −λ
n
)
where some of the λ
i
may coincide. In other words, an n × n matrix has at most n distinct eigenvalues. The case of
exactly n distinct eigenvalues is of particular interest, because of the following results.
5.1. COMPUTING EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS ALGEBRAICALLY 57
Theorem 5.1.1 Eigenvectors x
1
, . . . , x
k
corresponding to distinct eigenvalues λ
1
, . . . , λ
k
are linearly independent.
Proof. Suppose that c
1
x
1
+. . . +c
k
x
k
= 0 where the x
i
are eigenvectors of a matrix A. We need to show that then
c
1
= . . . = c
k
= 0. By multiplying by A we obtain
c
1
Ax
1
+. . . +c
k
Ax
k
= 0
and because x
1
, . . . , x
k
are eigenvectors corresponding to eigenvalues λ
1
, . . . , λ
k
, we have
c
1
λ
1
x
1
+. . . +c
k
λ
k
x
k
= 0 . (5.8)
However, from
c
1
x
1
+. . . +c
k
x
k
= 0
we also have
c
1
λ
k
x
1
+. . . +c
k
λ
k
x
k
= 0
and subtracting this equation from equation (5.8) we have
c
1
(λ
1
−λ
k
)x
1
+. . . +c
k−1
(λ
k−1
−λ
k
)x
k−1
= 0 .
Thus, we have reduced the summation to one containing k − 1 terms. Since all λ
i
are distinct, the differences in
parentheses are all nonzero, and we can replace each x
i
by x
i
= (λ
i
−λ
k
)x
i
, which is still an eigenvector of A:
c
1
x
1
+. . . +c
k−1
x
k−1
= 0 .
We can repeat this procedure until only one term remains, and this forces c
1
= 0, so that
c
2
x
2
+. . . +c
k
x
k
= 0
This entire argument can be repeated for the last equation, therefore forcing c
2
= 0, and so forth.
In summary, the equation c
1
x
1
+. . . +c
k
x
k
= 0 implies that c
1
= . . . = c
k
= 0, that is, that the vectors x
1
, . . . , x
k
are linearly independent. ∆
For Hermitian matrices (and therefore for real symmetric matrices as well), the situation is even better.
Theorem 5.1.2 A Hermitian matrix has real eigenvalues.
Proof. A matrix A is Hermitian iff A = A
H
. Let λ and x be an eigenvalue of A and a corresponding eigenvector:
Ax = λx . (5.9)
By taking the Hermitian we obtain
x
H
A
H
= λ
∗
x
H
.
Since A = A
H
, the last equation can be rewritten as follows:
x
H
A = λ
∗
x
H
. (5.10)
If we multiply equation (5.9) from the left by x
H
and equation (5.10) from the right by x, we obtain
x
H
Ax = λx
H
x
x
H
Ax = λ
∗
x
H
x
which implies that
λx
H
x = λ
∗
x
H
x
58 CHAPTER 5. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS
Since x is an eigenvector, the scalar x
H
x is nonzero, so that we have
λ = λ
∗
as promised. ∆
Corollary 5.1.3 A real and symmetric matrix has real eigenvalues.
Proof. A real and symmetric matrix is Hermitian. ∆
Theorem 5.1.4 Eigenvectors corresponding to distinct eigenvalues of a Hermitian matrix are mutually orthogonal.
Proof. Let λ and µ be two distinct eigenvalues of A, and let x and y be corresponding eigenvectors:
Ax = λx
Ay = µy ⇒ y
H
A = µy
H
because A = A
H
and from theorem 5.1.2 µ = µ
∗
. If we multiply these two equations by y
H
from the left and x from
the right, respectively, we obtain
y
H
Ax = λy
H
x
y
H
Ax = µy
H
x ,
which implies
λy
H
x = µy
H
x
or
(λ −µ)y
H
x = 0 .
Since the two eigenvalues are distinct, λ −µ is nonzero, and we must have y
H
x = 0. ∆
Corollary 5.1.5 An n ×n Hermitian matrix with n distinct eigenvalues admits n orthonormal eigenvectors.
Proof. From theorem 5.1.4, the eigenvectors of an n×n Hermitian matrix with n distinct eigenvalues are all mutu
ally orthogonal. Since the eigenvalue equation Ax = λx is homogeneous in x, the vector x can be normalized without
violating the equation. Consequently, the eigenvectors can be made to be orthonormal. ∆
In summary, any square matrix with n distinct eigenvalues can be diagonalized by a similarity transformation, and
any square Hermitian matrix with n distinct eigenvalues can be diagonalized by a unitary similarity transformation.
Notice that the converse is not true: a matrix can have coincident eigenvalues and still admit n independent, and
even orthonormal, eigenvectors. For instance, the n × n identity matrix has n equal eigenvalues but n orthonormal
eigenvectors (which can be chosen in inﬁnitely many ways).
The examples in section 5.2 show that when some eigenvalues coincide, rather diverse situations can arise concern
ing the eigenvectors. First, however, we point out a simple but fundamental fact about the eigenvalues of a triangular
matrix.
Theorem 5.1.6 The determinant of a triangular matrix is the product of the elements on its diagonal.
5.2. GOOD AND BAD MATRICES 59
Proof. This follows immediately from the deﬁnition of determinant. Without loss of generality, we can assume a
triangular matrix B to be uppertriangular, for otherwise we can repeat the argument for the transpose, which because
of the properties above has the same eigenvalues. Then, the only possibly nonzero b
i1
of the matrix B is b
11
, and the
summation in the deﬁnition of determinant given above reduces to a single term:
det(B) =
_
b
11
if B is 1 ×1
b
11
det(B
11
) otherwise
.
By repeating the argument for B
11
and so forth until we are left with a single scalar, we obtain
det(B) = b
11
· . . . · b
nn
.
∆
Corollary 5.1.7 The eigenvalues of a triangular matrix are the elements on its diagonal.
Proof. The eigenvalues of a matrix A are the solutions of the equation
det(A−λI) = 0 .
If A is triangular, so is B = A−λI, and from the previous theorem we obtain
det(A−λI) = (a
11
−λ) · . . . · (a
nn
−λ)
which is equal to zero for
λ = a
11
, . . . , a
nn
.
∆
Note that diagonal matrices are triangular, so this result holds for diagonal matrices as well.
5.2 Good and Bad Matrices
Solving differential equations becomes much easier when matrices have a full set of orthonormal eigenvectors. For
instance, the matrix
A =
_
2 0
0 1
_
(5.11)
has eigenvalues 2 and 1 and eigenvectors
s
1
=
_
1
0
_
s
2
=
_
0
1
_
.
Matrices with n orthonormal eigenvectors are called normal. Normal matrices are good news, because then the
n ×n system of differential equations
˙ x = Ax
has solution
x(t) =
n
i=1
c
i
s
i
e
λit
= S
_
¸
_
e
λ
1
t
.
.
.
e
λnt
_
¸
_c
60 CHAPTER 5. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS
where S = [s
1
· · · s
n
] are the eigenvectors, λ
i
are the eigenvalues, and the vector c of constants c
i
is
c = S
H
x(0) .
More compactly,
x(t) = S
_
¸
_
e
λ1t
.
.
.
e
λ
n
t
_
¸
_S
H
x(0) .
Fortunately these matrices occur frequently in practice. However, not all matrices are as good as these. First, there
may still be a complete set of n eigenvectors, but they may not be orthonormal. An example of such a matrix is
_
2 −1
0 1
_
which has eigenvalues 2 and 1 and nonorthogonal eigenvectors
q
1
=
_
1
0
_
q
2
=
√
2
2
_
1
1
_
.
This is conceptually only a slight problem, because the unitary matrix S is replaced by an invertible matrix Q, and the
solution becomes
x(t) = Q
_
¸
_
e
λ1t
.
.
.
e
λnt
_
¸
_Q
−1
x(0) .
Computationally this is more expensive, because a computation of a Hermitian is replaced by a matrix inversion.
However, things can be worse yet, and a full set of eigenvectors may fail to exist, as we now show.
A necessary condition for an n ×n matrix to be defective, that is, to have fewer than n eigenvectors, is that it have
repeated eigenvalues. In fact, we have seen (theorem 5.1.1) that a matrix with distinct eigenvalues (zero or nonzero
does not matter) has a full set of eigenvectors (perhaps nonorthogonal, but independent). The simplest example of a
defective matrix is
_
0 1
0 0
_
which has double eigenvalue 0 and only eigenvector [1 0]
T
, while
_
3 1
0 3
_
has double eigenvalue 3 and only eigenvector [1 0]
T
, so zero eigenvalues are not the problem.
However, repeated eigenvalues are not a sufﬁcient condition for defectiveness, as the identity matrix proves.
How bad can a matrix be? Here is a matrix that is singular, has fewer than n eigenvectors, and the eigenvectors it
has are not orthogonal. It belongs to the scum of all matrices:
A =
_
_
0 2 −1
0 2 1
0 0 2
_
_
.
Its eigenvalues are 0, because the matrix is singular, and 2, repeated twice. A has to have a repeated eigenvalue if it is
to be defective. Its two eigenvectors are
q
1
=
_
_
1
0
0
_
_
, q
2
=
√
2
2
_
_
1
1
0
_
_
corresponding to eigenvalues 0 and 2 in this order, and there is no q
3
. Furthermore, q
1
and q
2
are not orthogonal to
each other.
5.3. COMPUTING EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS NUMERICALLY 61
5.3 Computing Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors Numerically
The examples above have shown that not every n × n matrix admits n independent eigenvectors, so some matrices
cannot be diagonalized by similarity transformations. Fortunately, these matrices can be triangularized by similarity
transformations, as we now show. We will show later on that this allows solving systems of linear differential equations
regardless of the structure of the system’s matrix of coefﬁcients.
It is important to notice that if a matrix A is triangularized by similarity transformations,
T = Q
−1
AQ ,
then the eigenvalues of the triangular matrix T are equal to those of the original matrix A. In fact, if
Ax = λx ,
then
QTQ
−1
x = λx ,
that is,
Ty = λy
where
y = Q
−1
x ,
so λ is also an eigenvalue for T. The eigenvectors, however, are changed according to the last equation.
The Schur decomposition does even better, since it triangularizes any square matrix A by a unitary (possibly
complex) transformation:
T = S
H
AS .
This transformation is equivalent to factoring A into the product
A = STS
H
,
and this product is called the Schur decomposition of A. Numerically stable and efﬁcient algorithms exist for the Schur
decomposition. In this note, we will not study these algorithms, but only show that all square matrices admit a Schur
decomposition.
5.3.1 Rotations into the x
1
Axis
An important preliminary fact concerns vector rotations. Let e
1
be the ﬁrst column of the identity matrix. It is
intuitively obvious that any nonzero real vector x can be rotated into a vector parallel to e
1
. Formally, take any
orthogonal matrix S whose ﬁrst column is
s
1
=
x
x
.
Since s
T
1
x = x
T
x/x = x, and since all the other s
j
are orthogonal to s
1
, we have
S
T
x =
_
¸
_
s
T
1
.
.
.
s
T
n
_
¸
_x =
_
¸
_
s
T
1
x
.
.
.
s
T
n
x
_
¸
_ =
_
¸
¸
¸
_
x
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
¸
¸
_
which is parallel to e
1
as desired. It may be less obvious that a complex vector x can be transformed into a real vector
parallel to e
1
by a unitary transformation. But the trick is the same: let
s
1
=
x
x
.
62 CHAPTER 5. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS
Now s
1
may be complex. We have s
H
1
x = x
H
x/x = x, and
S
H
x =
_
¸
_
s
H
1
.
.
.
s
H
n
_
¸
_x =
_
¸
_
s
H
1
x
.
.
.
s
H
n
x
_
¸
_ =
_
¸
¸
¸
_
x
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
¸
¸
_
,
just about like before. We are now ready to triangularize an arbitrary square matrix A.
5.3.2 The Schur Decomposition
The Schur decomposition theorem is the cornerstone of eigenvalue computations. It states that any square matrix can
be triangularized by unitary transformations. The diagonal elements of a triangular matrix are its eigenvalues, and
unitary transformations preserve eigenvalues. Consequently, if the Schur decomposition of a matrix can be computed,
its eigenvalues can be determined. Moreover, as we will see later, a system of linear differential equations can be
solved regardless of the structure of the matrix of its coefﬁcients.
Lemma 5.3.1 If A is an n ×n matrix and λ and x are an eigenvalue of A and its corresponding eigenvector,
Ax = λx (5.12)
then there is a transformation
T = U
H
AU
where U is a unitary, n ×n matrix, such that
T =
_
¸
¸
¸
_
λ
0
.
.
.
0
C
_
¸
¸
¸
_
.
Proof. Let U be a unitary transformation that transforms the (possibly complex) eigenvector x of A into a real
vector on the x
1
axis:
x = U
_
¸
¸
¸
_
r
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
¸
¸
_
where r is the nonzero norm of x. By substituting this into (5.12) and rearranging we have
AU
_
¸
¸
¸
_
r
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
¸
¸
_
= λU
_
¸
¸
¸
_
r
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
¸
¸
_
U
H
AU
_
¸
¸
¸
_
r
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
¸
¸
_
= λ
_
¸
¸
¸
_
r
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
¸
¸
_
U
H
AU
_
¸
¸
¸
_
1
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
¸
¸
_
= λ
_
¸
¸
¸
_
1
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
¸
¸
_
5.3. COMPUTING EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS NUMERICALLY 63
T
_
¸
¸
¸
_
1
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
¸
¸
_
=
_
¸
¸
¸
_
λ
0
.
.
.
0
_
¸
¸
¸
_
.
The last lefthand side is the ﬁrst column of T, and the corresponding righthand side is of the form required by the
lemma. ∆
Theorem 5.3.2 (Schur) If A is any n ×n matrix then there exists a unitary n ×n matrix S such that
S
H
AS = T
where T is triangular. Furthermore, S can be chosen so that the eigenvalues λ
i
of A appear in any order along the
diagonal of T.
Proof. By induction. The theorem obviously holds for n = 1:
1 A1 = A .
Suppose it holds for all matrices of order n −1. Then from the lemma there exists a unitary U such that
U
H
AU =
_
¸
¸
¸
_
λ
0
.
.
.
0
C
_
¸
¸
¸
_
where λ is any eigenvalue of A. Partition C into a row vector and an (n −1) ×(n −1) matrix G:
C =
_
w
H
G
_
.
By the inductive hypothesis, there is a unitary matrix V such that V
H
GV is a Schur decomposition of G. Let
S = U
_
¸
¸
¸
_
1 0 · · · 0
0
.
.
.
0
V
_
¸
¸
¸
_
.
Clearly, S is a unitary matrix, and S
H
AS is uppertriangular. Since the elements on the diagonal of a triangular matrix
are the eigenvalues, S
H
AS is the Schur decomposition of A. Because we can pick any eigenvalue as λ, the order of
eigenvalues can be chosen arbitrarily. ∆
This theorem does not say how to compute the Schur decomposition, only that it exists. Fortunately, there is a
stable and efﬁcient algorithm to compute the Schur decomposition. This is the preferred way to compute eigenvalues
numerically.
64 CHAPTER 5. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS
5.4 Eigenvalues/Vectors and Singular Values/Vectors
In this section we prove a few additional important properties of eigenvalues and eigenvectors. In the process, we also
establish a link between singular values/vectors and eigenvalues/vectors. While this link is very important, it is useful
to remember that eigenvalues/vectors and singular values/vectors are conceptually and factually very distinct entities
(recall ﬁgure 5.1).
First, a general relation between determinant and eigenvalues.
Theorem 5.4.1 The determinant of a matrix is equal to the product of its eigenvalues.
Proof. The proof is very simple, given the Schur decomposition. In fact, we know that the eigenvalues of a matrix
A are equal to those of the triangular matrix in the Schur decomposition of A. Furthermore, we know from theorem
5.1.6 that the determinant of a triangular matrix is the product of the elements on its diagonal. If we recall that a
unitary matrix has determinant 1 or 1, that the determinants of S and S
H
are the same, and that the determinant of a
product of matrices is equal to the product of the determinants, the proof is complete. ∆
We saw that an n ×n Hermitian matrix with n distinct eigenvalues admits n orthonormal eigenvectors (corollary
5.1.5). The assumption of distinct eigenvalues made the proof simple, but is otherwise unnecessary. In fact, now that
we have the Schur decomposition, we can state the following stronger result.
Theorem 5.4.2 (Spectral theorem) Every Hermitian matrix can be diagonalized by a unitary matrix, and every real
symmetric matrix can be diagonalized by an orthogonal matrix:
A = A
H
⇒ A = SΛS
H
A real, A = A
T
⇒ A = SΛS
T
, S real .
In either case, Λ is real and diagonal.
Proof. We already know that Hermitian matrices (and therefore real and symmetric ones) have real eigenvalues
(theorem 5.1.2), so Λ is real. Let now
A = STS
H
be the Schur decomposition of A. Since A is Hermitian, so is T. In fact, T = S
H
AS, and
T
H
= (S
H
AS)
H
= S
H
A
H
S = S
H
AS = T .
But the only way that T can be both triangular and Hermitian is for it to be diagonal, because 0
∗
= 0. Thus, the
Schur decomposition of a Hermitian matrix is in fact a diagonalization, and this is the ﬁrst equation of the theorem
(the diagonal of a Hermitian matrix must be real).
Let now Abe real and symmetric. All that is left to prove is that then its eigenvectors are real. But eigenvectors are
the solution of the homogeneous system (5.6), which is both real and rankdeﬁcient, and therefore admits nontrivial
real solutions. Thus, S is real, and S
H
= S
T
. ∆
In other words, a Hermitian matrix, real or not, with distinct eigenvalues or not, has real eigenvalues and n or
thonormal eigenvectors. If in addition the matrix is real, so are its eigenvectors.
We recall that a real matrix A such that for every nonzero x we have x
T
Ax > 0 is said to be positive deﬁnite. It is
positive semideﬁnite if for every nonzero x we have x
T
Ax ≥ 0. Notice that a positive deﬁnite matrix is also positive
semideﬁnite. Positive deﬁnite or semideﬁnite matrices arise in the solution of overconstrained linear systems, because
A
T
A is positive semideﬁnite for every A (lemma 5.4.5). They also occur in geometry through the equation of an
ellipsoid,
x
T
Qx = 1
5.4. EIGENVALUES/VECTORS AND SINGULAR VALUES/VECTORS 65
in which Q is positive deﬁnite. In physics, positive deﬁnite matrices are associated to quadratic forms x
T
Qx that
represent energies or secondorder moments of mass or force distributions. Their physical meaning makes them
positive deﬁnite, or at least positive semideﬁnite (for instance, energies cannot be negative). The following result
relates eigenvalues/vectors with singular values/vectors for positive semideﬁnite matrices.
Theorem 5.4.3 The eigenvalues of a real, symmetric, positive semideﬁnite matrix A are equal to its singular values.
The eigenvectors of A are also its singular vectors, both left and right.
Proof. From the previous theorem, A = SΛS
T
, where both Λ and S are real. Furthermore, the entries in Λ are
nonnegative. In fact, from
As
i
= λs
i
we obtain
s
T
i
As
i
= s
T
i
λs
i
= λs
T
i
s
i
= λs
i
2
= λ .
If A is positive semideﬁnite, then x
T
Ax ≥ 0 for any nonzero x, and in particular s
T
i
As
i
≥ 0, so that λ ≥ 0.
But
A = SΛS
T
with nonnegative diagonal entries in Λ is the singular value decomposition A = UΣV
T
of A with Σ = Λ and
U = V = S. Recall that the eigenvalues in the Schur decomposition can be arranged in any desired order along the
diagonal. ∆
Theorem 5.4.4 A real, symmetric matrix is positive semideﬁnite iff all its eigenvalues are nonnegative. It is positive
deﬁnite iff all its eigenvalues are positive.
Proof. Theorem 5.4.3 implies one of the two directions: If A is real, symmetric, and positive semideﬁnite, then its
eigenvalues are nonnegative. If the proof of that theorem is repeated with the strict inequality, we also obtain that if A
is real, symmetric, and positive deﬁnite, then its eigenvalues are positive.
Conversely, we show that if all eigenvalues λ of a real and symmetric matrix A are positive (nonnegative) then A
is positive deﬁnite (semideﬁnite). To this end, let x be any nonzero vector. Since real and symmetric matrices have n
orthonormal eigenvectors (theorem 5.4.2), we can use these eigenvectors s
1
, . . . , s
n
as an orthonormal basis for R
n
,
and write
x = c
1
s
1
+. . . +c
n
s
n
with
c
i
= x
T
s
i
.
But then
x
T
Ax = x
T
A(c
1
s
1
+. . . +c
n
s
n
) = x
T
(c
1
As
1
+. . . +c
n
As
n
)
= x
T
(c
1
λ
1
s
1
+. . . +c
n
λ
n
s
n
) = c
1
λ
1
x
T
s
1
+. . . +c
n
λ
n
x
T
s
n
= λ
1
c
2
1
+. . . +λ
n
c
2
n
> 0 (or ≥ 0)
because the λ
i
are positive (nonnegative) and not all c
i
can be zero. Since x
T
Ax > 0 (or ≥ 0) for every nonzero x, A
is positive deﬁnite (semideﬁnite). ∆
Theorem 5.4.3 establishes one connection between eigenvalues/vectors and singular values/vectors: for symmetric,
positive deﬁnite matrices, the concepts coincide. This result can be used to introduce a less direct link, but for arbitrary
matrices.
Lemma 5.4.5 A
T
A is positive semideﬁnite.
66 CHAPTER 5. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS
Proof. For any nonzero x we can write x
T
A
T
Ax = Ax
2
≥ 0. ∆
Theorem 5.4.6 The eigenvalues of A
T
A with m ≥ n are the squares of the singular values of A; the eigenvectors of
A
T
Aare the right singular vectors of A. Similarly, for m ≤ n, the eigenvalues of AA
T
are the squares of the singular
values of A, and the eigenvectors of AA
T
are the left singular vectors of A.
Proof. If m ≥ n and A = UΣV
T
is the SVD of A, we have
A
T
A = V ΣU
T
UΣV
T
= V Σ
2
V
T
which is in the required format to be a (diagonal) Schur decomposition with S = V and T = Λ = Σ
2
. Similarly, for
m ≤ n,
AA
T
= UΣV
T
V ΣU
T
= UΣ
2
U
T
is a Schur decomposition with S = U and T = Λ = Σ
2
. ∆
We have seen that important classes of matrices admit a full set of orthonormal eigenvectors. The theorem below
characterizes the class of all matrices with this property, that is, the class of all normal matrices. To prove the theorem,
we ﬁrst need a lemma.
Lemma 5.4.7 If for an n ×n matrix B we have BB
H
= B
H
B, then for every i = 1, . . . , n, the norm of the ith row
of B equals the norm of its ith column.
Proof. From BB
H
= B
H
B we deduce
Bx
2
= x
H
B
H
Bx = x
H
BB
H
x = B
H
x
2
. (5.13)
If x = e
i
, the ith column of the n × n identity matrix, Be
i
is the ith column of B, and B
H
e
i
is the ith column of
B
H
, which is the conjugate of the ith row of B. Since conjugation does not change the norm of a vector, the equality
(5.13) implies that the ith column of B has the same norm as the ith row of B. ∆
Theorem 5.4.8 An n ×n matrix is normal if an only if it commutes with its Hermitian:
AA
H
= A
H
A .
Proof. Let A = STS
H
be the Schur decomposition of A. Then,
AA
H
= STS
H
ST
H
S
H
= STT
H
S
H
and A
H
A = ST
H
S
H
STS
H
= ST
H
TS
H
.
Because S is invertible (even unitary), we have AA
H
= A
H
A if and only if TT
H
= T
H
T.
However, a triangular matrix T for which TT
H
= T
H
T must be diagonal. In fact, from the lemma, the norm of
the ith row of T is equal to the norm of its ith column. Let i = 1. Then, the ﬁrst column of T has norm t
11
. The
ﬁrst row has ﬁrst entry t
11
, so the only way that its norm can be t
11
 is for all other entries in the ﬁrst row to be zero.
We now proceed through i = 2, . . . , n, and reason similarly to conclude that T must be diagonal.
The converse is also obviously true: if T is diagonal, then TT
H
= T
H
T. Thus, AA
H
= A
H
A if and only if T is
diagonal, that is, if and only if A can be diagonalized by a unitary similarity transformation. This is the deﬁnition of a
normal matrix. ∆
5.4. EIGENVALUES/VECTORS AND SINGULAR VALUES/VECTORS 67
Corollary 5.4.9 A triangular, normal matrix must be diagonal.
Proof. We proved this in the proof of theorem 5.4.8. ∆
Checking that A
H
A = AA
H
is much easier than computing eigenvectors, so theorem 5.4.8 is a very useful
characterization of normal matrices. Notice that Hermitian (and therefore also real symmetric) matrices commute
trivially with their Hermitians, but so do, for instance, unitary (and therefore also real orthogonal) matrices:
UU
H
= U
H
U = I .
Thus, Hermitian, real symmetric, unitary, and orthogonal matrices are all normal.
68 CHAPTER 5. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS
Chapter 6
Ordinary Differential Systems
In this chapter we use the theory developed in chapter 5 in order to solve systems of ﬁrstorder linear differential
equations with constant coefﬁcients. These systems have the following form:
˙ x = Ax + b(t) (6.1)
x(0) = x
0
(6.2)
where x = x(t) is an ndimensional vector function of time t, the dot denotes differentiation, the coefﬁcients a
ij
in
the n ×n matrix A are constant, and the vector function b(t) is a function of time. The equation (6.2), in which x
0
is
a known vector, deﬁnes the initial value of the solution.
First, we show that scalar differential equations of order greater than one can be reduced to systems of ﬁrstorder
differential equations. Then, in section 6.2, we recall a general result for the solution of ﬁrstorder differential systems
from the elementary theory of differential equations. In section 6.3, we make this result more speciﬁc by showing
that the solution to a homogeneous system is a linear combination of exponentials multiplied by polynomials in t.
This result is based on the Schur decomposition introduced in chapter 5, which is numerically preferable to the more
commonly used Jordan canonical form. Finally, in sections 6.4 and 6.5, we set up and solve a particular differential
system as an illustrative example.
6.1 Scalar Differential Equations of Order Higher than One
The ﬁrstorder system (6.1) subsumes also the case of a scalar differential equation of order n, possibly greater than 1,
d
n
y
dt
n
+c
n−1
d
n−1
y
dt
n−1
+. . . +c
1
dy
dt
+c
0
y = b(t) . (6.3)
In fact, such an equation can be reduced to a ﬁrstorder system of the form (6.1) by introducing the ndimensional
vector
x =
_
¸
_
x
1
.
.
.
x
n
_
¸
_ =
_
¸
¸
¸
_
y
dy
dt
.
.
.
d
n−1
y
dt
n−1
_
¸
¸
¸
_
.
With this deﬁnition, we have
d
i
y
dt
i
= x
i+1
for i = 0, . . . , n −1
d
n
y
dt
n
=
dx
n
dt
,
69
70 CHAPTER 6. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS
and x satisﬁes the additional n −1 equations
x
i+1
=
dx
i
dt
(6.4)
for i = 1, . . . , n − 1. If we write the original system (6.3) together with the n − 1 differential equations (6.4), we
obtain the ﬁrstorder system
˙ x = Ax + b(t)
where
A =
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
0 1 0 · · · 0
0 0 1 · · · 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 0 · · · 1
−c
0
−c
1
−c
2
· · · −c
n−1
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
is the socalled companion matrix of (6.3) and
b(t) =
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
0
0
.
.
.
0
b(t)
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
.
6.2 General Solution of a Linear Differential System
We know from the general theory of differential equations that a general solution of system (6.1) with initial condition
(6.2) is given by
x(t) = x
h
(t) + x
p
(t)
where x
h
(t) is the solution of the homogeneous system
˙ x = Ax
x(0) = x
0
and x
p
(t) is a particular solution of
˙ x = Ax + b(t)
x(0) = 0 .
The two solution components x
h
and x
p
can be written by means of the matrix exponential, introduced in the following.
For the scalar exponential e
λt
we can write a Taylor series expansion
e
λt
= 1 +
λt
1!
+
λ
2
t
2
2!
+· · · =
∞
j=0
λ
j
t
j
j!
.
Usually
1
, in calculus classes, the exponential is introduced by other means, and the Taylor series expansion above is
proven as a property.
For matrices, the exponential e
Z
of a matrix Z ∈ R
n×n
is instead deﬁned by the inﬁnite series expansion
e
Z
= I +
Z
1!
+
Z
2
2!
+· · · =
∞
j=0
Z
j
j!
.
1
Not always. In some treatments, the exponential is deﬁned through its Taylor series.
6.2. GENERAL SOLUTION OF A LINEAR DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEM 71
Here I is the n ×n identity matrix, and the general term Z
j
/j! is simply the matrix Z raised to the jth power divided
by the scalar j!. It turns out that this inﬁnite sum converges (to an n×n matrix which we write as e
Z
) for every matrix
Z. Substituting Z = At gives
e
At
= I +
At
1!
+
A
2
t
2
2!
+
A
3
t
3
3!
+· · · =
∞
j=0
A
j
t
j
j!
. (6.5)
Differentiating both sides of (6.5) gives
de
At
dt
= A+
A
2
t
1!
+
A
3
t
2
2!
+· · ·
= A
_
I +
At
1!
+
A
2
t
2
2!
+· · ·
_
de
At
dt
= Ae
At
.
Thus, for any vector w, the function x
h
(t) = e
At
w satisﬁes the homogeneous differential system
˙ x
h
= Ax
h
.
By using the initial values (6.2) we obtain w = x
0
, and
x
h
(t) = e
At
x(0) (6.6)
is a solution to the differential system (6.1) with b(t) = 0 and initial values (6.2). It can be shown that this solution is
unique.
From the elementary theory of differential equations, we also know that a particular solution to the nonhomoge
neous (b(t) = 0) equation (6.1) is given by
x
p
(t) =
_
t
0
e
A(t−s)
b(s) ds .
This is easily veriﬁed, since by differentiating this expression for x
p
we obtain
˙ x
p
= Ae
At
_
t
0
e
−As
b(s) ds +e
At
e
−At
b(t) = Ax
p
+ b(t) ,
so x
p
satisﬁes equation (6.1).
In summary, we have the following result.
The solution to
˙ x = Ax + b(t) (6.7)
with initial value
x(0) = x
0
(6.8)
is
x(t) = x
h
(t) + x
p
(t) (6.9)
where
x
h
(t) = e
At
x(0) (6.10)
and
x
p
(t) =
_
t
0
e
A(t−s)
b(s) ds . (6.11)
72 CHAPTER 6. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS
Since we now have a formula for the general solution to a linear differential system, we seem to have all we need.
However, we do not know how to compute the matrix exponential. The naive solution to use the deﬁnition (6.5)
requires too many terms for a good approximation. As we have done for the SVD and the Schur decomposition, we
will only point out that several methods exist for computing a matrix exponential, but we will not discuss how this is
done
2
. In a fundamental paper on the subject, Nineteen dubious ways to compute the exponential of a matrix (SIAM
Review, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 80136), Cleve Moler and Charles Van Loan discuss a large number of different methods,
pointing out that no one of them is appropriate for all situations. A full discussion of this matter is beyond the scope
of these notes.
When the matrix A is constant, as we currently assume, we can be much more speciﬁc about the structure of the
solution (6.9) of system (6.7), and particularly so about the solution x
h
(t) to the homogeneous part. Speciﬁcally, the
matrix exponential (6.10) can be written as a linear combination, with constant vector coefﬁcients, of scalar expo
nentials multiplied by polynomials. In the general theory of linear differential systems, this is shown via the Jordan
canonical form. However, in the paper cited above, Moler and Van Loan point out that the Jordan form cannot be
computed reliably, and small perturbations in the data can change the results dramatically. Fortunately, a similar result
can be found through the Schur decomposition introduced in chapter 5. The next section shows how to do this.
6.3 Structure of the Solution
For the homogeneous case b(t) = 0, consider the ﬁrst order system of linear differential equations
˙ x = Ax (6.12)
x(0) = x
0
. (6.13)
Two cases arise: either A admits n distinct eigenvalues, or is does not. In chapter 5, we have seen that if (but not only
if) A has n distinct eigenvalues then it has n linearly independent eigenvectors (theorem 5.1.1), and we have shown
how to ﬁnd x
h
(t) by solving an eigenvalue problem. In section 6.3.1, we brieﬂy review this solution. Then, in section
6.3.2, we show how to compute the homogeneous solution x
h
(t) in the extreme case of an n × n matrix A with n
coincident eigenvalues.
To be sure, we have seen that matrices with coincident eigenvalues can still have a full set of linearly independent
eigenvectors (see for instance the identity matrix). However, the solution procedure we introduce in section 6.3.2 for
the case of n coincident eigenvalues can be applied regardless to how many linearly independent eigenvectors exist.
If the matrix has a full complement of eigenvectors, the solution obtained in section 6.3.2 is the same as would be
obtained with the method of section 6.3.1.
Once these two extreme cases (nondefective matrix or allcoincident eigenvalues) have been handled, we show a
general procedure in section 6.3.3 for solving a homogeneous or nonhomogeneous differential system for any, square,
constant matrix A, defective or not. This procedure is based on backsubstitution, and produces a result analogous
to that obtained via Jordan decomposition for the homogeneous part x
h
(t) of the solution. However, since it is
based on the numerically sound Schur decomposition, the method of section 6.3.3 is superior in practice. For a
nonhomogeneous system, the procedure can be carried out analytically if the functions in the righthand side vector
b(t) can be integrated.
6.3.1 A is Not Defective
In chapter 5 we saw how to ﬁnd the homogeneous part x
h
(t) of the solution when A has a full set of n linearly
independent eigenvectors. This result is brieﬂy reviewed in this section for convenience.
3
If A is not defective, then it has n linearly independent eigenvectors q
1
, . . . , q
n
with corresponding eigenvalues
λ
1
, . . . , λ
n
. Let
Q =
_
q
1
· · · q
n
¸
.
2
In Matlab, expm(A) is the matrix exponential of A.
3
Parts of this subsection and of the following one are based on notes written by Scott Cohen.
6.3. STRUCTURE OF THE SOLUTION 73
This square matrix is invertible because its columns are linearly independent. Since Aq
i
= λ
i
q
i
, we have
AQ = QΛ, (6.14)
where Λ = diag(λ
1
, . . . , λ
n
) is a square diagonal matrix with the eigenvalues of A on its diagonal. Multiplying both
sides of (6.14) by Q
−1
on the right, we obtain
A = QΛQ
−1
. (6.15)
Then, system (6.12) can be rewritten as follows:
˙ x = Ax
˙ x = QΛQ
−1
x
Q
−1
˙ x = ΛQ
−1
x
˙ y = Λy, (6.16)
where y = Q
−1
x. The last equation (6.16) represents n uncoupled, homogeneous, differential equations ˙ y
i
= λ
i
y
i
.
The solution is
y
h
(t) = e
Λt
y(0),
where
e
Λt
= diag(e
λ1t
, . . . , e
λnt
).
Using the relation x = Qy, and the consequent relation y(0) = Q
−1
x(0), we see that the solution to the homogeneous
system (6.12) is
x
h
(t) = Qe
Λt
Q
−1
x(0).
If A is normal, that is, if it has n orthonormal eigenvectors q
1
, . . . q
n
, then Q is replaced by the Hermitian matrix
S =
_
s
1
· · · s
n
¸
, Q
−1
is replaced by S
H
, and the solution to (6.12) becomes
x
h
(t) = Se
Λt
S
H
x(0).
6.3.2 A Has n Coincident Eigenvalues
When A = QΛQ
−1
, we derived that the solution to (6.12) is x
h
(t) = Qe
Λt
Q
−1
x(0). Comparing with (6.6), it should
be the case that
e
Q(Λt)Q
−1
= Qe
Λt
Q
−1
.
This follows easily from the deﬁnition of e
Z
and the fact that (Q(Λt)Q
−1
)
j
= Q(Λt)
j
Q
−1
. Similarly, if A = SΛS
H
,
where S is Hermitian, then the solution to (6.12) is x
h
(t) = Se
Λt
S
H
x(0), and
e
S(Λt)S
H
= Se
Λt
S
H
.
How can we compute the matrix exponential in the extreme case in which A has n coincident eigenvalues, regard
less of the number of its linearly independent eigenvectors? In any case, A admits a Schur decomposition
A = STS
H
(theorem 5.3.2). We recall that S is a unitary matrix and T is upper triangular with the eigenvalues of Aon its diagonal.
Thus we can write T as
T = Λ +N,
where Λ is diagonal and N is strictly upper triangular. The solution (6.6) in this case becomes
x
h
(t) = e
S(Tt)S
H
x(0) = Se
Tt
S
H
x(0) = Se
Λt+Nt
S
H
x(0).
74 CHAPTER 6. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS
Thus we can compute (6.6) if we can compute e
Tt
= e
Λt+Nt
. This turns out to be almost as easy as computing e
Λt
when the diagonal matrix Λ is a multiple of the identity matrix:
Λ = λI
that is, when all the eigenvalues of A coincide. In fact, in this case, Λt and Nt commute:
Λt Nt = λIt Nt = λt Nt = Nt λt = Nt λIt = Nt Λt .
It can be shown that if two matrices Z
1
and Z
2
commute, that is if
Z
1
Z
2
= Z
2
Z
1
,
then
e
Z1+Z2
= e
Z1
e
Z2
= e
Z2
e
Z1
.
Thus, in our case, we can write
e
Λt+Nt
= e
Λt
e
Nt
.
We already know how to compute e
Λt
, so it remains to show how to compute e
Nt
. The fact that Nt is strictly upper
triangular makes the computation of this matrix exponential much simpler than for a general matrix Z.
Suppose, for example, that N is 4 ×4. Then N has three nonzero superdiagonals, N
2
has two nonzero superdiag
onals, N
3
has one nonzero superdiagonal, and N
4
is the zero matrix:
N =
_
¸
¸
_
0 ∗ ∗ ∗
0 0 ∗ ∗
0 0 0 ∗
0 0 0 0
_
¸
¸
_
→N
2
=
_
¸
¸
_
0 0 ∗ ∗
0 0 0 ∗
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
_
¸
¸
_
→
N
3
=
_
¸
¸
_
0 0 0 ∗
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
_
¸
¸
_
→N
4
=
_
¸
¸
_
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
_
¸
¸
_
.
In general, for a strictly upper triangular n ×n matrix, we have N
j
= 0 for all j ≥ n (i.e., N is nilpotent of order n).
Therefore,
e
Nt
=
∞
j=0
N
j
t
j
j!
=
n−1
j=0
N
j
t
j
j!
is simply a ﬁnite sum, and the exponential reduces to a matrix polynomial.
In summary, the general solution to the homogeneous differential system (6.12) with initial value (6.13) when the
n ×n matrix A has n coincident eigenvalues is given by
x
h
(t) = Se
Λt
n−1
j=0
N
j
t
j
j!
S
H
x
0
(6.17)
where
A = S(Λ +N)S
H
is the Schur decomposition of A,
Λ = λI
is a multiple of the identity matrix containing the coincident eigenvalues of A on its diagonal, and N is strictly upper
triangular.
6.3. STRUCTURE OF THE SOLUTION 75
6.3.3 The General Case
We are now ready to solve the linear differential system
˙ x = Ax + b(t) (6.18)
x(0) = x
0
(6.19)
in the general case of a constant matrix A, defective or not, with arbitrary b(t). In fact, let A = STS
H
be the Schur
decomposition of A, and consider the transformed system
˙ y(t) = Ty(t) + c(t) (6.20)
where
y(t) = S
H
x(t) and c(t) = S
H
b(t) . (6.21)
The triangular matrix T can always be written in the following form:
T =
_
¸
¸
¸
_
T
11
· · · · · · T
1k
0 T
22
· · · T
2k
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 · · · 0 T
kk
_
¸
¸
¸
_
where the diagonal blocks T
ii
for i = 1, . . . , k are of size n
i
×n
i
(possibly 1×1) and contain allcoincident eigenvalues.
The remaining nonzero blocks T
ij
with i < j can be in turn bundled into matrices
R
i
=
_
T
i,i+1
· · · T
i,k
¸
that contain everything to the right of the corresponding T
ii
. The vector c(t) can be partitioned correspondingly as
follows
c(t) =
_
¸
_
c
1
(t)
.
.
.
c
k
(t)
_
¸
_
where c
i
has n
i
entries, and the same can be done for
y(t) =
_
¸
_
y
1
(t)
.
.
.
y
k
(t)
_
¸
_
and for the initial values
y(0) =
_
¸
_
y
1
(0)
.
.
.
y
k
(0)
_
¸
_ .
The triangular system (6.20) can then be solved by backsubstitution as follows:
for i = k down to 1
if i < k
d
i
(t) = R
i
[y
i+1
(t), . . . , y
k
(t)]
T
else
d
i
(t) = 0 (an n
k
dimensional vector of zeros)
end
T
ii
= λ
i
I +N
i
(diagonal and strictly uppertriangular part of T
ii
)
y
i
(t) = e
λ
i
It
n
i
−1
j=0
N
j
i
t
j
j!
y
i
(0) +
_
t
0
_
e
λ
i
I(t−s)
n
i
−1
j=0
N
j
i
(t−s)
j
j!
_
(c
i
(s) + d
i
(s)) ds
end.
76 CHAPTER 6. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS
In this procedure, the expression for y
i
(t) is a direct application of equations (6.9), (6.10), (6.11), and (6.17) with
S = I. In the general case, the applicability of this routine depends on whether the integral in the expression for y
i
(t)
can be computed analytically. This is certainly the case when b(t) is a constant vector b, because then the integrand is
a linear combination of exponentials multiplied by polynomials in t −s, which can be integrated by parts.
The solution x(t) for the original system (6.18) is then
x(t) = Sy(t) .
As an illustration, we consider a very small example, the 2 ×2 homogeneous, triangular case,
_
˙ y
1
˙ y
2
_
=
_
t
11
t
12
0 t
22
_ _
y
1
y
2
_
. (6.22)
When t
11
= t
22
= λ, we obtain
y(t) = e
λIt
_
1 t
12
t
0 1
_
y(0) .
In scalar form, this becomes
y
1
(t) = (y
1
(0) +t
12
y
2
(0) t) e
λt
y
2
(t) = y
2
(0) e
λt
,
and it is easy to verify that this solution satisﬁes the differential system (6.22).
When t
11
= λ
1
= t
22
= λ
2
, we could solve the system by ﬁnding the eigenvectors of T, since we know that in this
case two linearly independent eigenvectors exist (theorem 5.1.1). Instead, we apply the backsubstitution procedure
introduced in this section. The second equation of the system,
˙ y
2
(t) = t
22
y
2
has solution
y
2
(t) = y
2
(0) e
λ
2
t
.
We then have
d
1
(t) = t
12
y
2
(t) = t
12
y
2
(0) e
λ2t
and
y
1
(t) = y
1
(0)e
λ1t
+
_
t
0
e
λ1(t−s)
d
1
(s) ds
= y
1
(0)e
λ1t
+t
12
y
2
(0) e
λ1t
_
t
0
e
−λ1s
e
λ2s
ds
= y
1
(0)e
λ1t
+t
12
y
2
(0) e
λ1t
_
t
0
e
(λ2−λ1)s
ds
= y
1
(0)e
λ1t
+
t
12
y
2
(0)
λ
2
−λ
1
e
λ1t
(e
(λ2−λ1)t
−1)
= y
1
(0)e
λ
1
t
+
t
12
y
2
(0)
λ
2
−λ
1
(e
λ
2
t
−e
λ
1
t
)
Exercise: verify that this solution satisﬁes both the differential equation (6.22) and the initial value equation y(0) = y
0
.
Thus, the solutions to system (6.22) for t
11
= t
22
and for t
11
= t
22
have different forms. While y
2
(t) is the same
in both cases, we have
y
1
(t) = y
1
(0) e
λt
+t
12
y
2
(0) t e
λt
if t
11
= t
22
y
1
(t) = y
1
(0)e
λ1t
+
t
12
y
2
(0)
λ
2
−λ
1
(e
λ2t
−e
λ1t
) if t
11
= t
22
.
6.4. A CONCRETE EXAMPLE 77
rest position
of mass 1
rest position
of mass 2
2
v
1
v
1
2
2
1
3
Figure 6.1: A system of masses and springs. In the absence of external forces, the two masses would assume the
positions indicated by the dashed lines.
This would seem to present numerical difﬁculties when t
11
≈ t
22
, because the solution would suddenly switch
from one form to the other as the difference between t
11
and t
22
changes from about zero to exactly zero or viceversa.
This, however, is not a problem. In fact,
lim
λ
1
→λ
e
λt
−e
λ
1
t
λ −λ
1
= t e
λt
,
and the transition between the two cases is smooth.
6.4 A Concrete Example
In this section we set up and solve a more concrete example of a system of differential equations. The initial system
has two secondorder equations, and is transformed into a ﬁrstorder system with four equations. The 4 ×4 matrix of
the resulting system has an interesting structure, which allows ﬁnding eigenvalues and eigenvectors analytically with a
little trick. The point of this section is to show how to transform the complex formal solution of the differential system,
computed with any of the methods described above, into a real solution in a form appropriate to the problem at hand.
Consider the mechanical system in ﬁgure 6.1. Suppose that we want to study the evolution of the system over time.
Since forces are proportional to accelerations, because of Newton’s law, and since accelerations are second derivatives
of position, the new equations are differential. Because differentiation occurs only with respect to one variable, time,
these are ordinary differential equations, as opposed to partial.
In the following we write the differential equations that describe this system. Two linear differential equations of
the second order
4
result. We will then transform these into four linear differential equations of the ﬁrst order.
By Hooke’s law, the three springs exert forces that are proportional to the springs’ elongations:
f
1
= c
1
v
1
f
2
= c
2
(v
2
−v
1
)
4
Recall that the order of a differential equation is the highest degree of derivative that appears in it.
78 CHAPTER 6. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS
f
3
= −c
3
v
2
where the c
i
are the positive spring constants (in newtons per meter).
The accelerations of masses 1 and 2 (springs are assumed to be massless) are proportional to their accelerations,
according to Newton’s second law:
m
1
¨ v
1
= −f
1
+f
2
= −c
1
v
1
+c
2
(v
2
−v
1
) = −(c
1
+c
2
)v
1
+c
2
v
2
m
2
¨ v
2
= −f
2
+f
3
= −c
2
(v
2
−v
1
) −c
3
v
2
= c
2
v
1
−(c
2
+c
3
)v
2
or, in matrix form,
¨v = Bv (6.23)
where
v =
_
v
1
v
2
_
and B =
_
−
c
1
+c
2
m
1
c
2
m
1
c
2
m
2
−
c
2
+c
3
m
2
_
.
We also assume that initial conditions
v(0) and ˙ v(0) (6.24)
are given, which specify positions and velocities of the two masses at time t = 0.
To solve the secondorder system (6.23), we will ﬁrst transform it to a system of four ﬁrstorder equations. As
shown in the introduction to this chapter, the trick is to introduce variables to denote the ﬁrstorder derivatives of v, so
that secondorder derivatives of v are ﬁrstorder derivatives of the new variables. For uniformity, we deﬁne four new
variables
u =
_
¸
¸
_
u
1
u
2
u
3
u
4
_
¸
¸
_
=
_
¸
¸
_
v
1
v
2
˙ v
1
˙ v
2
_
¸
¸
_
(6.25)
so that
u
3
= ˙ v
1
and u
4
= ˙ v
2
,
while the original system (6.23) becomes
_
˙ u
3
˙ u
4
_
= B
_
u
1
u
2
_
.
We can now gather these four ﬁrstorder differential equations into a single system as follows:
˙ u = Au (6.26)
where
A =
_
¸
¸
_
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
B
0 0
0 0
_
¸
¸
_
.
Likewise, the initial conditions (6.24) are replaced by the (known) vector
u(0) =
_
v(0)
˙ v(0)
_
.
In the next section we solve equation (6.26).
6.5. SOLUTION OF THE EXAMPLE 79
6.5 Solution of the Example
Not all matrices have a full set of linearly independent eigenvectors. With the system of springs in ﬁgure 6.1, however,
we are lucky. The eigenvalues of A are solutions to the equation
Ax = λx , (6.27)
where we recall that
A =
_
0 I
B 0
_
and B =
_
−
c
1
+c
2
m1
c
2
m1
c
2
m2
−
c
2
+c
3
m2
_
.
Here, the zeros in A are 2 ×2 matrices of zeros, and I is the 2 ×2 identity matrix. If we partition the vector x into its
upper and lower halves y and z,
x =
_
y
z
_
,
we can write
Ax =
_
0 I
B 0
_ _
y
z
_
=
_
z
By
_
so that the eigenvalue equation (6.27) can be written as the following pair of equations:
z = λy (6.28)
By = λz ,
which yields
By = µy with µ = λ
2
.
In other words, the eigenvalues of A are the square roots of the eigenvalues of B: if we denote the two eigenvalues of
B as µ
1
and µ
2
, then the eigenvalues of A are
λ
1
=
√
µ
1
λ
2
= −
√
µ
1
λ
3
=
√
µ
2
λ
4
= −
√
µ
2
.
The eigenvalues µ
1
and µ
2
of B are the solutions of
det(B −µI) =
_
c
1
+c
2
m
1
+µ
__
c
2
+c
3
m
2
+µ
_
−
c
2
2
m
1
m
2
= µ
2
+ 2αµ +β = 0
where
α =
1
2
_
c
1
+c
2
m
1
+
c
2
+c
3
m
2
_
and β =
c
1
c
2
+c
1
c
3
+c
2
c
3
m
1
m
2
are positive constants that depend on the elastic properties of the springs and on the masses. We then obtain
µ
1,2
= −α ±γ ,
where
γ =
_
α
2
−β =
¸
1
4
_
c
1
+c
2
m
1
−
c
2
+c
3
m
2
_
2
+
c
2
2
m
1
m
2
.
The constant γ is real because the radicand is nonnegative. We also have that α ≥ γ, so that the two solutions µ
1,2
are
real and negative, and the four eigenvalues of A,
λ
1
=
√
−α +γ , λ
2
= −
√
−α +γ , (6.29)
λ
3
=
√
−α −γ , λ
4
= −
√
−α −γ (6.30)
80 CHAPTER 6. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS
come in nonreal, complexconjugate pairs. This is to be expected, since our system of springs obviously exhibits an
oscillatory behavior.
Also the eigenvectors of A can be derived from those of B. In fact, from equation (6.28) we see that if y is an
eigenvector of B corresponding to eigenvalue µ = λ
2
, then there are two corresponding eigenvectors for A of the
form
x =
_
y
±λy
_
. (6.31)
The eigenvectors of B are the solutions of
(B −(−α ±γ)I)y = 0 . (6.32)
Since ±(−α±γ) are eigenvalues of B, the determinant of this equation is zero, and the two scalar equations in (6.32)
must be linearly dependent. The ﬁrst equation reads
−
_
c
1
+c
2
m
1
−α ±γ
_
y
1
+
c
2
m
1
y
2
= 0
and is obviously satisﬁed by any vector of the form
y = k
_
c
2
m
1
c
1
+c
2
m
1
−α ±γ
_
where k is an arbitrary constant. For k = 0, y denotes the two eigenvectors of B, and from equation (6.31) the four
eigenvectors of A are proportional to the four columns of the following matrix:
Q =
_
¸
¸
_
c2
m1
c2
m1
c2
m1
c2
m1
a +λ
2
1
a +λ
2
2
a +λ
2
3
a +λ
2
4
λ
1
c2
m
1
λ
2
c2
m
1
λ
3
c2
m
1
λ
4
c2
m
1
λ
1
_
a +λ
2
1
_
λ
2
_
a +λ
2
2
_
λ
3
_
a +λ
2
3
_
λ
4
_
a +λ
2
4
_
_
¸
¸
_
(6.33)
where
a =
c
1
+c
2
m
1
.
The general solution to the ﬁrstorder differential system (6.26) is then given by equation (6.17). Since we just found
four distinct eigenvectors, however, we can write more simply
u(t) = Qe
Λt
Q
−1
u(0) (6.34)
where
Λ =
_
¸
¸
_
λ
1
0 0 0
0 λ
2
0 0
0 0 λ
3
0
0 0 0 λ
4
_
¸
¸
_
.
In these expressions, the values of λ
i
are given in equations (6.30), and Q is in equation (6.33).
Finally, the solution to the original, secondorder system (6.23) can be obtained from equation (6.25) by noticing
that v is equal to the ﬁrst two components of u.
This completes the solution of our system of differential equations. However, it may be useful to add some
algebraic manipulation in order to show that the solution is indeed oscillatory. As we see in the following, the masses’
motions can be described by the superposition of two sinusoids whose frequencies depend on the physical constants
involved (masses and spring constants). The amplitudes and phases of the sinusoids, on the other hand, depend on the
initial conditions.
To simplify our manipulation, we note that
u(t) = Qe
Λt
w ,
6.5. SOLUTION OF THE EXAMPLE 81
where we deﬁned
w = Q
−1
u(0) . (6.35)
We now leave the constants in w unspeciﬁed, and derive the general solution v(t) for the original, secondorder
problem. Numerical values for the constants can be found from the initial conditions u(0) by equation (6.35). We
have
v(t) = Q(1 : 2, :)e
Λt
w ,
where Q(1 : 2, :) denotes the ﬁrst two rows of Q. Since
λ
2
= −λ
1
and λ
4
= −λ
3
(see equations (6.30)), we have
Q(1 : 2, :) =
_
q
1
q
1
q
2
q
2
¸
where we deﬁned
q
1
=
_
c
2
m1
c
1
+c
2
m1
+λ
2
1
_
and q
2
=
_
c
2
m1
c
1
+c
2
m1
+λ
2
3
_
.
Thus, we can write
v(t) = q
1
_
k
1
e
λ
1
t
+k
2
e
−λ
1
t
_
+ q
2
_
k
3
e
λ
3
t
+k
4
e
−λ
3
t
_
.
Since the λs are imaginary but v(t) is real, the k
i
must come in complexconjugate pairs:
k
1
= k
∗
2
and k
3
= k
∗
4
. (6.36)
In fact, we have
v(0) = q
1
(k
1
+k
2
) + q
2
(k
3
+k
4
)
and from the derivative
˙ v(t) = q
1
λ
1
_
k
1
e
λ1t
−k
2
e
−λ1t
_
+ q
2
λ
3
_
k
3
e
λ3t
−k
4
e
−λ3t
_
we obtain
˙ v(0) = q
1
λ
1
(k
1
−k
2
) + q
2
λ
3
(k
3
−k
4
) .
Since the vectors q
i
are independent (assuming that the mass c
2
is nonzero), this means that
k
1
+k
2
is real k
1
−k
2
is purely imaginary
k
3
+k
4
is real k
3
−k
4
is purely imaginary ,
from which equations (6.36) follow.
Finally, by using the relation
e
jx
+e
−jx
2
= cos x ,
and simple trigonometry we obtain
v(t) = q
1
A
1
cos(ω
1
t +φ
1
) + q
2
A
2
cos(ω
2
t +φ
2
)
where
ω
1
=
√
α −γ =
¸
¸
¸
_
1
2
(a +b) −
¸
1
4
(a −b)
2
+
c
2
2
m
1
m
2
ω
2
=
√
α +γ =
¸
¸
¸
_
1
2
(a +b) +
¸
1
4
(a −b)
2
+
c
2
2
m
1
m
2
82 CHAPTER 6. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS
and
a =
c
1
+c
2
m
1
, b =
c
2
+c
3
m
2
.
Notice that these two frequencies depend only on the conﬁguration of the system, and not on the initial conditions.
The amplitudes A
i
and phases φ
i
, on the other hand, depend on the constants k
i
as follows:
A
1
= 2k
1
 , A
2
= 2k
3

φ
1
= arctan
2
(Im(k
1
), Re(k
1
)) φ
2
= arctan
2
(Im(k
3
), Re(k
3
))
where Re, Im denote the real and imaginary part and where the twoargument function arctan
2
is deﬁned as follows
for (x, y) = (0, 0)
arctan
2
(y, x) =
_
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
_
arctan(
y
x
) if x > 0
π + arctan(
y
x
) if x < 0
π
2
if x = 0 and y > 0
−
π
2
if x = 0 and y < 0
and is undeﬁned for (x, y) = (0, 0). This function returns the arctangent of y/x (notice the order of the arguments) in
the proper quadrant, and extends the function by continuity along the y axis.
The two constants k
1
and k
3
can be found from the given initial conditions v(0) and ˙ v(0) from equations (6.35)
and (6.25).
Chapter 7
Stochastic State Estimation
Perhaps the most important part of studying a problem in robotics or vision, as well as in most other sciences, is to
determine a good model for the phenomena and events that are involved. For instance, studying manipulation requires
deﬁning models for how a robot arm can move and for how it interacts with the world. Analyzing image motion
implies deﬁning models for how points move in space and how this motion projects onto the image. When motion
is involved, as is very often the case, models take on frequently the form of dynamic systems. A dynamic system
is a mathematical description of a quantity that evolves over time. The theory of dynamic systems is both rich and
fascinating. Although in this chapter we will barely scratch its surface, we will consider one of its most popular and
useful aspects, the theory of state estimation, in the particular form of Kalman ﬁltering. To this purpose, an informal
deﬁnition of a dynamic system is given in the next section. The deﬁnition is then illustrated by setting up the dynamic
system equations for a simple but realistic application, that of modeling the trajectory of an enemy mortar shell. In
sections 7.3 through 7.5, we will develop the theory of the Kalman ﬁlter, and in section 7.6 we will see that the shell
can be shot down before it hits us. As discussed in section 7.7, Kalman ﬁltering has intimate connections with the
theory of algebraic linear systems we have developed in chapters 2 and 3.
7.1 Dynamic Systems
In its most general meaning, the term system refers to some physical entity on which some action is performed by
means of an input u. The system reacts to this input and produces an output y (see ﬁgure 7.1).
A dynamic system is a system whose phenomena occur over time. One often says that a system evolves over time.
Simple examples of a dynamic system are the following:
• An electric circuit, whose input is the current in a given branch and whose output is a voltage across a pair of
nodes.
• A chemical reactor, whose inputs are the external temperature, the temperature of the gas being supplied, and
the supply rate of the gas. The output can be the temperature of the reaction product.
• A mass suspended from a spring. The input is the force applied to the mass and the output is the position of the
mass.
input output system
S u y
Figure 7.1: A general system.
83
84 CHAPTER 7. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION
In all these examples, what is input and what is output is a choice that depends on the application. Also, all the
quantities in the examples vary continuously with time. In other cases, as for instance for switching networks and
computers, it is more natural to consider time as a discrete variable. If time varies continuously, the system is said to
be continuous; if time varies discretely, the system is said to be discrete.
7.1.1 State
Given a dynamic system, continuous or discrete, the modeling problem is to somehow correlate inputs (causes) with
outputs (effects). The examples above suggest that the output at time t cannot be determined in general by the value
assumed by the input quantity at the same point in time. Rather, the output is the result of the entire history of the
system. An effort of abstraction is therefore required, which leads to postulating a new quantity, called the state, which
summarizes information about the past and the present of the system. Speciﬁcally, the value x(t) taken by the state at
time t must be sufﬁcient to determine the output at the same point in time. Also, knowledge of both x(t
1
) and u
[t
1
,t
2
)
,
that is, of the state at time t
1
and the input over the interval t
1
≤ t < t
2
, must allow computing the state (and hence
the output) at time t
2
. For the mass attached to a spring, for instance, the state could be the position and velocity of
the mass. In fact, the laws of classical mechanics allow computing the new position and velocity of the mass at time t
2
given its position and velocity at time t
1
and the forces applied over the interval [t
1
, t
2
). Furthermore, in this example,
the output y of the system happens to coincide with one of the two state variables, and is therefore always deducible
from the latter.
Thus, in a dynamic system the input affects the state, and the output is a function of the state. For a discrete
system, the way that the input changes the state at time instant number k into the new state at time instant k + 1 can
be represented by a simple equation:
x
k+1
= f(x
k
, u
k
, k)
where f is some function that represents the change, and u
k
is the input at time k. Similarly, the relation between state
and output can be expressed by another function:
y
k
= h(x
k
, k) .
A discrete dynamic system is completely described by these two equations and an initial state x
0
. In general, all
quantities are vectors.
For continuous systems, time does not come in quanta, so one cannot compute x
k+1
as a function of x
k
, u
k
, and
k, but rather compute x(t
2
) as a functional φ of x(t
1
) and the entire input u over the interval [t
1
, t
2
):
x(t
2
) = φ(x(t
1
), u(·), t
1
, t
2
)
where u(·) represents the entire function u, not just one of its values. A description of the system in terms of func
tions, rather than functionals, can be given in the case of a regular system, for which the functional φ is continuous,
differentiable, and with continuous ﬁrst derivative. In that case, one can show that there exists a function f such that
the state x(t) of the system satisﬁes the differential equation
˙ x(t) = f(x(t), u(t), t)
where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to time. The relation from state to output, on the other hand, is
essentially the same as for the discrete case:
y(t) = h(x(t), t) .
Specifying the initial state x
0
completes the deﬁnition of a continuous dynamic system.
7.1.2 Uncertainty
The systems deﬁned in the previous section are called deterministic, since the evolution is exactly determined once
the initial state x at time 0 is known. Determinism implies that both the evolution function f and the output function
h are known exactly. This is, however, an unrealistic state of affairs. In practice, the laws that govern a given physical
7.2. AN EXAMPLE: THE MORTAR SHELL 85
system are known up to some uncertainty. In fact, the equations themselves are simple abstractions of a complex
reality. The coefﬁcients that appear in the equations are known only approximately, and can change over time as a
result of temperature changes, component wear, and so forth. A more realistic model then allows for some inherent,
unresolvable uncertainty in both f and h. This uncertainty can be represented as noise that perturbs the equations we
have presented so far. A discrete system then takes on the following form:
x
k+1
= f(x
k
, u
k
, k) +η
k
y
k
= h(x
k
, k) +ξ
k
and for a continuous system
˙ x(t) = f(x(t), u(t), t) +η(t)
y(t) = h(x(t), t) +ξ(t) .
Without loss of generality, the noise distributions can be assumed to have zero mean, for otherwise the mean can be
incorporated into the deterministic part, that is, in either f or h. The mean may not be known, but this is a different
story: in general the parameters that enter into the deﬁnitions of f and h must be estimated by some method, and the
mean perturbations are no different.
A common assumption, which is sometimes valid and always simpliﬁes the mathematics, is that η and ξ are
zeromean Gaussian random variables with known covariance matrices Q and R, respectively.
7.1.3 Linearity
The mathematics becomes particularly simple when both the evolution function f and the output function h are linear.
Then, the system equations become
x
k+1
= F
k
x
k
+G
k
u
k
+η
k
y
k
= H
k
x
k
+ξ
k
for the discrete case, and
˙ x(t) = F(t)x(t) +G(t)u(t) +η(t)
y(t) = H(t)x(t) +ξ(t)
for the continuous one. It is useful to specify the sizes of the matrices involved. We assume that the input u is a vector
in R
p
, the state x is in R
n
, and the output y is in R
m
. Then, the state propagation matrix F is n ×n, the input matrix
G is n × p, and the output matrix H is m × n. The covariance matrix Q of the system noise η is n × n, and the
covariance matrix of the output noise ξ is m×m.
7.2 An Example: the Mortar Shell
In this section, the example of the mortar shell will be discussed in order to see some of the technical issues involved
in setting up the equations of a dynamic system. In particular, we consider discretization issues because the physical
system is itself continuous, but we choose to model it as a discrete system for easier implementation on a computer.
In sections 7.3 through 7.5, we consider the state estimation problem: given observations of the output y over an
interval of time, we want to determine the state x of the system. This is a very important task. For instance, in the case
of the mortar shell, the state is the (initially unknown) position and velocity of the shell, while the output is a set of
observations made by a tracking system. Estimating the state then leads to enough knowledge about the shell to allow
driving an antiaircraft gun to shoot the shell down in midﬂight.
You spotted an enemy mortar installation about thirty kilometers away, on a hill that looks about 0.5 kilometers
higher than your own position. You want to track incoming projectiles with a Kalman ﬁlter so you can aim your guns
86 CHAPTER 7. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION
accurately. You do not know the initial velocity of the projectiles, so you just guess some values: 0.6 kilometers/second
for the horizontal component, 0.1 kilometers/second for the vertical component. Thus, your estimate of the initial state
of the projectile is
ˆx
0
=
_
¸
¸
_
˙
d
d
˙ z
z
_
¸
¸
_
=
_
¸
¸
_
−0.6
30
0.1
0.5
_
¸
¸
_
where d is the horizontal coordinate, z is the vertical, you are at (0, 0), and dots denote derivatives with respect to
time.
From your highschool physics, you remember that the laws of motion for a ballistic trajectory are the following:
d(t) = d(0) +
˙
d(0)t (7.1)
z(t) = z(0) + ˙ z(0)t −
1
2
gt
2
(7.2)
where g is the gravitational acceleration, equal to 9.8 × 10
−3
kilometers per second squared. Since you do not trust
your physics much, and you have little time to get ready, you decide to ignore air drag. Because of this, you introduce
a state update covariance matrix Q = 0.1I
4
, where I
4
is the 4 ×4 identity matrix.
All you have to track the shells is a camera pointed at the mortar that will rotate so as to keep the projectile at the
center of the image, where you see a blob that increases in size as the projectile gets closer. Thus, the aiming angle of
the camera gives you elevation information about the projectile’s position, and the size of the blob tells you something
about the distance, given that you know the actual size of the projectiles used and all the camera parameters. The
projectile’s elevation is
e = 1000
z
d
(7.3)
when the projectile is at (d, z). Similarly, the size of the blob in pixels is
s =
1000
√
d
2
+z
2
. (7.4)
You do not have very precise estimates of the noise that corrupts e and s, so you guess measurement covariances
R
e
= R
s
= 1000, which you put along the diagonal of a 2 ×2 diagonal measurement covariance matrix R.
7.2.1 The Dynamic System Equation
Equations (7.1) and (7.2) are continuous. Since you are taking measurements every dt = 0.2 seconds, you want to
discretize these equations. For the z component, equation (7.2) yields
z(t +dt) −z(t) = z(0) + ˙ z(0)(t +dt) −
1
2
g(t +dt)
2
−
_
z(0) + ˙ z(0)t −
1
2
gt
2
_
= ( ˙ z(0) −gt)dt −
1
2
g(dt)
2
= ˙ z(t)dt −
1
2
g(dt)
2
,
since ˙ z(0) −gt = ˙ z(t).
Consequently, if t +dt is time instant k + 1 and t is time instant k, you have
z
k+1
= z
k
+ ˙ z
k
dt −
1
2
g(dt)
2
. (7.5)
The reasoning for the horizontal component d is the same, except that there is no acceleration:
d
k+1
= d
k
+
˙
d
k
dt . (7.6)
7.2. AN EXAMPLE: THE MORTAR SHELL 87
Equations (7.5) and (7.6) can be rewritten as a single system update equation
x
k+1
= Fx
k
+Gu
where
x
k
=
_
¸
¸
_
˙
d
k
d
k
˙ z
k
z
k
_
¸
¸
_
is the state, the 4 × 4 matrix F depends on dt, the control scalar u is equal to −g, and the 4 × 1 control matrix G
depends on dt. The two matrices F and G are as follows:
F =
_
¸
¸
_
1 0 0 0
dt 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 dt 1
_
¸
¸
_
G =
_
¸
¸
_
0
0
dt
−dt
2
2
_
¸
¸
_
.
7.2.2 The Measurement Equation
The two nonlinear equations (7.3) and (7.4) express the available measurements as a function of the true values of the
projectile coordinates d and z. We want to replace these equations with linear approximations. To this end, we develop
both equations as Taylor series around the current estimate and truncate them after the linear term. From the elevation
equation (7.3), we have
e
k
= 1000
z
k
d
k
≈ 1000
_
ˆ z
k
ˆ
d
k
+
z
k
− ˆ z
k
ˆ
d
k
−
ˆ z
k
ˆ
d
2
k
(d
k
−
ˆ
d
k
)
_
,
so that after simplifying we can redeﬁne the measurement to be the discrepancy from the estimated value:
e
k
= e
k
−1000
ˆ z
k
ˆ
d
k
≈ 1000(
z
k
ˆ
d
k
−
ˆ z
k
ˆ
d
2
k
d
k
) . (7.7)
We can proceed similarly for equation (7.4):
s
k
=
1000
_
d
2
k
+z
2
k
≈
1000
_
ˆ
d
2
k
+ ˆ z
2
k
−
1000
ˆ
d
k
(
ˆ
d
2
k
+ ˆ z
2
k
)
3/2
(d
k
−
ˆ
d
k
) −
1000ˆ z
k
(
ˆ
d
2
k
+ ˆ z
2
k
)
3/2
(z
k
− ˆ z
k
)
and after simplifying:
s
k
= s
k
−
2000
_
ˆ
d
2
+ ˆ z
2
≈ −1000
_
ˆ
d
k
(
ˆ
d
2
k
+ ˆ z
2
k
)
3/2
d
k
+
ˆ z
k
(
ˆ
d
2
k
+ ˆ z
2
k
)
3/2
z
k
_
. (7.8)
The two measurements s
k
and e
k
just deﬁned can be collected into a single measurement vector
y
k
=
_
s
k
e
k
_
,
and the two approximate measurement equations (7.7) and (7.8) can be written in the matrix form
y
k
= H
k
x
k
(7.9)
where the measurement matrix H
k
depends on the current state estimate ˆx
k
:
H
k
= −1000
_
_
0
ˆ
d
k
(
ˆ
d
2
k
+ˆ z
2
k
)
3/2
0
ˆ z
k
(
ˆ
d
2
k
+ˆ z
2
k
)
3/2
0
ˆ z
k
ˆ
d
2
k
0 −
1
ˆ
d
k
_
_
88 CHAPTER 7. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION
As the shell approaches us, we frantically start studying state estimation, and in particular Kalman ﬁltering, in the
hope to build a system that lets us shoot down the shell before it hits us. The next few sections will be read under this
impending threat.
Knowing the model for the mortar shell amounts to knowing the laws by which the object moves and those that
relate the position of the projectile to our observations. So what else is there left to do? From the observations, we
would like to know where the mortar shell is right now, and perhaps predict where it will be in a few seconds, so we
can direct an antiaircraft gun to shoot down the target. In other words, we want to know x
k
, the state of the dynamic
system. Clearly, knowing x
0
instead is equivalent, at least when the dynamics of the system are known exactly (the
system noise η
k
is zero). In fact, from x
0
we can simulate the system up until time t, thereby determining x
k
as well.
Most importantly, we do not want to have all the observations before we shoot: we would be dead by then. A scheme
that reﬁnes an initial estimation of the state as new observations are acquired is called a recursive
1
state estimation
system. The Kalman ﬁlter is one of the most versatile schemes for recursive state estimations. The original paper
by Kalman (R. E. Kalman, “A new approach to linear ﬁltering and prediction problems,” Transactions of the ASME
Journal Basic Engineering, 82:34–45, 1960) is still one of the most readable treatments of this subject from the point
of view of stochastic estimation.
Even without noise, a single observation y
k
may not be sufﬁcient to determine the state x
k
(in the example, one
observation happens to be sufﬁcient). This is a very interesting aspect of state estimation. It is really the ensemble of
all observations that let one estimate the state, and yet observations are processed one at a time, as they become avail
able. A classical example of this situation in computer vision is the reconstruction of threedimensional shape from
a sequence of images. A single image is twodimensional, so by itself it conveys no threedimensional information.
Kalman ﬁlters exist that recover shape information froma sequence of images. See for instance L. Matthies, T. Kanade,
and R. Szeliski, “Kalman ﬁlterbased algorithms for estimating depth from image sequences,” International Journal of
Computer Vision, 3(3):209236, September 1989; and T.J. Broida, S. Chandrashekhar, and R. Chellappa, “Recursive
3D motion estimation from a monocular image sequence,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,
26(4):639–656, July 1990.
Here, we introduce the Kalman ﬁlter from the simpler point of view of least squares estimation, since we have
developed all the necessary tools in the ﬁrst part of this course. The next section deﬁnes the state estimation problem
for a discrete dynamic system in more detail. Then, section 7.4 deﬁnes the essential notions of estimation theory
that are necessary to understand the quantitative aspects of Kalman ﬁltering. Section 7.5 develops the equation of the
Kalman ﬁlter, and section 7.6 reconsiders the example of the mortar shell. Finally, section 7.7 establishes a connection
between the Kalman ﬁlter and the solution of a linear system.
7.3 State Estimation
In this section, the estimation problem is deﬁned in some more detail. Given a discrete dynamic system
x
k+1
= F
k
x
k
+G
k
u
k
+η
k
(7.10)
y
k
= H
k
x
k
+ξ
k
(7.11)
where the system noise η
k
and the measurement noise ξ
k
are Gaussian variables,
η
k
∼ N(0, Q
k
)
ξ
k
∼ N(0, R
k
) ,
as well as a (possibly completely wrong) estimate ˆx
0
of the initial state and an initial covariance matrix P
0
of the
estimate ˆx
0
, the Kalman ﬁlter computes the optimal estimate ˆx
kk
at time k given the measurements y
0
, . . . , y
k
. The
ﬁlter also computes an estimate P
kk
of the covariance of ˆx
kk
given those measurements. In these expressions, the hat
means that the quantity is an estimate. Also, the ﬁrst k in the subscript refers to which variable is being estimated, the
second to which measurements are being used for the estimate. Thus, in general, ˆx
ij
is the estimate of the value that
x assumes at time i given the ﬁrst j + 1 measurements y
0
, . . . , y
j
.
1
The term “recursive” in the systems theory literature corresponds loosely to “incremental” or “iterative” in computer science.
7.3. STATE ESTIMATION 89
k  k1
^
y
H
k
x
k  k1
^
x
^
k  k
k  k
P
x
^
P
k+1  k
k+1  k
propagate propagate
x
^
P
k1  k1
k1  k1
y
k
y
k1
y
k+1
k
update
k  k1
P
k1 k+1
time
Figure 7.2: The update stage of the Kalman ﬁlter changes the estimate of the current system state x
k
to make the
prediction of the measurement closer to the actual measurement y
k
. Propagation then accounts for the evolution of the
system state, as well as the consequent growing uncertainty.
7.3.1 Update
The covariance matrix P
kk
must be computed in order to keep the Kalman ﬁlter running, in the following sense. At
time k, just before the new measurement y
k
comes in, we have an estimate ˆx
kk−1
of the state vector x
k
based on the
previous measurements y
0
, . . . , y
k−1
. Now we face the problem of incorporating the new measurement y
k
into our
estimate, that is, of transforming ˆx
kk−1
into ˆx
kk
. If ˆx
kk−1
were exact, we could compute the new measurement y
k
without even looking at it, through the measurement equation (7.11). Even if ˆx
kk−1
is not exact, the estimate
ˆy
kk−1
= H
k
ˆx
kk−1
is still our best bet. Now y
k
becomes available, and we can consider the residue
r
k
= y
k
−ˆy
kk−1
= y
k
−H
k
ˆx
kk−1
.
If this residue is nonzero, we probably need to correct our estimate of the state x
k
, so that the new prediction
ˆy
kk
= H
k
ˆx
kk
of the measurement value is closer to the measurement y
k
than the old prediction
ˆy
kk−1
= H
k
ˆx
kk−1
that we made just before the new measurement y
k
was available.
The question however is, by how much should we correct our estimate of the state? We do not want to make ˆy
kk
coincide with y
k
. That would mean that we trust the new measurement completely, but that we do not trust our state
estimate ˆx
kk−1
at all, even if the latter was obtained through a large number of previous measurements. Thus, we
need some criterion for comparing the quality of the new measurement y
k
with that of our old estimate ˆx
kk−1
of the
state. The uncertainty about the former is R
k
, the covariance of the observation error. The uncertainty about the state
just before the new measurement y
k
becomes available is P
kk−1
. The update stage of the Kalman ﬁlter uses R
k
and
P
kk−1
to weigh past evidence (ˆx
kk−1
) and new observations (y
k
). This stage is represented graphically in the middle
of ﬁgure 7.2. At the same time, also the uncertainty measure P
kk−1
must be updated, so that it becomes available for
the next step. Because a new measurement has been read, this uncertainty becomes usually smaller: P
kk
< P
kk−1
.
The idea is that as time goes by the uncertainty on the state decreases, while that about the measurements may
remain the same. Then, measurements count less and less as the estimate approaches its true value.
90 CHAPTER 7. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION
7.3.2 Propagation
Just after arrival of the measurement y
k
, both state estimate and state covariance matrix have been updated as described
above. But between time k and time k + 1 both state and covariance may change. The state changes according to the
system equation (7.10), so our estimate ˆx
k+1k
of x
k+1
given y
0
, . . . , y
k
should reﬂect this change as well. Similarly,
because of the system noise η
k
, our uncertainty about this estimate may be somewhat greater than one time epoch ago.
The system equation (7.10) essentially “dead reckons” the new state from the old, and inaccuracies in our model of
how this happens lead to greater uncertainty. This increase in uncertainty depends on the system noise covariance Q
k
.
Thus, both state estimate and covariance must be propagated to the new time k + 1 to yield the new state estimate
ˆx
k+1k
and the new covariance P
k+1k
. Both these changes are shown on the right in ﬁgure 7.2.
In summary, just as the state vector x
k
represents all the information necessary to describe the evolution of a
deterministic system, the covariance matrix P
kk
contains all the necessary information about the probabilistic part of
the system, that is, about how both the system noise η
k
and the measurement noise ξ
k
corrupt the quality of the state
estimate ˆx
kk
.
Hopefully, this intuitive introduction to Kalman ﬁltering gives you an idea of what the ﬁlter does, and what infor
mation it needs to keep working. To turn these concepts into a quantitative algorithm we need some preliminaries on
optimal estimation, which are discussed in the next section. The Kalman ﬁlter itself is derived in section 7.5.
7.4 BLUE Estimators
In what sense does the Kalman ﬁlter use covariance information to produce better estimates of the state? As we will
se later, the Kalman ﬁlter computes the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate (BLUE) of the state. In this section, we see
what this means, starting with the deﬁnition of a linear estimation problem, and then considering the attributes “best”
and “unbiased” in turn.
7.4.1 Linear Estimation
Given a quantity y (the observation) that is a known function of another (deterministic but unknown) quantity x (the
state) plus some amount of noise,
y = h(x) + n , (7.12)
the estimation problem amounts to ﬁnding a function
ˆx = L(y)
such that ˆx is as close as possible to x. The function L is called an estimator, and its value ˆx given the observations y
is called an estimate. Inverting a function is an example of estimation. If the function h is invertible and the noise term
n is zero, then L is the inverse of h, no matter how the phrase “as close as possible” is interpreted. In fact, in that case
ˆx is equal to x, and any distance between ˆx and x must be zero. In particular, solving a square, nonsingular system
y = Hx (7.13)
is, in this somewhat trivial sense, a problem of estimation. The optimal estimator is then represented by the matrix
L = H
−1
and the optimal estimate is
ˆx = Ly .
A less trivial example occurs, for a linear observation function, when the matrix H has more rows than columns,
so that the system (7.13) is overconstrained. In this case, there is usually no inverse to H, and again one must say in
what sense ˆx is required to be “as close as possible” to x. For linear systems, we have so far considered the criterion
that prefers a particular ˆx if it makes the Euclidean norm of the vector y − Hx as small as possible. This is the
7.4. BLUE ESTIMATORS 91
(unweighted) least squares criterion. In section 7.4.2, we will see that in a very precise sense ordinary least squares
solve a particular type of estimation problem, namely, the estimation problem for the observation equation (7.12) with
h a linear function and n Gaussian zeromean noise with the indentity matrix for covariance.
An estimator is said to be linear if the function L is linear. Notice that the observation function h can still be
nonlinear. If L is required to be linear but h is not, we will probably have an estimator that produces a worse estimate
than a nonlinear one. However, it still makes sense to look for the best possible linear estimator. The best estimator
for a linear observation function happens to be a linear estimator.
7.4.2 Best
In order to deﬁne what is meant by a “best” estimator, one needs to deﬁne a measure of goodness of an estimate. In
the least squares approach to solving a linear system like (7.13), this distance is deﬁned as the Euclidean norm of the
residue vector
y −Hˆx
between the left and the righthand sides of equation (7.13), evaluated at the solution ˆx. Replacing (7.13) by a “noisy
equation”,
y = Hx + n (7.14)
does not change the nature of the problem. Even equation (7.13) has no exact solution when there are more independent
equations than unknowns, so requiring equality is hopeless. What the least squares approach is really saying is that
even at the solution ˆx there is some residue
n = y −Hˆx (7.15)
and we would like to make that residue as small as possible in the sense of the Euclidean norm. Thus, an overcon
strained system of the form (7.13) and its “noisy” version (7.14) are really the same problem. In fact, (7.14) is the
correct version, if the equality sign is to be taken literally.
The noise term, however, can be used to generalize the problem. In fact, the Euclidean norm of the residue (7.15)
treats all components (all equations in (7.14)) equally. In other words, each equation counts the same when computing
the norm of the residue. However, different equations can have noise terms of different variance. This amounts to
saying that we have reasons to prefer the quality of some equations over others or, alternatively, that we want to
enforce different equations to different degrees. From the point of view of least squares, this can be enforced by some
scaling of the entries of n or, even, by some linear transformation of them:
n →Wn
so instead of minimizing n
2
= n
T
n (the square is of course irrelevant when it comes to minimization), we now
minimize
Wn
2
= n
T
R
−1
n
where
R
−1
= W
T
W
is a symmetric, nonnegativedeﬁnite matrix. This minimization problem, called weighted least squares, is only slightly
different from its unweighted version. In fact, we have
Wn = W(y −Hx) = Wy −WHx
so we are simply solving the system
Wy = WHx
in the traditional, “unweighted” sense. We know the solution from normal equations:
ˆx = ((WH)
T
WH)
−1
(WH)
T
Wy = (H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
H
T
R
−1
y .
92 CHAPTER 7. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION
Interestingly, this same solution is obtained from a completely different criterion of goodness of a solution ˆx. This
criterion is a probabilistic one. We consider this different approach because it will let us show that the Kalman ﬁlter is
optimal in a very useful sense.
The new criterion is the socalled minimumcovariance criterion. The estimate ˆx of x is some function of the
measurements y, which in turn are corrupted by noise. Thus, ˆx is a function of a random vector (noise), and is therefore
a random vector itself. Intuitively, if we estimate the same quantity many times, from measurements corrupted by
different noise samples from the same distribution, we obtain different estimates. In this sense, the estimates are
random.
It makes therefore sense to measure the quality of an estimator by requiring that its variance be as small as possible:
the ﬂuctuations of the estimate ˆx with respect to the true (unknown) value x from one estimation experiment to the
next should be as small as possible. Formally, we want to choose a linear estimator L such that the estimates ˆx = Ly
it produces minimize the following covariance matrix:
P = E[(x −ˆx)(x −ˆx)
T
] .
Minimizing a matrix, however, requires a notion of “size” for matrices: how large is P? Fortunately, most inter
esting matrix norms are equivalent, in the sense that given two different deﬁnitions P
1
and P
2
of matrix norm
there exist two positive scalars α, β such that
αP
1
< P
2
< βP
1
.
Thus, we can pick any norm we like. In fact, in the derivations that follow, we only use properties shared by all norms,
so which norm we actually use is irrelevant. Some matrix norms were mentioned in section 3.2.
7.4.3 Unbiased
In additionto requiring our estimator to be linear and with minimum covariance, we also want it to be unbiased, in the
sense that if repeat the same estimation experiment many times we neither consistently overestimate nor consistently
underestimate x. Mathematically, this translates into the following requirement:
E[x −ˆx] = 0 and E[ˆx] = E[x] .
7.4.4 The BLUE
We now address the problem of ﬁnding the Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (BLUE)
ˆx = Ly
of x given that y depends on x according to the model (7.14), which is repeated here for convenience:
y = Hx + n . (7.16)
First, we give a necessary and sufﬁcient condition for L to be unbiased.
Lemma 7.4.1 Let n in equation (7.16) be zero mean. Then the linear estimator L is unbiased if an only if
LH = I ,
the identity matrix.
Proof.
E[x −ˆx] = E[x −Ly] = E[x −L(Hx + n)]
= E[(I −LH)x] −E[Ln] = (I −HL)E[x]
7.4. BLUE ESTIMATORS 93
since E[Ln] = LE[n] and E[n] = 0. For this to hold for all x we need I −LH = 0. ∆
And now the main result.
Theorem 7.4.2 The Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (BLUE)
ˆx = Ly
for the measurement model
y = Hx + n
where the noise vector n has zero mean and covariance R is given by
L = (H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
H
T
R
−1
and the covariance of the estimate ˆx is
P = E[(x −ˆx)(x −ˆx)
T
] = (H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
. (7.17)
Proof. We can write
P = E[(x −ˆx)(x −ˆx)
T
] = E[(x −Ly)(x −Ly)
T
]
= E[(x −LHx −Ln)(x −LHx −Ln)
T
] = E[((I −LH)x −Ln)((I −LH)x −Ln)
T
]
= E[Lnn
T
L
T
] = LE[nn
T
] L
T
= LRL
T
because L is unbiased, so that LH = I.
To show that
L
0
= (H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
H
T
R
−1
(7.18)
is the best choice, let L be any (other) linear unbiased estimator. We can trivially write
L = L
0
+ (L −L
0
)
and
P = LRL
T
= [L
0
+ (L −L
0
)]R[L
0
+ (L −L
0
)]
T
= L
0
RL
T
0
+ (L −L
0
)RL
T
0
+L
0
R(L −L
0
)
T
+ (L −L
0
)R(L −L
0
)
T
.
From (7.18) we obtain
RL
T
0
= RR
−1
H(H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
= H(H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
so that
(L −L
0
)RL
T
0
= (L −L
0
)H(H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
= (LH −L
0
H)(H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
.
But L and L
0
are unbiased, so LH = L
0
H = I, and
(L −L
0
)RL
T
0
= 0 .
The term L
0
R(L −L
0
)
T
is the transpose of this, so it is zero as well. In conclusion,
P = L
0
RL
T
0
+ (L −L
0
)R(L −L
0
)
T
,
the sum of two positive deﬁnite or at least semideﬁnite matrices. For such matrices, the norm of the sum is greater or
equal to either norm, so this expression is minimized when the second term vanishes, that is, when L = L
0
.
This proves that the estimator given by (7.18) is the best, that is, that it has minimum covariance. To prove that the
covariance P of ˆx is given by equation (7.17), we simply substitute L
0
for L in P = LRL
T
:
P = L
0
RL
T
0
= (H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
H
T
R
−1
RR
−1
H(H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
= (H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
H
T
R
−1
H(H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
= (H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
as promised. ∆
94 CHAPTER 7. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION
7.5 The Kalman Filter: Derivation
We now have all the components necessary to write the equations for the Kalman ﬁlter. To summarize, given a linear
measurement equation
y = Hx + n
where n is a Gaussian random vector with zero mean and covariance matrix R,
n ∼ N(0, R) ,
the best linear unbiased estimate ˆx of x is
ˆx = PH
T
R
−1
y
where the matrix
P
∆
= E[(ˆx −x)(ˆx −x)
T
] = (H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
is the covariance of the estimation error.
Given a dynamic system with system and measurement equations
x
k+1
= F
k
x
k
+G
k
u
k
+η
k
(7.19)
y
k
= H
k
x
k
+ξ
k
where the system noise η
k
and the measurement noise ξ
k
are Gaussian random vectors,
η
k
∼ N(0, Q
k
)
ξ
k
∼ N(0, R
k
) ,
as well as the best, linear, unbiased estimate ˆx
0
of the initial state with an error covariance matrix P
0
, the Kalman
ﬁlter computes the best, linear, unbiased estimate ˆx
kk
at time k given the measurements y
0
, . . . , y
k
. The ﬁlter also
computes the covariance P
kk
of the error ˆx
kk
−x
k
given those measurements. Computation occurs according to the
phases of update and propagation illustrated in ﬁgure 7.2. We now apply the results from optimal estimation to the
problem of updating and propagating the state estimates and their error covariances.
7.5.1 Update
At time k, two pieces of data are available. One is the estimate ˆx
kk−1
of the state x
k
given measurements up to but not
including y
k
. This estimate comes with its covariance matrix P
kk−1
. Another way of saying this is that the estimate
ˆx
kk−1
differs from the true state x
k
by an error term e
k
whose covariance is P
kk−1
:
ˆx
kk−1
= x
k
+ e
k
(7.20)
with
E[e
k
e
T
k
] = P
kk−1
.
The other piece of data is the new measurement y
k
itself, which is related to the state x
k
by the equation
y
k
= H
k
x
k
+ξ
k
(7.21)
with error covariance
E[ξ
k
ξ
T
k
] = R
k
.
We can summarize this available information by grouping equations 7.20 and 7.21 into one, and packaging the error
covariances into a single, blockdiagonal matrix. Thus, we have
y = Hx
k
+ n
7.5. THE KALMAN FILTER: DERIVATION 95
where
y =
_
ˆx
kk−1
y
k
_
, H =
_
I
H
k
_
, n =
_
e
k
ξ
k
_
,
and where n has covariance
R =
_
P
kk−1
0
0 R
k
_
.
As we know, the solution to this classical estimation problem is
ˆx
kk
= P
kk
H
T
R
−1
y
P
kk
= (H
T
R
−1
H)
−1
.
This pair of equations represents the update stage of the Kalman ﬁlter. These expressions are somewhat wasteful,
because the matrices H and R contain many zeros. For this reason, these two update equations are now rewritten in a
more efﬁcient and more familiar form. We have
P
−1
kk
= H
T
R
−1
H
=
_
I H
T
k
¸
_
P
−1
kk−1
0
0 R
−1
k
_ _
I
H
k
_
= P
−1
kk−1
+H
T
k
R
−1
k
H
k
and
ˆx
kk
= P
kk
H
T
R
−1
y
= P
kk
_
P
−1
kk−1
H
T
k
R
−1
k
_
_
ˆx
kk−1
y
k
_
= P
kk
(P
−1
kk−1
ˆx
kk−1
+H
T
k
R
−1
k
y
k
)
= P
kk
((P
−1
kk
−H
T
k
R
−1
k
H
k
)ˆx
kk−1
+H
T
k
R
−1
k
y
k
)
= ˆx
kk−1
+P
kk
H
T
k
R
−1
k
(y
k
−H
k
ˆx
kk−1
) .
In the last line, the difference
r
k
∆
= y
k
−H
k
ˆx
kk−1
is the residue between the actual measurement y
k
and its best estimate based on ˆx
kk−1
, and the matrix
K
k
∆
= P
kk
H
T
k
R
−1
k
is usually referred to as the Kalman gain matrix, because it speciﬁes the amount by which the residue must be multi
plied (or ampliﬁed) to obtain the correction term that transforms the old estimate ˆx
kk−1
of the state x
k
into its new
estimate ˆx
kk
.
7.5.2 Propagation
Propagation is even simpler. Since the new state is related to the old through the system equation 7.19, and the noise
term η
k
is zero mean, unbiasedness requires
ˆx
k+1k
= F
k
ˆx
kk
+G
k
u
k
,
96 CHAPTER 7. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION
which is the state estimate propagation equation of the Kalman ﬁlter. The error covariance matrix is easily propagated
thanks to the linearity of the expectation operator:
P
k+1k
= E[(ˆx
k+1k
−x
k+1
)(ˆx
k+1k
−x
k+1
)
T
]
= E[(F
k
(ˆx
kk
−x
k
) −η
k
)(F
k
(ˆx
kk
−x
k
) −η
k
)
T
]
= F
k
E[(ˆx
kk
−x
k
)(ˆx
kk
−x
k
)
T
]F
T
k
+E[η
k
η
T
k
]
= F
k
P
kk
F
T
k
+Q
k
where the system noise η
k
and the previous estimation error ˆx
kk
−x
k
were assumed to be uncorrelated.
7.5.3 Kalman Filter Equations
In summary, the Kalman ﬁlter evolves an initial estimate and an initial error covariance matrix,
ˆx
0−1
∆
= ˆx
0
and P
0−1
∆
= P
0
,
both assumed to be given, by the update equations
ˆx
kk
= ˆx
kk−1
+K
k
(y
k
−H
k
ˆx
kk−1
)
P
−1
kk
= P
−1
kk−1
+H
T
k
R
−1
k
H
k
where the Kalman gain is deﬁned as
K
k
= P
kk
H
T
k
R
−1
k
and by the propagation equations
ˆx
k+1k
= F
k
ˆx
kk
+G
k
u
k
P
k+1k
= F
k
P
kk
F
T
k
+Q
k
.
7.6 Results of the Mortar Shell Experiment
In section 7.2, the dynamic system equations for a mortar shell were set up. Matlab routines available through the
class Web page implement a Kalman ﬁlter (with naive numerics) to estimate the state of that system from simulated
observations. Figure 7.3 shows the true and estimated trajectories. Notice that coincidence of the trajectories does not
imply that the state estimate is uptodate. For this it is also necessary that any given point of the trajectory is reached
by the estimate at the same time instant. Figure 7.4 shows that the distance between estimated and true target position
does indeed converge to zero, and this occurs in time for the shell to be shot down. Figure 7.5 shows the 2norm of the
covariance matrix over time. Notice that the covariance goes to zero only asymptotically.
7.7 Linear Systems and the Kalman Filter
In order to connect the theory of state estimation with what we have learned so far about linear systems, we now show
that estimating the initial state x
0
from the ﬁrst k +1 measurements, that is, obtaining ˆx
0k
, amounts to solving a linear
system of equations with suitable weights for its rows.
The basic recurrence equations (7.10) and (7.11) can be expanded as follows:
y
k
= H
k
x
k
+ξ
k
= H
k
(F
k−1
x
k−1
+G
k−1
u
k−1
+η
k−1
) +ξ
k
= H
k
F
k−1
x
k−1
+H
k
G
k−1
u
k−1
+H
k
η
k−1
+ξ
k
= H
k
F
k−1
(F
k−2
x
k−2
+G
k−2
u
k−2
+η
k−2
) +H
k
G
k−1
u
k−1
+H
k
η
k−1
+ξ
k
7.7. LINEAR SYSTEMS AND THE KALMAN FILTER 97
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
−0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
true (dashed) and estimated (solid) missile trajectory
Figure 7.3: The true and estimated trajectories get closer to one another. Trajectories start on the right.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
distance between true and estimated missile position vs. time
Figure 7.4: The estimate actually closes in towards the target.
98 CHAPTER 7. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
norm of the state covariance matrix vs time
Figure 7.5: After an initial increase in uncertainty, the norm of the state covariance matrix converges to zero. Upwards
segments correspond to state propagation, downwards ones to state update.
= H
k
F
k−1
F
k−2
x
k−2
+H
k
(F
k−1
G
k−2
u
k−2
+G
k−1
u
k−1
) +
H
k
(F
k−1
η
k−2
+η
k−1
) +ξ
k
.
.
.
= H
k
F
k−1
. . . F
0
x
0
+H
k
(F
k−1
. . . F
1
G
0
u
0
+. . . +G
k−1
u
k−1
) +
H
k
(F
k−1
. . . F
1
η
0
+. . . +η
k−1
) +ξ
k
or in a more compact form,
y
k
= H
k
Φ(k −1, 0)x
0
+H
k
k
j=1
Φ(k −1, j)G
j−1
u
j−1
+ν
k
(7.22)
where
Φ(l, j) =
_
F
l
. . . F
j
for l ≥ j
1 for l < j
and the term
ν
k
= H
k
k
j=1
Φ(k −1, j)η
j−1
+ξ
k
is noise.
The key thing to notice about this somewhat intimidating expression is that for any k it is a linear system in x
0
, the
initial state of the system. We can write one system like the one in equation (7.22) for every value of k = 0, . . . , K,
where K is the last time instant considered, and we obtain a large system of the form
z
K
= Ψ
K
x
0
+ g
K
+ n
K
(7.23)
where
z
K
=
_
¸
_
y
0
.
.
.
y
K
_
¸
_
7.7. LINEAR SYSTEMS AND THE KALMAN FILTER 99
Ψ
K
=
_
¸
¸
¸
_
H
0
H
1
F
0
.
.
.
H
K
Φ(K −1, 0)
_
¸
¸
¸
_
g
K
=
_
¸
¸
¸
_
0
H
1
G
0
u
0
.
.
.
H
K
(Φ(K −1, 1)G
0
u
0
+. . . + Φ(K −1, K)G
K−1
u
K−1
)
_
¸
¸
¸
_
n
K
=
_
¸
_
ν
0
.
.
.
ν
K
_
¸
_ .
Without knowing anything about the statistics of the noise vector n
K
in equation (7.23), the best we can do is to
solve the system
z
K
= Ψ
K
x
0
+ g
K
in the sense of least squares, to obtain an estimate of x
0
from the measurements y
0
, . . . , y
K
:
ˆx
0K
= Ψ
†
K
(z
K
−g
K
)
where Ψ
†
K
is the pseudoinverse of Ψ
K
. We know that if Ψ
K
has full rank, the result with the pseudoinverse is the
same as we would obtain by solving the normal equations, so that
Ψ
†
K
= (Ψ
T
K
Ψ
K
)
−1
Ψ
T
K
.
The least square solution to system (7.23) minimizes the residue between the left and the righthand side under the
assumption that all equations are to be treated the same way. This is equivalent to assuming that all the noise terms in
n
K
are equally important. However, we know the covariance matrices of all these noise terms, so we ought to be able
to do better, and weigh each equation to keep these covariances into account. Intuitively, a small covariance means that
we believe in that measurement, and therefore in that equation, which should consequently be weighed more heavily
than others. The quantitative embodiment of this intuitive idea is at the core of the Kalman ﬁlter.
In summary, the Kalman ﬁlter for a linear system has been shown to be equivalent to a linear equation solver, under
the assumption that the noise that affects each of the equations has the same probability distribution, that is, that all
the noise terms in n
K
in equation 7.23 are equally important. However, the Kalman ﬁlter differs from a linear solver
in the following important respects:
1. The noise terms in n
K
in equation 7.23 are not equally important. Measurements come with covariance matrices,
and the Kalman ﬁlter makes optimal use of this information for a proper weighting of each of the scalar equations
in (7.23). Better information ought to yield more accurate results, and this is in fact the case.
2. The system (7.23) is not solved all at once. Rather, an initial solution is reﬁned over time as new measurements
become available. The ﬁnal solution can be proven to be exactly equal to solving system (7.23) all at once.
However, having better and better approximations to the solution as new data come in is much preferable in a
dynamic setting, where one cannot in general wait for all the data to be collected. In some applications, data my
never stop arriving.
3. A solution for the estimate ˆx
kk
of the current state is given, and not only for the estimate ˆx
0k
of the initial state.
As time goes by, knowledge of the initial state may obsolesce and become less and less useful. The Kalman
ﬁlter computes uptodate information about the current state.
2
Chapter 1
Introduction
Fields such as robotics or computer vision are interdisciplinary subjects at the intersection of engineering and computer science. By their nature, they deal with both computers and the physical world. Although the former are in the latter, the workings of computers are best described in the blackandwhite vocabulary of discrete mathematics, which is foreign to most classical models of reality, quantum physics notwithstanding. This class surveys some of the key tools of applied math to be used at the interface of continuous and discrete. It is not on robotics or computer vision, nor does it cover any other application area. Applications evolve rapidly, but their mathematical foundations remain. Even if you will not pursue any of these ﬁelds, the mathematics that you learn in this class will not go wasted. To be sure, applied mathematics is a discipline in itself and, in many universities, a separate department. Consequently, this class can be a quick tour at best. It does not replace calculus or linear algebra, which are assumed as prerequisites, nor is it a comprehensive survey of applied mathematics. What is covered is a compromise between the time available and what is useful and fun to talk about. Even if in some cases you may have to wait until you take an applied class to fully appreciate the usefulness of a particular topic, I hope that you will enjoy studying these subjects in their own right.
1.1 Who Should Take This Class
The main goal of this class is to present a collection of mathematical tools for both understanding and solving problems in ﬁelds that manipulate models of the real world, such as robotics, artiﬁcial intelligence, vision, engineering, or several aspects of the biological sciences. Several classes at most universities each cover some of the topics presented in this class, and do so in much greater detail. If you want to understand the full details of any one of the topics in the syllabus below, you should take one or more of these other classes instead. If you want to understand how these tools are implemented numerically, you should take one of the classes in the scientiﬁc computing program, which again cover these issues in much better detail. Finally, if you want to understand robotics, vision, or other applied ﬁelds, you should take classes in these subjects, since this course is not on applications. On the other hand, if you do plan to study robotics, vision, or other applied subjects in the future, and you regard yourself as a user of the mathematical techniques outlined in the syllabus below, then you may beneﬁt from this course. Of the proofs, we will only see those that add understanding. Of the implementation aspects of algorithms that are available in, say, Matlab or LApack, we will only see the parts that we need to understand when we use the code. In brief, we will be able to cover more topics than other classes because we will be often (but not always) unconcerned with rigorous proof or implementation issues. The emphasis will be on intuition and on practicality of the various algorithms. For instance, why are singular values important, and how do they relate to eigenvalues? What are the dangers of Newtonstyle minimization? How does a Kalman ﬁlter work, and why do PDEs lead to sparse linear systems? In this spirit, for instance, we discuss Singular Value Decomposition and Schur decomposition both because they never fail and because they clarify the structure of an algebraic or a differential linear problem.
3
2.2 The brachistochrone .1.2.1 Newton and GaussNewton methods 2.2.2.2 Partial differential equations and sparse linear systems 4.2.2. symmetric.1 Linear estimation 3. Unknown functions of several variables 4.1.1.3 3. surface. curl Line.1.5 Eigenvalues and eigenvectors The Schur decomposition Ordinary differential linear systems The matrix zoo Real.2 4.2 Function optimization 2.4 CHAPTER 1.3 The Kalman ﬁlter 4.2 Weighted least squares 3.2 LevenbergMarquardt method 2.2 Statistical estimation 3.2.3 2.2.5 4.4 Characterization of the solutions to a linear system Gaussian elimination The Singular Value Decomposition The pseudoinverse 2.2 Syllabus Here is the ideal syllabus.1 Ordinary differential linear systems 3.1.2 4. INTRODUCTION 1.2 3.1.1 Algebraic linear systems 2.1.2.3 Calculus of variations 4.4 Grad.1. but how much we cover depends on how fast we go. 1.4 3.1 4.3.1.1 Tensor ﬁelds of several variables 4. div.1 3.1.4 4.3 4. Unknown functions of one real variable 3.3 Constraints and Lagrange multipliers 3. and volume integrals Green’s theorem and potential ﬁelds of two variables Stokes’ and divergence theorems and potential ﬁelds of three variables Diffusion and ﬂow problems Finite differences Direct versus iterative solution methods Jacobi and GaussSeidel iterations Successive overrelaxation 4.1.1 EulerLagrange equations 4.3.2 2.1.1.3 4. Introduction 2.2. Unknown numbers 2.1 2.1 4. positivedeﬁnite matrices 3.1.
1.3. DISCUSSION OF THE SYLLABUS
5
1.3 Discussion of the Syllabus
In robotics, vision, physics, and any other branch of science whose subject belongs to or interacts with the real world, mathematical models are developed that describe the relationship between different quantities. Some of these quantities are measured, or sensed, while others are inferred by calculation. For instance, in computer vision, equations tie the coordinates of points in space to the coordinates of corresponding points in different images. Image points are data, world points are unknowns to be computed. Similarly, in robotics, a robot arm is modeled by equations that describe where each link of the robot is as a function of the conﬁguration of the link’s own joints and that of the links that support it. The desired position of the end effector, as well as the current conﬁguration of all the joints, are the data. The unknowns are the motions to be imparted to the joints so that the end effector reaches the desired target position. Of course, what is data and what is unknown depends on the problem. For instance, the vision system mentioned above could be looking at the robot arm. Then, the robot’s end effector position could be the unknowns to be solved for by the vision system. Once vision has solved its problem, it could feed the robot’s endeffector position as data for the robot controller to use in its own motion planning problem. Sensed data are invariably noisy, because sensors have inherent limitations of accuracy, precision, resolution, and repeatability. Consequently, the systems of equations to be solved are typically overconstrained: there are more equations than unknowns, and it is hoped that the errors that affect the coefﬁcients of one equation are partially cancelled by opposite errors in other equations. This is the basis of optimization problems: Rather than solving a minimal system exactly, an optimization problem tries to solve many equations simultaneously, each of them only approximately, but collectively as well as possible, according to some global criterion. Least squares is perhaps the most popular such criterion, and we will devote a good deal of attention to it. In summary, the problems encountered in robotics and vision, as well as other applications of mathematics, are optimization problems. A fundamental distinction between different classes of problems reﬂects the complexity of the unknowns. In the simplest case, unknowns are scalars. When there is more than one scalar, the unknown is a vector of numbers, typically either real or complex. Accordingly, the ﬁrst part of this course will be devoted to describing systems of algebraic equations, especially linear equations, and optimization techniques for problems whose solution is a vector of reals. The main tool for understanding linear algebraic systems is the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), which is both conceptually fundamental and practically of extreme usefulness. When the systems are nonlinear, they can be solved by various techniques of function optimization, of which we will consider the basic aspects. Since physical quantities often evolve over time, many problems arise in which the unknowns are themselves functions of time. This is our second class of problems. Again, problems can be cast as a set of equations to be solved exactly, and this leads to the theory of Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs). Here, “ordinary” expresses the fact that the unknown functions depend on just one variable (e.g., time). The main conceptual tool for addressing ODEs is the theory of eigenvalues, and the primary computational tool is the Schur decomposition. Alternatively, problems with time varying solutions can be stated as minimization problems. When viewed globally, these minimization problems lead to the calculus of variations. When the minimization problems above are studied locally, they become state estimation problems, and the relevant theory is that of dynamic systems and Kalman ﬁltering. The third category of problems concerns unknown functions of more than one variable. The images taken by a moving camera, for instance, are functions of time and space, and so are the unknown quantities that one can compute from the images, such as the distance of points in the world from the camera. This leads to Partial Differential equations (PDEs), or to extensions of the calculus of variations. In this class, we will see how PDEs arise, and how they can be solved numerically.
6
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.4 Books
The class will be based on these lecture notes, and additional notes handed out when necessary. Other useful references include the following. • R. Courant and D. Hilbert, Methods of Mathematical Physics, Volume I and II, John Wiley and Sons, 1989. • D. A. Danielson, Vectors and Tensors in Engineering and Physics, AddisonWesley, 1992. • J. W. Demmel, Applied Numerical Linear Algebra, SIAM, 1997. • A. Gelb et al., Applied Optimal Estimation, MIT Press, 1974. • P. E. Gill, W. Murray, and M. H. Wright, Practical Optimization, Academic Press, 1993. • G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations, 2nd Edition, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989, or 3rd edition, 1997. • W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky, and W. T. Vetterling, Numerical Recipes in C, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1992. • G. Strang, Introduction to Applied Mathematics, Wellesley Cambridge Press, 1986. • A. E. Taylor and W. R. Mann, Advanced Calculus, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, 1983. • L. N. Trefethen and D. Bau, III, Numerical Linear Algebra, SIAM, 1997. • R. Weinstock, Calculus of Variations, Dover, 1974.
Chapter 2
Algebraic Linear Systems
An algebraic linear system is a set of m equations in n unknown scalars, which appear linearly. Without loss of generality, an algebraic linear system can be written as follows: Ax = b (2.1)
where A is an m × n matrix, x is an ndimensional vector that collects all of the unknowns, and b is a known vector of dimension m. In this chapter, we only consider the cases in which the entries of A, b, and x are real numbers. Two reasons are usually offered for the importance of linear systems. The ﬁrst is apparently deep, and refers to the principle of superposition of effects. For instance, in dynamics, superposition of forces states that if force f1 produces acceleration a1 (both possibly vectors) and force f2 produces acceleration a2 , then the combined force f1 + αf2 produces acceleration a1 + αa2 . This is Newton’s second law of dynamics, although in a formulation less common than the equivalent f = ma. Because Newton’s laws are at the basis of the entire ediﬁce of Mechanics, linearity appears to be a fundamental principle of Nature. However, like all physical laws, Newton’s second law is an abstraction, and ignores viscosity, friction, turbulence, and other nonlinear effects. Linearity, then, is perhaps more in the physicist’s mind than in reality: if nonlinear effects can be ignored, physical phenomena are linear! A more pragmatic explanation is that linear systems are the only ones we know how to solve in general. This argument, which is apparently more shallow than the previous one, is actually rather important. Here is why. Given two algebraic equations in two variables, f (x, y) = g(x, y) = we can eliminate, say, y and obtain the equivalent system F (x) = 0 y = h(x) . Thus, the original system is as hard to solve as it is to ﬁnd the roots of the polynomial F in a single variable. Unfortunately, if f and g have degrees df and dg , the polynomial F has generically degree df dg . Thus, the degree of a system of equations is, roughly speaking, the product of the degrees. For instance, a system of m quadratic equations corresponds to a polynomial of degree 2m . The only case in which the exponential is harmless is when its base is 1, that is, when the system is linear. In this chapter, we ﬁrst review a few basic facts about vectors in sections 2.1 through 2.4. More speciﬁcally, we develop enough language to talk about linear systems and their solutions in geometric terms. In contrast with the promise made in the introduction, these sections contain quite a few proofs. This is because a large part of the course material is based on these notions, so we want to make sure that the foundations are sound. In addition, some of the proofs lead to useful algorithms, and some others prove rather surprising facts. Then, in section 2.5, we characterize the solutions of linear algebraic systems. 7 0 0,
. . j=k 1 “iff” x j aj means “if and only if.1 The vectors a1 . . .2) is said to be a linear combination of a1 . it is useful to rewrite the last two equalities in a different form. . dependency means that there is a nonzero vector x such that n xj aj = 0 . . . the vector n b= j=1 x j aj (2. Equation (2.5). . x= . x1 .1 Linear (In)dependence Given n vectors a1 . . . bm (2. .8 CHAPTER 2. . an with coefﬁcients x1 .4) If you are not convinced of these equivalences. . . an and n real numbers x1 . The converse is proven similarly: if n ak = j=1. xn b1 . xn . xn . . . The vectors a1 . Proof. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS 2. This is important.2) is the same as Ax = b and equation (2. j=k xj aj xk (2. . . take the time to write out the components of each expression for a small example. .1. . . . In other words. .5) (2. they are linearly dependent if there is a set of coefﬁcients x1 . . Vectors that are not dependent are independent. . .3) is the same as Ax = 0 where A= a1 ··· an . . We have n n xj aj = xk ak + j=1 j=1. j=1 Let xk be nonzero for some k. b= . an are linearly dependent if they admit the null vector as a nonzero linear combination. . . not all of which are zero. xn . Theorem 2. . Thus. the columns of a matrix A are dependent if there is a nonzero solution to the homogeneous system (2. Make sure that you are comfortable with this. j=1 (2.” .3) For later reference. such that n xj aj = 0 . In one direction. j=k n xj aj = 0 so that ak = − j=1. an are linearly dependent iff1 at least one of them is a linear combination of the others.6) as desired. . .
2. . .2. . . Proof. . . . 0=b−b= n n n xj aj − j=1 j=1 xj aj = j=1 (xj − xj )aj ∆ but because the aj are linearly independent. Just let k be the last of the nonzero xj . . Then xj = 0 for j > k in (2. . The previous theorem is a very important result.1 Given a vector b in the vector space B and a basis a1 . . Proof. In particular. . .1.2 Basis A set a1 . an for B. an of A are linearly independent and the system Ax = b admits a solution. an is said to be a basis for a set B of vectors if the aj are linearly independent and every vector in B can be written as a linear combination of them. BASIS for some k. 2.6). ∆2 We can make the ﬁrst part of the proof above even more speciﬁc. which then becomes n ak = j<k xj aj xk ∆ as desired. .2. . . this is possible only when xj − xj = 0 for every j. xn such that n b= j=1 xj aj are uniquely determined. an are linearly dependent then at least one of them is a linear combination of the ones that precede it. . the coefﬁcients x1 . . B is said to be a vector space if it contains all the linear combinations of its basis vectors. then 9 n xj aj = 0 j=1 by letting xk = −1 (so that x is nonzero). . Theorem 2. Then. An equivalent formulation is the following: If the columns a1 . Let also b= j=1 n xj aj . . .2 If n nonzero vectors a1 . and state the following Lemma 2. 2 This symbol marks the end of a proof. . then the solution is unique. this implies that every linear space contains the zero vector. The basis vectors are said to span the vector space.
. all the a s are in B. and that there are still leftover a vectors that have not been put into G. an . an be two different bases for B. n ≥ n . and can therefore be written as a linear combination of a1 . We call a set of vectors that contains a basis for B a generating set for B. and the two results together imply that n = n . since any vector b1 .1. one of the vectors in G is a linear combination of those preceding it. . Consequently. Let us continue this procedure until we run out of either a vectors to remove or a vectors to add. . .2. So it must be one of the aj vectors. In fact. . it makes sense to deﬁne the dimension of a space as the number of vectors in any of its bases. . Thus.2 is that n vectors of dimension m < n are bound to be dependent. ∆ A consequence of this theorem is that any basis for Rm has m vectors. . .2 Two different bases for the same vector space B have the same number of vectors. . . . theorem 2. Now we can repeat the whole procedure with the roles of a vectors and a vectors exchanged. . because at every step we have made sure that G remains a generating set. We then switch the roles of a and a vectors to conclude that n ≥ n. Proof. writing it right after a1 : G = a1 . . But then G cannot be a generating set. Then we show that we cannot run out of a vectors before we run out of a vectors. Removing the latter keeps G a generating set. bm m can be written as b= bj e j j=1 and the ej are clearly independent. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS Theorem 2. . the basis of elementary vectors ej = jth column of the m × m identity matrix is clearly a basis for Rm . This shows that n ≥ n. G is a generating set for B. b= .2. This vector cannot be a1 . a1 . they are mutually linearly independent. an and a1 . which proves that n ≥ n . . . This proves that n = n . . . Suppose in fact per absurdum that G is now made only of a vectors. Consequently. the vectors of the set G = a1 . CHAPTER 2. since the vectors in it cannot generate the leftover a s. From lemma 2.2 implies that any other basis for Rm has m vectors. which are independent of those in G. Let a1 .2. Since the a s form a basis. since any basis for Rm can only have m vectors. The rest of the proof now proceeds as follows: we keep removing a vectors from G and replacing them with a vectors in such a way as to keep G a generating set for B. G is still a generating set for B. since the removed vector depends on the others. Then each aj is in B (why?). . a2 . an must be linearly dependent. Since all bases for a space have the same number of vectors.2. we must run out of a s ﬁrst (or simultaneously with the last a). Since B is a vector space. This is absurd. since it has no other vectors preceding it. The a vectors cannot run out ﬁrst. Since this elementary basis has m vectors. . Now we can add a2 to G. That is. .10 Pause for a minute to verify that this formulation is equivalent. Another consequence of theorem 2. .
we have a2 = b2 + c2 − 2bc cos θ where θ is the angle between the sides of length b and c. A special case of this law is Pythagoras’ theorem.1: The law of cosines states that a2 = b2 + c2 − 2bc cos θ.3 Inner Product and Orthogonality In this section we establish the geometric meaning of the algebraic notions of norm.8) Thus. How long is b? From equation (2. Also.7) of the elementary vectors that point along the coordinate axes. (2. j This result extends Pythagoras’ theorem to m dimensions.1). In conclusion.3. Pythagoras’ theorem can now be applied again to the last sum by singling out its ﬁrst term b2 e2 . m b 2 = j=1 b2 . because each of them goes from the origin to the unit point of one of the axes. and orthogonality. the squared length of a vector is the inner product of the vector with itself. obtained when θ = ±π/2. b. c a θ b Figure 2. .2. inner product. because the coordinate axes are orthogonal by construction. any two of these vectors form a 90degree angle. In the previous section we saw that any vector in Rm can be written as the linear combination m b= j=1 bj e j (2. By Pythagoras’ theorem. vectors are column vectors by default. then b 2 = bT b . and the symbol T makes them into row vectors. c (see ﬁgure 2. and so forth. the square of the length b of b is m b 2 = b2 + 1 j=2 bj e j 2 . If we deﬁne the inner product of two mdimensional vectors as follows: m b c= j=1 T bj cj . The length of these elementary vectors is clearly one. projection. INNER PRODUCT AND ORTHOGONALITY 11 2. Here and elsewhere.7) we obtain m b = b1 e1 + j=2 bj ej and the two vectors b1 e1 and m j=2 bj ej are orthogonal. The fundamental geometric fact that is assumed to be known is the law of cosines: given a triangle with sides a.
1 bT c = b where θ is the angle between b and c. c cos θ .3. Since by deﬁnition point p is on the line through c.3.2 Two nonzero vectors b and c in Rm are mutually orthogonal iff bT c = 0. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS c cos θ The law of cosines applied to the triangle with sides b . ∆ Given two vectors b and c applied to the origin. When θ = ±π/2. the line between p and the endpoint of b is shortest when it is orthogonal to c: cT (b − ac) = 0 .12 Theorem 2. the previous theorem yields bT c = 0. and b − c yields b−c 2 = b 2 + c 2 −2 b c cos θ and from equation (2. the projection of b onto c is the vector from the origin to the point p on the line through c that is nearest to the endpoint of b. The line from the endpoint of b to p is orthogonal to c.8) we obtain bT b + cT c − 2bT c = bT b + cT c − 2 b Canceling equal terms and dividing by 2 yields the desired result. ∆ Corollary 2.2. c . Proof. the projection vector p has the form p = ac.2: The vector from the origin to point p is the projection of b onto c. Theorem 2. Proof. b p c Figure 2. where a is some real number.3.3 The projection of b onto c is the vector p = Pc b where Pc is the following square matrix: Pc = ccT . CHAPTER 2. See ﬁgure 2. From elementary geometry. cT c Proof.
This section introduces the notion of orthogonality between spaces. . . We ﬁrst prove by induction on r that the vectors qr are mutually orthonormal.5. Let us now assume that the procedure 3 Orthonormal means orthogonal and with unit norm. . . . . . an . . . ∆ Theorem 2. that is. then the orthogonal complement of A is the set of all vectors in Rm that are orthogonal to all the vectors in A. . . With these tools.4. the following construction r=0 for j = 1 to n aj = aj − if aj = 0 r =r+1 a qr = aj j end end r T l=1 (ql aj )ql yields a set of orthonormal 3 vectors q1 . Theorem 2. and if so how many. .4 Orthogonal Subspaces and the Rank of a Matrix Linear transformations map spaces into spaces. deﬁnes the null space and range of a matrix. .4. If n = m we are done. . while the orthogonal complement of the xy plane is the z axis. . we also introduce a useful procedure (GramSchmidt) for orthonormalizing a set of linearly independent vectors. .2. Proof. . am . . If r = 1. an for a subspace A of Rm can be extended into a basis for Rm by adding m − n vectors an+1 . call it an+1 . ORTHOGONAL SUBSPACES AND THE RANK OF A MATRIX which yields a= so that p = ac = c a = as advertised. and its rank. It is important to understand exactly what is being mapped into what in order to determine whether a linear system has solutions. .1 Any basis a1 . Two vector spaces A and B are said to be orthogonal to one another when every vector in A is orthogonal to every vector in B.4. Proof. there is little to prove. For instance. This argument can be repeated until the basis spans all of Rm .2 (GramSchmidt) Given n vectors a1 . so there must be a vector. the complement of the xy plane in R3 is all of R3 except the xy plane. . we will be able to characterize the solutions to a linear system in section 2. . The normalization in the above procedure ensures that q1 has unit norm. If n < m. an . until m = n. Notice that complement and orthogonal complement are very different notions. . an . qr that span the same space as a1 . In the process. . If vector space A is a subspace of Rm for some m. the given basis cannot generate all of Rm . that is linearly independent of a1 . . cT b cT c ccT b cT c 13 ∆ 2.
. the vector qr . vn . as promised. . q1 . . . Orthonormalize this basis by the GramSchmidt procedure (theorem 2.3 If A is a subspace of Rm and A⊥ is the orthogonal complement of A in Rm . it follwos that qr is orthogonal to all its predecessors. .4 The number r of linearly independent columns of any m × n matrix A is equal to the number of its independent rows. Because the new basis is orthonormal. . Because of the explicit normalization step qr = aj / aj . . Proof. . we notice that the vectors qj span the same space as the aj s. Extend this basis to a basis a1 . . Thus. . The ntuple x itself. First. . qT qr = 0 for i i i = 1.4. . so there is a space of dimension at least m − n that is orthogonal to A. In symbols. . . On the other hand. .3. . ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS above has been performed a number j − 1 of times sufﬁcient to ﬁnd r − 1 vectors q1 . . In fact. . must be some linear combination of v1 . . Proof. . there is an ntuple x such that Ax = b. From theorem 2. vh be a basis for null(A). qm . It is not obvious that the space generated by the columns of A has also dimension r = n − h. ∆ qT aj i (qT aj )qT qi i i Theorem 2. The range of A is the space of all mdimensional vectors that are generated by the columns of A. . if computed. . The null space null(A) of an m × n matrix A is the space of all ndimensional vectors that are orthogonal to the rows of A. . then dim(A) + dim(A⊥ ) = m . Finally. Now we show that the number of independent columns is also n − h. . and extend this basis (theorem 2. and r =n−h where h = dim(null(A)). has unit norm. . that is. . and that these vectors are orthonormal (the inductive assumption). . Avn are a basis for the range of A. . . because otherwise we would have more than m vectors in a basis for Rm . these n − h vectors generate the range of A. there must be a linear combination of the columns of A that is equal to b. vn for Rn .2) to obtain q1 . .4. . qn span A. . x ∈ null(A) iff Ax = 0. being an element of Rn . are orthonormal (and therefore independent). .4. .1) into a basis v1 . and equal in number to the number of linearly independent vectors in a1 . and because qT aj = 0. qr−1 . then the space generated by the rows of A has dimension r = n − h. . . and the inner products i T qi ql are zero by the inductive assumption. Then we can show that the n − h vectors Avh+1 . . . . am for Rm (theorem 2. . This is the point of the following theorem. . and b ∈ range(A) iff Ax = b for some x.4. . . By construction. Let a1 . the dimension of this orthogonal space cannot exceed m − n. . because the former are linear combinations of the latter. A has n − h linearly independent rows. all vectors generated by qn+1 . qm are orthogonal to all vectors generated by q1 . an . the dimension of the orthogonal space A⊥ is exactly m − n.4. .1). ∆ We can now start to talk about matrices in terms of the subspaces associated with them.14 CHAPTER 2. . if null(A) has dimension h. .4. our basis for Rn : n x= j=1 cj vj . by constructing a basis for range(A). r − 1. Then for any i < r we have r−1 qT aj = qT aj − i i l=1 (qT aj )qT ql = 0 l i because the term cancels the ith term of the sum (remember that qT qi = 1). qn . given an arbitrary vector b ∈ range(A). . . Thus. We have already proven that the number of independent rows is n − h. . an be a basis for A. . Theorem 2. Let v1 . . .
. . b = Ax = A j=1 15 n n n cj vj = j=1 cj Avj = j=h+1 cj Avj since v1 . . . This proves that the n − h vectors Avh+1 . that they are not. Thanks to this theorem.5. we can deﬁne the rank of A to be equivalently the number of linearly independent columns or of linearly independent rows of A: rank(A) = dim(range(A)) = n − dim(null(A)) . dimension r = rank(A) null(A).2. . so that Avj = 0 for j = 1. Since the vectors v1 . h. dimension m − r null(A)⊥ . we prove that the n − h vectors Avh+1 . . Avn are linearly independent. Suppose. A frequently used synonym for “range” is column space. . . vn are linearly independent. j=h+1 But then the vector j=h+1 xj vj is in the null space of A. . per absurdum. such that n xj Avj = 0 j=h+1 so that A n xj vj = 0 . . Avn generate range(A). xh such that n h n xj vj = j=h+1 j=1 xj vj .5 The Solutions of a Linear System Thanks to the results of the previous sections. . . and null(A)⊥ is called the rowspace of A. . . It should be obvious from the meaning of these spaces that null(A)⊥ range(A)⊥ = range(AT ) = null(AT ) where AT is the transpose of A. we now have a complete picture of the four spaces associated with an m × n matrix A of rank r and nullspace dimension h: range(A). and an arbitrary vector x into a vector in range(A). The space range(A)⊥ is called the left nullspace of the matrix. . . .1 The matrix A transforms a vector x in its null space into the zero vector.5. . dimension r = n − h . . . . xn . . vh are a basis for null(A). not all zero. . deﬁned as the matrix obtained by exchanging the rows of A with its columns. there must exist coefﬁcients x1 . THE SOLUTIONS OF A LINEAR SYSTEM Thus. 2. . . . . . vh span null(A). . . . . Second. ∆ in conﬂict with the assumption that the vectors v1 . . Theorem 2. Then there exist numbers xh+1 . dimension h range(A)⊥ .
there can be no linear combination of the columns (no x vector) that gives b. 4 • When r < n the system is underdetermined. “redundant” means “with exactly one solution and with more equations than unknowns. not on b.9) 4 Notice that the technical meaning of “redundant” has a stronger meaning than “with more equations than unknowns. Notice that invertibility depends only on A. Also. like Gaussian elimination.. are done in a ﬁnite amount of time that can be bounded given only the size of a matrix. and there is a space of dimension h = n − r of vectors x such that Ax = 0. while direct methods. compatible case. sparsity) of the matrix.. it also allows determining the rank of a matrix. In addition to always yielding a solution. m. no matter whether the system is invertible or not. All the cases are summarized in ﬁgure 2. and exactly one solution exists. the system is redundant. has more equations (m) than unknowns (n). Other solution techniques exist for linear systems. whether more information is required about the matrix of the system. r cannot exceed either m or n. equal to.e. the equations are compatible. and the system is said to be incompatible. This means that the null space is nontrivial (i. let r = rank(A) be the number of linearly independent rows or columns of A. Let Ax = b be an m × n system (m can be less than. • When r = n and m > n. b. Consider the m × n system Ax = b (2. Most notably. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS This allows characterizing the set of solutions to linear system as follows. 2. In the ﬁrst case above.” The case r < n < m is possible.16 CHAPTER 2. This means that there is exactly one x that satisﬁes the system. but is called “underdetermined” because there are fewer (r) independent equations than there are unknowns (see next item). three possibilities occur. b ∈ range(A) b ∈ range(A) ⇒ no solutions ⇒ ∞n−r solutions with the convention that ∞0 = 1. since the columns of A span all of Rn .g. Since b is assumed to be in the range of A. Notice that if r = n then n cannot possibly exceed m. but then for any y ∈ null(A) also x + y is a solution: Ax = b . There are more equations than unknowns. listing all possibilities does not provide an operational method for determining the type of linear system for a given pair A. In other words. it has dimension h > 0). Then. the system is invertible.3. and particularly its version called reduction to echelon form is such a method. there are solutions x to Ax = b.6 Gaussian Elimination Gaussian elimination is an important technique for solving linear systems. Ay = 0 ⇒ A(x + y) = b and this generates the ∞h = ∞n−r solutions mentioned above. and on numerical considerations. iterative methods solve systems in a time that depends on the accuracy required. but since b is in the range of A there is a linear combination of the columns (a vector x) that produces b. More on this in chapter 3. n: • When r = n = m. Here. Also.” . Thus. Of course. admits a solution if b ∈ range(A). Which method to use depends on the size and structure (e. ∞k is the cardinality of a kdimensional vector space. In the second. or greater than n). and is summarized in the next section. Gaussian elimination. so the ﬁrst two cases exhaust the possibilities for r = n. depending on the relative sizes of r.
6. . is called a pivot.1 Reduction to Echelon Form The matrix A is reduced to echelon form by a process in m − 1 steps. and subtract entry k of c(k) multiplied by uip /ukp from entry i of c(k) . and preserves the equality of left. In short. • Each pivot lies to the right of the pivot in the row above. Initially. the “pivot column index” p is set to one.3: Types of linear systems. GAUSSIAN ELIMINATION b in range(A) yes r=n yes m=n yes invertible no redundant Figure 2. then U is uppertriangular.2. • Below each pivot is a column of zeros. Selecting the largest entry in the column leads to better roundoff properties. j of U (k) : Skip nopivot columns If uip is zero for every i = k. Triangularization The new entry ukp is nonzero. Once the system is transformed into echelon form. The ﬁrst step is applied to U (1) = A and c(1) = b. Here is step k. there are no restrictions on the system. and is called the pivot. invertible. The ﬁrst nonzero entry. means that the entire algorithm is ﬁnished. 2. Let l be one such value of i6 . This means that • Nonzero rows precede rows with all zeros. redundant. The last step produces U (m) = U and c(m) = c. 17 no incompatible no underdetermined which can be square or rectangular. then increment p by 1. or underdetermined. For i = k + 1. if the matrix is square and if all columns have a pivot. The same operations are applied to the rows of A and to those of b.and righthand side.5 Row exchange Now p ≤ n and uip is nonzero for some k ≤ i ≤ m. Gaussian elimination replaces the rows of this system by linear combinations of the rows themselves until A is changed into a matrix U that is in the socalled echelon form. m. by solving the transformed system Ux = c . This zeros all the entries in the column below the pivot. exchange rows l and k of U (k) and of c(k) . . U is in echelon form. of a row. we compute the solution x by backsubstitution. where uij denotes entry i. subtract row k of U (k) multiplied by uip /ukp from row i of U (k) . m of U (k) and c(k) and produces U (k+1) and c(k+1) . m. . . . The kth step is applied to rows k. . . In particular. If p exceeds n stop. 6 Different 5 “Stop” . . so equality is preserved and solving the ﬁnal system yields the same solution as solving the original one. . . if any. incompatible. which is transformed to a new vector c. . When this process is ﬁnished. If l = k.6. . that is. ways of selecting l here lead to different numerical properties of the algorithm.
free variables are speciﬁed by name rather than by value. Since any value given to the free variables leaves the equality of system (2. call the variables corresponding to the r columns with pivots the basic variables. . . . If r < m. . This yields the solution in the form (2. the general solution can be obtained by running backsubstitution n − r + 1 times. . If there is a residual system (i. it is inconvenient to carry around nonnumeric symbol names (the free variables). . that is. jr . + xjn−r vn−r (2. if any.. . Since no vector x can satisfy these equations. . n − r can be obtained by solving the homogeneous system Ux = 0 with xji = 1 and all other free variables equal to zero. . Since this is the number of independent rows of U . The solution obtained by backsubstitution is an afﬁne function7 of the free variables. Notice that the vectors v1 . First. 7 An n l=ji +1 uil xl afﬁne function is a linear function plus a constant. . In conclusion. the vector vi for i = 1. 0 cm Let us call this the residual subsystem. . The vector v0 is the solution when all free variables are zero. cm are nonzero. To see this. and call the other n − r the free variables.18 CHAPTER 2. once for the nonhomogeneous system. . leaving undetermined variables speciﬁed by their name. . . and can therefore be written in the form x = v0 + xj1 v1 + .10) in echelon form is easily solved for x. solutions exist. . and they can be determined by backsubstitution. and then transform this solution procedure into one that can be more readily implemented numerically. and therefore of A. ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS 2. because they are of the form 0 = ci with ci = 0. cr+1 = . The ﬁnal result is a solution with as many free parameters as there are free variables. we ﬁrst solve the system symbolically. then the equations corresponding to these nonzero entries are incompatible. If on the other hand r = m (obviously r cannot exceed m). remove the residual system. and n − r times for the homogeneous system.11) where the xji are the free variables. and can therefore be obtained by replacing each free variable by zero during backsubstitution. by solving the equations starting from the last one and replacing the result in the equations higher up. that is. We are left with an r × n system. r < m) and some of cr+1 .2 Backsubstitution A system Ux = c (2. . = cm = 0. = . the linear system admits no solutions: it is incompatible. Then. Say that the pivot columns are j1 . . In this system.e. Then symbolic backsubstitution consists of the following sequence: for i = r downto 1 1 xji = ci − uiji end This is called symbolic backsubstitution because no numerical values are assigned to free variables. vn−r form a basis for the null space of U . Let r be the index of the last nonzero row of U . Here is an equivalent solution procedure that makes this unnecessary. .6. Backsubstitutions works as follows. . r is the rank of U . . . Let us now assume that either there is no residual system. It is also the rank of A. Whenever they appear in the expressions for the basic variables. because A and U admit exactly the same solutions and are equal in size.10) satisﬁed. . Similarly. or if there is one it is compatible. .11). When solving a system in echelon form numerically. . with suitable values of the free variables. however. the presence of free variables leads to an inﬁnity of solutions. . there is no residual subsystem. . the last m − r equations yield a subsystem of the following form: cr+1 0 .
For k = 1. The triangularization step subtracts row 1 multiplied by 2/1 from row 2. no row exchange is necessary. 3. The other two variables. Backsubstitution applied ﬁrst to row 2 and then to row 1 yields the following expressions for the pivot variables: x3 x1 1 1 1 (c2 − u24 x4 ) = (3 − x4 ) = 1 − x4 u23 3 3 1 1 = (c1 − u12 x2 − u13 x3 − u14 x4 ) = (1 − 3x2 − 3x3 − 2x4 ) u11 1 = 1 − 3x2 − (3 − x4 ) − 2x4 = −2 − 3x2 − x4 = −3 + x2 1 + x4 0 0 −1 0 . The residual system is 0 = 0 (compatible). In 8 other words. x2 and x4 . 3 0 1 =b= 5 . with ∞n−r = ∞2 solutions.3 An Example An example will clarify both the reduction to echelon form and backsubstitution. the residual subsystem is ﬁrst deleted. we choose a trivial pivot selection rule: we pick the (1) ﬁrst nonzero entry at or below row k in the pivot column. In the ﬁrst step (k = 1). are free. for both p = 1 and p = 2. Consider the system Ax = b where U (1) 3 2 9 5 . Throughout this example.12) (2) (2) The basic variables are x1 and x3 . In the triangularization step. . so the pivot column index p stays at 1. 0 0 0 0 0 There is one zero row in the lefthand side. and this would have caused rows 1 and 2 to be switched. so the system is underdetermined. row 2 multiplied by 6/3 is subtracted from row 3 for both U (2) and c(2) to yield 1 3 3 2 1 U = U (3) = 0 0 3 1 . −1 3 1 so the general solution is −2 − 3x2 − x4 −2 0 x2 = x= 1 1 1 − 3 x4 0 x4 8 Selecting the largest entry in the column at or below row k is a frequent choice. 5 1 =A= 2 −1 3 6 −3 c(1) Reduction to echelon form transforms A and b as follows. and subtracts row 1 multiplied by 1/1 from row 3. there are no nopivot columns. This yields the reduced system 1 3 0 0 3 3 2 1 x= 1 3 (2. c(2) = 3 .2.6. the number of nonzero rows. GAUSSIAN ELIMINATION 19 2. and u23 is nonzero. so no row exchange is necessary.6. corresponding to the columns with pivots. so p is set to 3: the second pivot column is column 3. and the rank of U and that of A is r = 2. When applied to both U (1) and c(1) this yields 1 3 3 2 1 U (2) = 0 0 3 1 . and r < n = 4. this means that u11 = a11 = 1 is the pivot. 0 0 6 2 6 Notice that now (k = 2) the entries uip are zero for i = 2. In symbolic backsubstitution. c = c(3) = 3 .
20 CHAPTER 2. In the next chapter. 0 Then v1 is found by solving the nonzero part (ﬁrst two rows) of U x = 0 with x2 = 1 and x4 = 0 to obtain x3 x1 so that = = 1 (−1 · 0) = 0 3 1 (−3 · 1 − 3 · 0 − 2 · 0) = −3 1 −3 1 v1 = 0 . 0 Finally.12) with x2 = x4 = 0 by numerical backsubstitution yields x3 x1 so that = = 1 (3 − 1 · 0) = 1 3 1 (1 − 3 · 0 − 3 · 1 − 2 · 0) = −2 1 −2 0 v0 = 1 . ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS This same solution can be found by the numerical backsubstitution method as follows. As mentioned at the beginning of this section. Gaussian elimination is a direct method. Solving the reduced system (2. solving the nonzero part of U x = 0 with x2 = 0 and x4 = 1 leads to x3 x1 so that = = 1 1 (−1 · 1) = − 3 3 1 1 (−3 · 0 − 3 · − 1 3 −1 0 v2 = 1 − 3 1 −2 0 x = v0 + x2 v1 + x4 v2 = 1 + x2 0 −3 1 + x4 0 0 −1 0 −1 3 1 − 2 · 1) = −1 and just as before. we study a different . in the sense that the answer can be found in a number of steps that depends only on the size of the matrix A.
. Singular values also allow deﬁning a notion of approximate rank which is very useful in a large number of applications.6. b are small numbers that depend on the details of the algorithm. GAUSSIAN ELIMINATION 21 method. as well as a set of quantities. the latter yields a much more complete answer. the number of ﬂoating point operations necessary to compute the SVD of an m × n matrix is amn2 + bn3 where a. one can compute several thousand SVDs of 5 × 5 matrices in one second. on a regular workstation. for reasons that will become apparent in the next chapter. based on the socalled the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). and the number of steps necessary to ﬁnd an approximate solution depends on the desired number of correct digits. This is an iterative method. much more so than Gaussian elimination. It also allows ﬁnding approximate solutions when the linear system in question is incompatible. which provide great insight into the behavior of the linear transformation represented by the matrix A. the computation of the SVD is numerically well behaved. For instance. In addition. Finally. This state of affairs would seem to favor Gaussian elimination over the SVD. since it computes bases for all the four spaces mentioned above. More generally. called the singular values. very efﬁcient algorithms for the SVD exist. However. meaning that an exact solution usually requires an inﬁnite number of steps.2.
ALGEBRAIC LINEAR SYSTEMS .22 CHAPTER 2.
. . p= . In this section. 3. we ﬁrst need to introduce the notion of orthogonal matrices. in section 3. we use these new concepts to introduce the allimportant concept of the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). Then. into the orthogonal complement of the range. Then for any i = 1. and may need emphasis: 1 Vectors with unit norm. . it must be possible to write p as a linear combination of the vj s. + qn vn = V q where V = v1 ··· vn is an m × n matrix that collects the basis for S as its columns. This is important. there must exist coefﬁcients q1 . and vectors in its null space into the zero vector. . . .Chapter 3 The Singular Value Decomposition In section 2. If the coordinates of P in Rm are collected in an mdimensional vector p1 . In other words. i since the vj are orthonormal. The chapter concludes with some basic applications and examples. and let v1 . . pm and since P is in S.1 Orthogonal Matrices Let S be an ndimensional subspace of Rm (so that we necessarily have n ≤ m). Consider a point P in S. This describes the action that a matrix has on the magnitudes of vectors as well. we saw that a matrix transforms vectors in its domain into vectors in its range (column space). and interpret them geometrically as transformations between systems of orthonormal coordinates. qn such that p = q1 v1 + . .2. vn be an orthonormal basis for S. q= . . No nonzero vector is mapped into the left null space. To this end. . that is. We do this in section 3.1. n we have n n vT p = vT i i j=1 qj vj = j=1 q j vT vj = q i . 23 . . . we make this statement more speciﬁc by showing how unit vectors1 in the rowspace are transformed by matrices. .
the matrix V −1 = V T is also the right inverse of V : V square 2 Nay. for square orthogonal matrices. so that the solution L to equation (3. However. (3. for square.2) V TV = I where I is the n × n identity matrix.1.4) is unique. so V R can have at most n linearly independent columns. since equation (3.1 The left inverse of an orthogonal m × n matrix V with m ≥ n exists and is equal to the transpose of V: V TV = I . THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION n p= j=1 qj vj and the vectors of the basis v1 . suppose that there exist matrices L and R such that LV = I and V R = I. . In fact. a matrix is orthogonal if its columns are orthonormal.4) comparison with equation (3. and V T is then simply said to be the inverse of V : V T = V −1 . In particular. vn are orthonormal. . A matrix V that satisﬁes equation (3.24 If CHAPTER 3. because the m × m identity matrix has m linearly independent 2 columns. We can summarize this discussion as follows: Theorem 3. Notice that V R = I cannot possibly have a solution when m > n. Of course.1) q = V Tp . this result is still valid when V is m × m and has orthonormal columns. V is certainly full rank. while the columns of V R are linear combinations of the n columns of V . V T is both the left and the right inverse: V TV = V V T = I . we can collect the n equations vT vj = i into the following matrix equation: 1 0 if i = j otherwise (3.3) 2 (3. (3. if m = n.3) still holds. . Since the left inverse of a matrix V is deﬁned as the matrix L such that LV = I . Then L = L(V R) = (LV )R = R. . so the left and the right inverse are the same. this argument requires V to be full rank. the distinction between left and right inverse vanishes. Thus. and is equal to the transpose of V . Of course. However. Since the matrix V V T contains the inner products between the rows of V (just as V T V is formed by the inner products of its columns). j In matrix form. Thus.3) is said to be orthogonal. the argument above shows that the rows of a square orthogonal matrix are orthonormal as well. ⇒ V −1 V = V T V = V V −1 = V V T = I . . because it is made of orthonormal columns. orthonormal. then the coefﬁcients qj are the signed magnitudes of the projections of p onto the basis vectors: qj = vT p . Also. fullrank matrices (r = m = n).3) shows that the left inverse of an orthogonal matrix V exists.
One solution may be more efﬁcient than the other in other ways. Because of orthogonality. because two interpretations of it are possible. Vx 2 = xT V T V x = xT x = x 2 .3. Theorem 3. equation (3. the geometric interpretation of equation (3. for unit vectors c.3 we deﬁned the projection p of a vector b onto another vector c as the point on the line through c that is closest to b. as the following theorem shows. so b−p 2 = bT b + xT x − 2bT U x . the point P remains the same. and the vector b − p is orthogonal to c. of point P with coordinates p into a different point Q with coordinates q. Furthermore. An analogous result holds for subspace projection. is relativity.2) causes confusion.3). the result is the same.3. The squared distance between b and p is b − p 2 = (b − p)T (b − p) = bT b + pT p − 2bT p = bT b + xT U T U x − 2bT U x . Then the matrix U U T projects any vector b onto range(U ).1. we have the following result: Theorem 3. U T U is the identity matrix. A point p in range(U ) is a linear combination of the columns of U : p = Ux where x is the vector of coefﬁcients (as many coefﬁcients as there are columns in U ).2 The norm of a vector x is not changed by multiplication by an orthogonal matrix V : Vx = x . .3 Let U be an orthogonal matrix. This. or if you stand still and the whole universe spins counterclockwise around you. the projection matrix is ccT (theorem 2. and should not be surprising: If you spin clockwise on your feet. In the interpretation given above. This notion of projection can be extended from lines to vector spaces by the following deﬁnition: The projection p of a point b ∈ Rn onto a subspace C is the point in C that is closest to b. ∆ We conclude this section with an obvious but useful consequence of orthogonality. from the columns of I) to the vectors vj (that is. however.1. In section 2. Alternatively. to the columns of V ). Also. Proof. and the underlying reference frame is changed from the elementary vectors ej (that is. The derivative of this squared distance with respect to x is the vector 2x − 2U T b 3 At least geometrically.3 Consistently with either of these geometric interpretations. the difference vector between b and its projection p onto range(U ) is orthogonal to range(U ): U T (b − p) = 0 . in a ﬁxed reference system. Proof.2) can be seen as a transformation. when m = n.1. ORTHOGONAL MATRICES 25 Sometimes.
in one dimension it is a pair of points. In three dimensions. The geometric picture underlying the Singular Value Decomposition is crisp and useful. which is a quadratic hypersurface that generalizes the twodimensional notion of ellipse to an arbitrary number of dimensions. For instance.1 shows the map b = Ax . we have often used geometric intuition to introduce new concepts. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION b3 x v2 x 1 v1 u3 σ u2 2 σ u1 1 b b 1 b 2 Figure 3. because it also describes what happens to the magnitudes of the vectors: a hypersphere is stretched or compressed into a hyperellipse. that is. Figure 3.2 The Singular Value Decomposition In these notes. which is zero iff x = UT b . or when geometric intuition provides a strong guiding element. the rank2 matrix √ √ 3 1 3 A= √ (3. This statement is stronger than saying that A maps rowspace(A) into range(A). the hyperellipse is an ellipsoid. For this value of p the difference vector b − p is orthogonal to range(U ). ∆ 3. . Here is the main intuition: An m × n matrix A of rank r maps the rdimensional unit hypersphere in rowspace(A) into an rdimensional hyperellipse in range(A). the hyperellipse in question is centered at the origin.26 x 2 CHAPTER 3. The two small boxes are corresponding points. so we will use geometric intuition again. This approach is successful when geometry is less cumbersome than algebra.5) −3 3 2 1 1 transforms the unit circle on the plane into an ellipse embedded in threedimensional space. in the sense that U T (b − p) = U T (b − U U T b) = U T b − U T b = 0 .1: The matrix in equation (3. and we have then translated these into algebraic statements. In all cases. when p = Ux = UUT b as promised.5) maps a circle on the plane into an ellipse in space.
respectively. by construction. possibly at more than one point 4 . so the ﬁrst entry of U1 AV1 is uT σ1 u1 = σ1 . . the ﬁrst column of AV1 is Av1 = σ1 u1 . x = y = 1} is compact.1 and 2. Instead. T In fact. so that the scalar function z(x. we see that v1 is parallel to AT u1 . y) must achieve a maximum value on S.4. By theorems 2. Let u1 . The set S = {x. . Proof. its proof by geometric means is cumbersome. y  x ∈ Rn .4. σp ) ∈ Rm×n A = U ΣV T .2. This result can be generalized to any m × n matrix. so that uT Av2 = . . 1 x = y =1 It is easy to see that u1 is parallel to the vector Av1 . respectively. . thereby contradicting the fact that uT Av1 is a maximum. σ2 0 0T A2 at least at two points: if uT Av1 is a maximum. u1 and v1 can be extended into orthonormal bases for Rm and Rn . and its other entries 1 T are uj Av1 = 0 because Av1 is parallel to u1 and therefore orthogonal. . Equivalently. The lines through these two pairs of points on the unit circle are always orthogonal. . and let σ1 be the corresponding value of z: max yT Ax = uT Av1 = σ1 . vn . and consider the bilinear form z = yT Ax . 1 . . and two other diametrically opposite points on the unit circle are mapped into the two endpoints of the minor axis of the ellipse. . Let x and y be unit vectors in Rn and Rm . .2. . .2. .1 If A is a real m × n matrix then there exist orthogonal matrices U V such that = = u1 v1 ··· ··· um vn ∈ Rm×m ∈ Rn×n U T AV = Σ = diag(σ1 . 1 Similarly. v1 be two unit vectors in Rm and Rn respectively where this maximum is achieved. so is (−u1 )T A(−v1 ). If this were not the case. um . to u2 . Theorem 3.3. n) and σ1 ≥ . we will prove it algebraically by ﬁrst introducing the existence of the SVD and then using the latter to prove that matrices map hyperspheres into hyperellipses. . We can repeat the same construction on A1 and write T U2 A1 V2 = S2 = 4 Actually. . 1 1 The matrix A1 has one fewer row and column than A. . and 1 1 therefore orthogonal to v2 . y ∈ Rm . their inner product uT Av1 could 1 be increased by rotating u1 towards the direction of Av1 . . where p = min(m. by noticing that uT Av1 = vT AT u1 1 1 and repeating the argument above. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION 27 Two diametrically opposite points on the unit circle are mapped into the two endpoints of the major axis of the ellipse. Collect these orthonormal basis vectors into orthogonal matrices U1 and V1 . A similar argument shows that the entries after the ﬁrst in the ﬁrst row of S1 are zero: the row vector uT A is parallel to vT . Then T U1 AV1 = S1 = σ1 0 0T A1 . = uT Avn = 0. ≥ σp ≥ 0. Simple and fundamental as this geometric fact may be.
we can observe that the successive maximization problems that yield σ1 . A similar argument shows that y is a unit vector orthogonal to u1 . consider the vectors x = V1 0 ˆ x and y = U1 0 ˆ y . To see that σ1 ≥ . σp are performed on a sequence of sets each of which contains the next. There are a few ways to do this. The σi are nonnegative because all these maximizations are performed on unit hyperspheres. y) which always assumes both positive and negative values on any hypersphere: If z(x. . and if x is on a hypersphere. Just pick one way. we just need to show that σ2 ≤ σ1 . In the process. but order v1 . so is −x. then z(−x. . This transformation can be achieved in three steps (see ﬁgure 3. . . it is a linear combination of v2 . Let us call v1 . in this order.28 so that 1 0 0 T U2 T T U1 AV1 CHAPTER 3. y) is positive. ˆ The vector x is equal to the unit vector [0 x]T transformed by the orthogonal matrix V1 . and Σ = diag(σ1 . σp ) . It only remains to show that the elements on the diagonal of Σ are nonnegative and arranged in nonincreasing order. Write x in the frame of reference of the two vectors v1 .5). n)). v2 on the unit circle that map into the major axes of the ellipse. which is the desired result. because axis endpoints come in pairs. . . ∆ We can now review the geometric picture in ﬁgure 3. and imagine transforming point x (the small box at x on the unit circle) into its corresponding point b = Ax (the small box on the ellipse). we introduce some nomenclature for the three matrices in the SVD.2): 1. . . A2 1 0 0 V2 T σ1 = 0 0 0 σ2 0 This procedure can be repeated until Ak vanishes (zero rows or zero columns) to obtain U T AV = Σ where U T and V are orthogonal matrices obtained by multiplying together all the orthogonal matrices used in the procedure. Consider the map in ﬁgure 3. ≥ σp (where p = min(m. . v2 the two right singular vectors of A. and is therefore orthogonal to v1 .1 in light of the singular value decomposition. v2 so they map into the major and the minor axis. vn . We have σ2 = = ˆ x max ˆT A1 ˆ = max y x ˆ ˆ ˆ = y =1 x = y =1 max 0 ˆ y T T U1 AV1 0 0 ˆ x ˆ y = T S1 0 ˆ x ˆ ˆ x = y =1 max yT Ax ≤ σ1 . and is therefore itself a unit vector. y) is negative. we conclude that σ2 ≤ σ1 . The σi s are maxima of the function z(x. If we deﬁne V = v1 v2 . represented by equation (3. u2 on the ellipse are called left singular vectors. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION 0T 0T . Because x and y thus deﬁned belong to subsets (actually subspheres) of the unit spheres in Rn and Rm . .1. . we can premultiply the matrix product in the theorem by U and postmultiply it by V T to obtain A = U ΣV T . To show this. x = y =1 xT v1 = yT u1 = 0 To explain the last equality above. . and induction will do the rest. Since matrices U and V are orthogonal. The corresponding axis unit vectors u1 . . . In addition. .
u2 . “Straight” here means that the axes of the ellipse are aligned with the y1 . 3.3. the new coordinates ξ of x become ξ = V Tx because V is orthogonal. and maps it to b. y2 axes. The real. Otherwise.1.2. The components of η are the signed magnitudes of the projections of b along the unit vectors u1 . If the lengths of the halfaxes of the ellipse are σ1 . Transform ξ into its image on a “straight” version of the ﬁnal ellipse. the transformed vector η has coordinates η = Σξ where σ1 Σ= 0 0 0 σ2 0 is a diagonal matrix. the “straight” ellipse has the same shape as the ellipse in ﬁgure 3. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION x 2 29 y3 x v1 v2 x 1 u3 σu 2 2 σ u1 1 y y 1 y η 2 ξ 2 2 v’2 ξ σ u’ 2 2 v’1 ξ1 η σ u’ 1 1 η1 Figure 3. σ2 are called the singular values of A. u1 u2 u3 . 2. σ2 (major axis ﬁrst).1. This rotation brings η along. u3 that identify the axes of the ellipse and the normal to the plane of the ellipse.1. nonnegative numbers σ1 . Rotate the reference frame in Rm = R3 so that the “straight” ellipse becomes the ellipse in ﬁgure 3. so b = Uη where the orthogonal matrix U= collects the left singular vectors of A.2: Decomposition of the mapping in ﬁgure 3.
Moreover. Similarly. provided that the corresponding left singular vector is ﬂipped as well. . the SVD is unique. There are two sources of ambiguity. . 1 : p). then rank(A) = r null(A) = span{vr+1 . n). it can be removed by imposing. and V is n × n. we can let Ur = U (:. 1 : p). This is the SVD of A. If desired. for instance. 1 : p). but any orthonormal basis can be chosen within. a valid SVD. say. and Vp = V (:. that the ﬁrst nonzero entry of every left singular value be positive. both the 2norm and the Frobenius norm m n A F = i=1 j=1 aij 2 . if m > n. The second source of ambiguity is deeper. ur } . while U and V are square. Σp = Σ(1 : p. if p − r singular values are zero. Σr = Σ(1 : r. minimal. . and still obtain a valid SVD. 1 : r). One can ﬂip any right singular vector. we can deﬁne Up = U (:. The singular value decomposition is “almost unique”. . . i which is an even smaller. . . the identity matrix has an inﬁnity of SVDs. Singular vectors must be ﬂipped in pairs (a left vector and its corresponding right vector) because the singular values are required to be nonnegative. the bottom (m − n) × n block of Σ is zero. Σ is m × n. the subspaces identiﬁed by the corresponding left and right singular vectors are unique.” equivalent version of the SVD. If p = min(m. The ﬁrst is in the orientation of the singular vectors. . If we deﬁne r by σ1 ≥ . vn } range(A) = span{u1 . whenever two or more singular values coincide. 1 : r). all of the form I = U IU T where U is any orthogonal matrix of suitable size. if m < n. Even in the general case. . However. and Vr = V (:. and this multiplies the last n − m rows of V . the right subspace and yield. the singular values of a matrix A are the lengths of the semiaxes of the hyperellipse E deﬁned by E = {Ax : x = 1} . = 0 . and Vp is n × p. Except for these ambiguities. the axes of the latter are not deﬁned. then we have r A = Ur Σr VrT = i=1 σi ui vT . 1 : r). The sizes of the matrices in the SVD are as follows: U is m × m. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION We can concatenate these three transformations to obtain b = U ΣV T x or A = U ΣV T since this construction works for any point x on the unit circle. SVD. . If the matrix A maps a hypersphere into another hypersphere. together with the corresponding left singular vectors. if σr is the smallest nonzero singular value of A. that is. ≥ σr > σr+1 = . so that the last m − n columns of U are multiplied by zero. . More generally. This suggests a “small. For instance. This is a trivial ambiguity. Σp is p × p. The SVD reveals a great deal about the structure of a matrix. Finally.30 CHAPTER 3. and write A = Up Σp VpT where Up is m × p. Σ has the same shape and size as A. the rightmost m × (n − m) block of Σ is zero. Thus. .
. and its ﬁrst two equations are incompatible: x1 + x2 cannot be equal to both 1 and √ 3.3. this is a rather high residual. Thus. In summary. in the leastsquares sense. For instance. However. Incompatibility and underdeterminacy can occur together: the system admits no solution. and the leastsquares solution is not unique. and equations are often mutually incompatible because they come from inexact measurements (incompatible linear systems were deﬁned in chapter 2). A linear system of the form Ax = b (3. . see again chapter 2). which has norm 2 (admittedly.6) may not exist. or may not be unique.6) arising from a reallife application may or may not admit a solution. For instance. A leastsquares solution turns out to be x = [1 1 2]T with residual r = Ax − b = [1 − 1 0]. any other vector of the form 1 −1 x = 1 + α 1 2 0 is as good as x. as we learned in chapter 2. x = [0 2 2]. in the leastsquares sense). the system x1 + x2 x1 + x2 x3 = 1 = 3 = 2 has three unknowns. because measurements are unreliable. a vector x that satisﬁes this equation exactly.and righthand sides of the equations.3 The Pseudoinverse One of the most important applications of the SVD is the solution of linear systems in the least squares sense. THE PSEUDOINVERSE and A are neatly characterized in terms of the SVD: A 2 F A 2 2 2 = σ1 + . yields exactly the same residual as x (check this). 3. 2 31 = sup x=0 Ax x In the next few sections we introduce fundamental results and applications that testify to the importance of the SVD. but it tries to satisfy all of them as closely as possible. Often more measurements are available than strictly necessary. where the double bars henceforth refer to the Euclidean norm. as measured by the sum of the squares of the discrepancies between left. an exact solution to the system (3. Then. + σp = σ1 . always exists. In these cases. because of errors in the measurements that produce the entries of A.3. In other circumstances. in the sense that it has fewer independent equations than unknowns (its rank r is less than n. obtained for α = 1. but may fail to be unique. x cannot exactly satisfy any of the m equations in the system. An approximate solution. but this is the best we can do for this problem. that is. but rank 2. This leads to more equations than unknowns (the number m of rows in A is greater than the number n of columns).6) is underdetermined. not enough measurements are available. the linear system (3. . it makes more sense to ﬁnd a vector x that minimizes the norm Ax − b of the residual vector r = Ax − b . Even when m ≤ n the equations can be incompatible.
. We want to minimize the norm of the following vector: σ1 0 ··· 0 y1 c1 0 .7) where † Σ = is an n × m diagonal matrix.32 CHAPTER 3.. . 0 ··· 0 . the shortest vector x that achieves the min Ax − b . . 0 is called the pseudoinverse of A. . that is. with y = V T x and c = U T b. . . then one of them turns out to be shorter than all the others. so that the last expression above equals ΣV T x − U T b or. In order to ﬁnd the solution to this minimization problem. which both proves uniqueness and provides a recipe for the computation of the solution. ... 0 0 ··· . Σy − c . y r+1 − cr+1 . The matrix A† = V Σ† U T 1/σ1 .1. . One can therefore redeﬁne what it means to “solve” a linear system so that there is always exactly one solution. .. . its norm x is smallest. all equally good (or bad). U (ΣV T x − U T b) (3.1 The minimumnorm least squares solution to a linear system Ax = b. This can be written as T U ΣV T x − b .3. that is.8) because U is an orthogonal matrix. Theorem 3. The minimumnorm Least Squares solution to Ax = b is the shortest vector x that minimizes Ax − b that is. 1/σr 0 . 0 . . . . let us spell out the last expression. x is unique. . . . and is given by ˆ = V Σ† U T b x (3. ··· 0 . This minimum norm solution is the subject of the following theorem. .2). U U = I. . . . yn cm 0 0 . . σr yr cr . . . THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION If there are several leastsquares solutions.. Proof. But orthogonal matrices do not change the norm of vectors they are applied to (theorem 3.
3. . . what is desired is a nonzero vector x that satisﬁes the system (3. In many applications. Notice that there is no other choice for y. . the norm of Ax − b when x is the solution vector. and each of them contributes a residual ci  to the solution. LEASTSQUARES SOLUTION OF A HOMOGENEOUS LINEAR SYSTEMS The last m − r differences are of the form cr+1 . that is. . the solution is trivial: the minimumnorm solution to Ax = 0 is x=0. ∆ 3. . cm 33 and do not depend on the unknown y. the minimumnorm. Since we look for the minimumnorm solution. because x and y are related by an orthogonal transformation. . We therefore set yr+1 = . In other words. Thus. n . the last n − r components of y are multiplied by zeros. x = 0 is the minimumnorm solution to any homogeneous linear system. which happens to be an exact solution. Of course it is not necessarily the only one (any vector in the null space of A is also a solution. The residual. . the meaning of a leastsquares solution is therefore usually modiﬁed. when the system is homogeneous. r σi = 0 for i = r + 1. . When b = 0. on the other hand. .9) . we would fall back to x = 0 again. and minimumnorm solution forces the other entries of y. In each of the ﬁrst r differences. which is therefore unique: minimum residual forces the choice of y1 . is the norm of Σy − c. that is. for the shortest vector x. In conclusion. . For homogeneous linear systems. m are nonzero. leastsquares solution to the original system is the unique vector ˆ = V y = V Σ+ c = V Σ+ U T b x as promised. . there is freedom in their choice. When written as a function of the vector c. but it is obviously the one with the smallest norm. . . so they have no effect on the solution. there is nothing we can do about those differences: if some or all the ci for i = r + 1.4.3.4 LeastSquares Solution of a Homogeneous Linear Systems Theorem 3. In summary. that is. by imposing the constraint x =1 (3. since this vector is related to Ax − b by an orthogonal transformation (see equation (3. once more. . the desired y has the following components: yi yi = ci for i = 1. Thus. Without any constraints on x. by deﬁnition). Thus.1 works regardless of the value of the righthand side vector b. . this is y = Σ+ c . .9) as well as possible. the square of the residual is m m Ax − b 2 = Σy − c 2 = i=r+1 c2 = i (uT b)2 i i=r+1 which is the projection of the righthand side vector b onto the complement of the range of A. = yn = 0. yr . 0− . . Although correct. we will not be able to zero these differences. . . this solution is not too interesting. we also want the shortest y.8)).
34 CHAPTER 3. The unitnorm Least Squares solution to Ax = 0 is the vector x with x = 1 that minimizes Ax that is. . that is by letting y1 = . + yn vn .5 shows a sample use of theorem 3. then the minimumnorm solution is unique. ∆ Section 3. x =1 Note: when σn is greater than zero the most common case is k = 1.4. so that equation (3. that is.1 Let A = U ΣV T be the singular value decomposition of A. . . The following theorem provides a recipe for ﬁnding this solution. . U ΣV T x .10) (3. = σn . that is. This is obviously achieved by concentrating all the (unit) mass of y where the σs are smallest. . . . since it is very unlikely that different singular values have exactly the same numerical value. . let vn−k+1 . When A is rank deﬁcient. .1. Proof. that is. + σn yn . with y = V T x. Since orthogonal matrices do not change the norm of vectors they are applied to (theorem 3. Since V is orthogonal. Unfortunately. this norm is the same as ΣV T x or. x = 1 translates to y = 1. (3. all vectors of the form x = α1 vn−k+1 + . .11) are unitnorm least squares solutions to the homogeneous linear system Ax = 0. + αk = 1 (3. The reasoning is very similar to that for the previous theorem. .4.1.10) with α1 = yn−k+1 . Then. and the unitnorm constraint on y yields equation (3. . . = yn−k = 0. Furthermore. the resulting constrained minimization problem does not necessarily admit a unique solution. 2 2 2 2 σ1 y1 + . x = vn . .12) From y = V T x we obtain x = V y = y1 v1 + . + αk vn with 2 2 α1 + . We thus look for the unitnorm vector y that minimizes the norm (squared) of Σy. . Theorem 3. .12) is equivalent to equation (3. . If k > 1. . let k be the largest integer such that σn−k+1 = . In any event. they achieve the min Ax .11). if k = 1. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION on the solution. and shows that there is in general a whole hypersphere of solutions.2). it may often have more than one singular value equal to zero. the theorem above shows how to express all solutions as a linear combination of the last k columns of V . αk = yn . vn be the k columns of V whose corresponding singular values are equal to the last singular value σn . . on the other case. . . Σy .
If the lefthand side of this equation is multiplied by a nonzero constant.3. The distance from the line to the origin is c (see ﬁgure 3.1 Fitting a Line to a Set of Points ax + by − c = 0 Let pi = (xi . if we let d = (d1 .15). and the distance between the line n and a point pi is equal to di = axi + byi − c = pT n − c .3).2 The Best Line Fit ∂ d ∂c 2 Since the third line parameter c does not appear in the constraint (3. Thus. pm )T . 3. m . b)T . and let be the equation of a line. dm ) and P = (p1 . (3. yi )T and line ax + by − c = 0 is axi + byi − c.15) we must have =0. at the minimum (3. . is called the line normal. . (3.5. SVD LINE FITTING 35 3. the bestﬁt line achieves the min d n =1 In equation (3.5. .15) 3. Thus.3: The distance between point pi = (xi . . orthogonal to the line. the line does not change.14) i pi c b a Figure 3.5.13) where the unit vector n = (a.16) If we deﬁne the centroid p of all the points pi as p= 1 T P 1.13). we can assume without loss of generality that n = a2 + b2 = 1 . 2 = min P n − c1 n =1 2 . The bestﬁt line minimizes the sum of the squared distances.5 SVD Line Fitting The Singular Value Decomposition of a matrix yields a simple method for ﬁtting a line to a set of points on the plane. 1 is a vector of m ones. (3. yi )T be a set of m ≥ 2 points on the plane. (3. . . .
since Qv2 has norm σ2 . m from which we obtain c= that is. pm )T . compute the centroid of the points (1 is a vector of m ones): p= 2. proceed as follows: 1. b. c = pT n . By replacing this expression into equation (3. Equivalently. and in order to emphasize the geometric meaning of signular values and vectors. we obtain min d n =1 2 = min P n − 1pT n n =1 2 = min Qn n =1 2 . to ﬁt a line (a. we can recall that if n is on a circle. We can solve this constrained minimization problem by theorem 3. Furthermore. compute the SVD of Q: Q = U ΣV T 1 T P 1 m . . .4. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION = ∂ nT P T − c1T (P n − 1c) ∂c ∂ = nT P T P n + c2 1T 1 − 2nT P T c1 ∂c = 2 mc − nT P T 1 = 0 1 T T n P 1. the shortest vector of the form Qn is obtained when n is the right singular vector v2 corresponding to the smaller σ2 of the two singular values of Q. the SVD 2 Q = U ΣV T = i=1 σi ui vT i yields 2 Qn = Qv2 = i=1 σi ui vT v2 = σ2 u2 i because v1 and v2 are orthonormal vectors. To summarize.16) yields ∂ d ∂c 2 CHAPTER 3. form the matrix of centered coordinates: Q = P − 1pT 3. In fact.36 equation (3. .15). the residue is min d = σ2 n =1 and more speciﬁcally the distances di are given by d = σ2 u2 where u2 is the left singular vector corresponding to σ2 .1. c) to a set of m points pi collected in the m × 2 matrix P = (p1 . when n = v2 . where Q = P − 1pT collects the centered coordinates of the m points.
% the smallest singular value of Q % measures the residual fitting error residue = Sigma(2. SVD LINE FITTING 4.one * p’. error(’matrix P must be m x 2’). % matrix of centered coordinates Q = P . 2). [U Sigma V] = svd(Q).3. the line normal is the second column of the 2 × 2 matrix V : n = (a. or something close to it. Hint: minimizing the distance between a point and a subspace is equivalent to maximizing the norm of the projection of the point onto the subspace. % the line normal is the second column of V n = V(:. Here “plus” means the following. the third coefﬁcient of the line is 37 c = pT n min d = σ2 n =1 6. if n ˜= 2. Then an afﬁne space has the form A = p + L = {a  a = p + l and l ∈ L} . end one = ones(m. b)T = v2 . % centroid of all the points p = (P’ * one) / m. the residue of the ﬁt is The following matlab code implements the line ﬁtting method. A useful exercise is to think how this procedure. The ﬁtting problem (including ﬁtting a line to a set of points) can be cast either as a maximization or a minimization problem. An afﬁne subspace is a linear subspace plus a point. residue] = linefit(P) % check input matrix sizes [m n] = size(P). 2). 1). just like an arbitrary line is a line through the origin plus a point.5. can be adapted to ﬁt a set of data points in Rm with an afﬁne subspace of given dimension n. error(’Need at least two points’). Let L be a linear space. . 5. end if m < 2. % assemble the three line coefficients into a column vector l = [n . function [l. p’ * n].
38 CHAPTER 3. THE SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION .
Chapter 4
Function Optimization
There are three main reasons why most problems in robotics, vision, and arguably every other science or endeavor take on the form of optimization problems. One is that the desired goal may not be achievable, and so we try to get as close as possible to it. The second reason is that there may be more ways to achieve the goal, and so we can choose one by assigning a quality to all the solutions and selecting the best one. The third reason is that we may not know how to solve the system of equations f(x) = 0, so instead we minimize the norm f(x) , which is a scalar function of the unknown vector x. We have encountered the ﬁrst two situations when talking about linear systems. The case in which a linear system admits exactly one exact solution is simple but rare. More often, the system at hand is either incompatible (some say overconstrained) or, at the opposite end, underdetermined. In fact, some problems are both, in a sense. While these problems admit no exact solution, they often admit a multitude of approximate solutions. In addition, many problems lead to nonlinear equations. Consider, for instance, the problem of Structure From Motion (SFM) in computer vision. Nonlinear equations describe how points in the world project onto the images taken by cameras at given positions in space. Structure from motion goes the other way around, and attempts to solve these equations: image points are given, and one wants to determine where the points in the world and the cameras are. Because image points come from noisy measurements, they are not exact, and the resulting system is usually incompatible. SFM is then cast as an optimization problem. On the other hand, the exact system (the one with perfect coefﬁcients) is often close to being underdetermined. For instance, the images may be insufﬁcient to recover a certain shape under a certain motion. Then, an additional criterion must be added to deﬁne what a “good” solution is. In these cases, the noisy system admits no exact solutions, but has many approximate ones. The term “optimization” is meant to subsume both minimization and maximization. However, maximizing the scalar function f (x) is the same as minimizing −f (x), so we consider optimization and minimization to be essentially synonyms. Usually, one is after global minima. However, global minima are hard to ﬁnd, since they involve a universal quantiﬁer: x∗ is a global minimum of f if for every other x we have f (x) ≥ f (x∗ ). Global minization techniques like simulated annealing have been proposed, but their convergence properties depend very strongly on the problem at hand. In this chapter, we consider local minimization: we pick a starting point x0 , and we descend in the landscape of f (x) until we cannot go down any further. The bottom of the valley is a local minimum. Local minimization is appropriate if we know how to pick an x0 that is close to x∗ . This occurs frequently in feedback systems. In these systems, we start at a local (or even a global) minimum. The system then evolves and escapes from the minimum. As soon as this occurs, a control signal is generated to bring the system back to the minimum. Because of this immediate reaction, the old minimum can often be used as a starting point x0 when looking for the new minimum, that is, when computing the required control signal. More formally, we reach the correct minimum x∗ as long as the initial point x0 is in the basin of attraction of x∗ , deﬁned as the largest neighborhood of x∗ in which f (x) is convex. Good references for the discussion in this chapter are Matrix Computations, Practical Optimization, and Numerical Recipes in C, all of which are listed with full citations in section 1.4. 39
40
CHAPTER 4. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION
4.1 Local Minimization and Steepest Descent
Suppose that we want to ﬁnd a local minimum for the scalar function f of the vector variable x, starting from an initial point x0 . Picking an appropriate x0 is crucial, but also very problemdependent. We start from x0 , and we go downhill. At every step of the way, we must make the following decisions: • Whether to stop. • In what direction to proceed. • How long a step to take. In fact, most minimization algorithms have the following structure: k=0 while xk is not a minimum compute step direction pk with pk = 1 compute step size αk xk+1 = xk + αk pk k =k+1 end. Different algorithms differ in how each of these instructions is performed. It is intuitively clear that the choice of the step size αk is important. Too small a step leads to slow convergence, or even to lack of convergence altogether. Too large a step causes overshooting, that is, leaping past the solution. The most disastrous consequence of this is that we may leave the basin of attraction, or that we oscillate back and forth with increasing amplitudes, leading to instability. Even when oscillations decrease, they can slow down convergence considerably. What is less obvious is that the best direction of descent is not necessarily, and in fact is quite rarely, the direction of steepest descent, as we now show. Consider a simple but important case, 1 f (x) = c + aT x + xT Qx 2 (4.1)
where Q is a symmetric, positive deﬁnite matrix. Positive deﬁnite means that for every nonzero x the quantity xT Qx is positive. In this case, the graph of f (x) − c is a plane aT x plus a paraboloid. Of course, if f were this simple, no descent methods would be necessary. In fact the minimum of f can be found by setting its gradient to zero: ∂f = a + Qx = 0 ∂x so that the minimum x∗ is the solution to the linear system Qx = −a . (4.2)
Since Q is positive deﬁnite, it is also invertible (why?), and the solution x∗ is unique. However, understanding the behavior of minimization algorithms in this simple case is crucial in order to establish the convergence properties of these algorithms for more general functions. In fact, all smooth functions can be approximated by paraboloids in a sufﬁciently small neighborhood of any point. Let us therefore assume that we minimize f as given in equation (4.1), and that at every step we choose the direction of steepest descent. In order to simplify the mathematics, we observe that if we let e(x) = ˜ then we have 1 (x − x∗ )T Q(x − x∗ ) 2 (4.3)
1 e(x) = f (x) − c + x∗ T Qx∗ = f (x) − f (x∗ ) ˜ 2
4.1. LOCAL MINIMIZATION AND STEEPEST DESCENT
so that e and f differ only by a constant. In fact, ˜ e(x) = ˜ 1 T 1 1 1 (x Qx + x∗ T Qx∗ − 2xT Qx∗ ) = xT Qx + aT x + x∗ T Qx∗ = f (x) − c + x∗ T Qx∗ 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 f (x∗ ) = c + aT x∗ + x∗ T Qx∗ = c − x∗ T Qx∗ + x∗ T Qx∗ = c − x∗ T Qx∗ . 2 2 2 The result (4.3), e(x) = f (x) − f (x∗ ) , ˜
41
and from equation (4.2) we obtain
is rather interesting in itself. It says that adding a linear term aT x (and a constant c) to a paraboloid 1 xT Qx merely 2 1 shifts the bottom of the paraboloid, both in position (x∗ rather than 0) and value (c − 2 x∗ T Qx∗ rather than zero). Adding the linear term does not “warp” or “tilt” the shape of the paraboloid in any way. Since e is simpler, we consider that we are minimizing e rather than f . In addition, we can let ˜ ˜ y = x − x∗ , that is, we can shift the origin of the domain to x∗ , and study the function e(y) = 1 T y Qy 2
instead of f or e, without loss of generality. We will transform everything back to f and x once we are done. Of ˜ course, by construction, the new minimum is at y∗ = 0 where e reaches a value of zero: e(y∗ ) = e(0) = 0 .
However, we let our steepest descent algorithm ﬁnd this minimum by starting from the initial point y0 = x0 − x∗ . At every iteration k, the algorithm chooses the direction of steepest descent, which is in the direction pk = − opposite to the gradient of e evaluated at yk : gk = g(yk ) = ∂e = Qyk . ∂y y=y k gk gk
We select for the algorithm the most favorable step size, that is, the one that takes us from yk to the lowest point in the direction of pk . This can be found by differentiating the function e(yk + αpk ) = 1 (y + αpk )T Q(yk + αpk ) 2 k
with respect to α, and setting the derivative to zero to obtain the optimal step αk . We have ∂e(yk + αpk ) = (yk + αpk )T Qpk ∂α and setting this to zero yields αk = − (Qyk )T pk gT p pT p gT g = − Tk k = gk Tk k = gk Tk k . pT Qpk pk Qpk pk Qpk gk Qgk k (4.4)
yT Qyk gT Qgk k k 2 gT Qgk k gk = Qyk and ⇒ yk = Q−1 gk yT Qyk = gT Q−1 gk k k so that e(yk ) − e(yk+1 ) (gT g )2 = T −1k k T . . From the deﬁnition of e and from equation (4. yk+1 = yk − CHAPTER 4. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION gT gk k p gT Qgk k k gT gk k g . e(yk ) gk Q gk gk Qgk This can be rewritten as follows by rearranging terms: e(yk+1 ) = 1− (gT gk )2 k T Q−1 g gT Qg gk k k k e(yk ) (4.5) How much closer did this step bring us to the solution y∗ = 0? In other words. Luenberger. the largest and smallest singular values of Q. The arguments and proofs below are adapted from D.5) we obtain e(yk ) − e(yk+1 ) e(yk ) = yT Qyk − yT Qyk+1 k k+1 yT Qyk k T gT gk gT gk yT Qyk − yk − gTkQg gk Q yk − gTkQg gk k k k k k yT Qyk k = = = Since Q is invertible we have gT gk gT gk 2 gTkQg gT Qyk − gTkQg k k k k k yT Qyk k 2gT gk gT Qyk − (gT gk )2 k k k . respectively. as we shall now prove. Lemma 4. G. Introduction to Linear and Nonlinear Programming. often not much. the basic step of our steepest descent can be written as follows: yk+1 = yk + gk that is. relative to the value e(yk ) at the previous step? The answer is.42 Thus. AddisonWesley. symmetric.6) so if we can bound the expression in parentheses we have a bound on the rate of convergence of steepest descent. gT Qgk k k (4. n × n matrix. For any vector y there holds 4σ1 σn (yT y)2 ≥ yT Q−1 y yT Qy (σ1 + σn )2 where σ1 and σn are.1.1 (Kantorovich inequality) Let Q be a positive deﬁnite. 1973. To this end. we introduce the following result. how much smaller is e(yk+1 ).
If we let z = UT y we have 1/ (yT y)2 (yT U T U y)2 (zT z)2 = T = T −1 T = T Q−1 y yT Qy −1 U T y yT U ΣU T y y y UΣ z Σ z z Σz θi = add up to one. each of the singular values σj can be obtained by letting θj = 1 and all other θi to zero. ∆ Thanks to this lemma. Because Q is positive deﬁnite. . Thus an appropriate bound is φ(σ) φ(σ) 1/σ ≥ min = min . .7) is 1/σ. Since 1/σ is a convex function of σ. Theorem 4.4. . the values of φ(σ). we can state the main result on the convergence of the method of steepest descent. all its singular values are strictly positive. (4. LOCAL MINIMIZATION AND STEEPEST DESCENT Proof. there are many ways to choose the coefﬁcients θi to obtain a particular value of σ. For any x0 . . Thus. 1/σ1 ) with point (σn . This area is delimited from above by the straight line that connects point (σ1 . the values 1/σj for j = 1. Let 43 Q = U ΣU T be the singular value decomposition of the symmetric (hence V = U ) matrix Q. For the same vector of coefﬁcients θi . The denominator ψ(σ) in (4. yielding the desired result. and λ(σ) are on the vertical line corresponding to the value of σ given by (4. the method of steepest descent xk+1 = xk − where gk = g(xk ) = gT gk k g gT Qgk k k (4. ψ(σ) σ1 ≤σ≤σn λ(σ) σ1 ≤σ≤σn (σ1 + σn − σ)/(σ1 σn ) The minimum is achieved at σ = (σ1 + σn )/2.7) must be in the shaded area in ﬁgure 4. However.7) is a convex combination of points on this curve. n are all on the curve 1/σ.1. by the line with ordinate λ(σ) = (σ1 + σn − σ)/(σ1 σn ) . since the smallest of them satisﬁes σn = min yT Qy > 0 y =1 by the deﬁnition of positive deﬁniteness.8) then the numerator φ(σ) in (4. 1/σn ). ψ(σ). with Q symmetric and positive deﬁnite.1.8).2 Let 1 f (x) = c + aT x + xT Qx 2 be a quadratic function of x.7) where the coefﬁcients θi σi . Of course.1.9) ∂f = a + Qxk ∂x x=xk . If we let σ= i=1 n 2 zi z 2 n i=1 θi σi n i=1 θi /σi = φ(σ) ψ(σ) (4. the values of the denominator ψ(σ) of (4. that is.
6) and the Kantorovich inequality we obtain f (xk+1 ) − f (x∗ ) = e(yk+1 ) = = σ1 − σn σ1 + σn 1− 2 (gT gk )2 k T Q−1 g gT Qg gk k k k e(yk ) ≤ 1− 4σ1 σn (σ1 + σn )2 e(yk ) (4. at every step k there holds f (xk+1 ) − f (x∗ ) ≤ σ1 − σn σ1 + σn 2 (f (xk ) − f (x∗ )) where σ1 and σn are.1: Kantorovich inequality. Furthermore. the closer the fraction (σ1 − σn )/(σ1 + σn ) is to unity.λ λ(σ) ψ(σ) φ(σ) σ1 σ2 σ σn σ Figure 4.10) we immediately obtain the expression for steepest descent in terms of f and x. it follows immediately that f (xk ) − f (x∗ ) → 0 and hence.3) and (4. since the minimum of f is unique. Proof. From the deﬁnitions y = x − x∗ and e(y) = 1 T y Qy 2 (4. and the slower convergence. ∆ The ratio κ(Q) = σ1 /σn is called the condition number of Q. It is easily seen why this happens in the case . converges to the unique minimum point x∗ = −Q−1 a of f . respectively.44 CHAPTER 4.12) (f (xk ) − f (x∗ )) . Since the ratio in the last term is smaller than one. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION φ.11) (4. that xk → x∗ . The larger the condition number. By equations (4. the largest and smallest singular value of Q.ψ.
so that f is well approximated by a paraboloid. If β is this limit. In that case. as in ﬁgure 4. the greater the condition number κ(Q). Q is the matrix of second derivatives of f with respect to x. and the more steps are required for convergence.2. which shows the trajectory xk superimposed on a set of isocontours of f (x). but can become arbitrarily slow for poorly conditioned Hessians. the residuals f (xk ) − f (x∗ ) in the values of the function being minimized converge . In fact. one iteration will lead to the minimum x∗ . namely. when the starting point x0 is at one apex (tip of either axis) of an isocontour ellipse. the distance of xk from x∗ is reduced by the qth power at every step. and minimization would get there in just one more step. If isocontours were circles (σ1 = σn ) centered at x∗ . is consistent with our analysis. so the higher the order of convergence. There is one good. This case. lower isocontour. that is.1. the farther away a line orthogonal to an isocontour passes from x∗ . steepest descent is good for functions that have a well conditioned Hessian near the minimum. In all other cases. for large values of k) we have xk+1 − x∗ ≈ β xk − x∗ q for a minimization method of order q. Theorem 4. and is called the Hessian of f . then the ﬁrst turn would make the new direction point to x∗ . LOCAL MINIMIZATION AND STEEPEST DESCENT 45 x* x0 p0 p1 Figure 4. because then σ1 − σn =0. we introduce the notion of the order of convergence.2 implies that steepest descent has at best a linear order of convergence. In this case. then close to the solution (that is. Thus.1. For general (that is. in which κ(Q) = 1. The next step is orthogonal to the latter isocontour (that is. the better. The minimum of f along that line is tangent to some other. the line in the direction pk of steepest descent.2: Trajectory of steepest descent. In other words. at every step the steepest descent trajectory is forced to make a ninetydegree turn.4. but very precarious case. parallel to the gradient). the analysis above applies once xk gets close enough to the minimum. To characterize the speed of convergence of different minimization algorithms. This is deﬁned as the largest value of q for which the lim xk+1 − x∗ xk − x∗ q k→∞ is ﬁnite. will not pass through x∗ . In summary. in which x is a twodimensional vector. which is orthogonal to the isocontour at xk . σ1 + σn The more elongated the isocontours. nonquadratic) f .
but there is no generalpurpose ﬁx to this problem. the check on xk is more stringent. c that bracket the desired minimum αk . Then. we may ﬁnd the wrong minimum. we can set c = αi . c) = (b. if we cannot assume convexity. if we can assume that h is convex between α1 and αi . c) = (a. u. c) = (a. In fact. the arguments xk to f can converge to x∗ even more slowly. . so the minimum must be somewhere between a and c. . In fact. In summary. so the function is initially decreasing. u. . c) until c − a is smaller than the desired accuracy in determining αk . c) end end. The only difﬁculty here is to ﬁnd c. the steepest descent algorithm can be stopped when xk − xk−1 < where the positive constant is provided by the user. and therefore preferable in most cases. One criterion is to check whether the value of f (xk ) has signiﬁcantly decreased from f (xk−1 ). α2 . In fact.13) to the starting point xk . Let h(α) = f (xk + αpk ) (4. b = (a + c)/2. b. Another is to check whether xk is signiﬁcantly different from xk−1 .4)). Of course. In contrast. We used Q because it was available. the derivative of h at a is negative. so f (xk ) − f (xk−1 ) may be very small but xk − xk−1 may still be relatively large. Thus.46 CHAPTER 4. c) = (u. and a line search in the direction of pk can be used to determine the step size αk . b. In fact. Here is how line search works. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION linearly. in the sense that a ≤ αk ≤ c. Line search ﬁrst determines two points a. u) otherwise (a. b. until h(αi ) is greater than h(αi−1 ). the Hessian of f (x) requires computing n second derivatives if x is an ndimensional 2 vector. rather than in that of f (x∗ ). but its computation during steepest descent would in general be overkill. we can set a = 0. and then picks a point between a and c. Line search now proceeds by shrinking the bracketing triple (a. b. only gradient information is necessary to ﬁnd pk . Using line search to ﬁnd αk guarantees that a minimum in the direction pk is actually reached even when the parabolic approximation is inadequate. but it is increasing between αi−1 and αi = c. b. the derivatives of f are close to zero. b. Shrinking works as follows: if b − a > c − b u = (a + b)/2 if f (u) > f (b) (a. To complete the steepest descent algorithm we need to specify how to check whether a minimum has been reached. c) otherwise (a. Close to the minimum. . say. b) end otherwise u = (b + c)/2 if f (u) > f (b) (a. corresponding through equation (4. A point c that is on the opposite side of the minimum with respect to a can be found by increasing α through values α1 = a. b.13) be the scalar function of one variable that is obtained by restricting the function f to the line through the current point xk and in the direction of pk . usually one is interested in the value of x∗ . Since the gradient of f approaches zero when xk tends to x∗ . we used the Hessian Q in order to compute the optimal step size α (see equation (4. In our analysis of steepest descent.
2. . In other words. In fact.14) is valid. and therefore the minimum is somewhere between a and c. a and Q are the coefﬁcients of the Taylor expansion of f around point x = 0. and xk+1 − x∗ = y(xk ) − x∗ = y(xk ) − y(x∗ ) . Newton’s method is quadratic.14) ··· ··· ∂2f ∂x1 ∂xn x= xk . b. equation (4. A minimization algorithm in which the step direction pk and size αk are deﬁned in this manner is called Newton’s method. ∂2f ∂x2 n ∂2f ∂xn ∂x1 are the gradient and Hessian of f evaluated at the current point xk . we can set the derivatives of f (xk + ∆x) with respect to ∆x to zero.15)). where gk = g(xk ) = and Qk = Q(xk ) = ∂2f = T ∂x∂x x=xk ∂f ∂x x=xk ∂2f ∂x2 1 (4. The greater speed of Newton’s method over steepest descent is borne out by analysis: while steepest descent has a linear order of convergence. c) shrinks to 3/4 of its previous size.15) is the Newton step. This is the idea of Newton’s method. . (4.4. the linear system Qk ∆x = −gk . the gradient gk is different from a as used in equation (4. analogously to equation (4. Consequently. Of course. Then y(x∗ ) = x∗ because g(x∗ ) = 0.2) tells us how to jump in one step from the starting point x0 to the minimum x∗ . the analysis in the previous section suggests a straightforward ﬁx to the slow convergence of steepest descent. The direction is of course undeﬁned once the algorithm has reached a minimum. The corresponding pk is termed the Newton direction. Notice that even when f is a paraboloid. iterations are needed. To the extent that approximation (4.2). and obtain. . let y(x) = x − Q(x)−1 g(x) be the place reached by a Newton step starting at x (see equation (4. . NEWTON’S METHOD 47 It is easy to see that in each case the bracketing triple (a. so line search will ﬁnd the minimum in a number of steps that is logarithmic in the desired accuracy. the new value x1 will be different from x∗ . and the step deﬁned by equation (4. but convergence can be expected to be faster. In fact. . In addition.2 Newton’s Method If a function can be well approximated by a paraboloid in the region in which minimization is performed. and suppose that at the minimum x∗ the Hessian Q(x∗ ) is nonsingular. . that is. c) preserves the property that f (b) ≤ f (a) and f (b) ≤ f (c). at every step the interval (a.1).15) whose solution ∆xk = αk pk yields at the same time the step direction pk = ∆xk / ∆xk and the step size αk = ∆xk . while gk and Qk are the coefﬁcients of the Taylor expansion of f around the current point xk . which we now summarize. gradient and Hessian are constantly reevaluated in Newton’s method. In fact. when f (x) is not exactly a paraboloid. when αk = 0. Let 1 f (xk + ∆x) ≈ f (xk ) + gT ∆x + ∆xT Qk ∆x k 2 be the ﬁrst terms of the Taylor series expansion of f about the current point xk . 4.
steepest descent takes many steps to converge. . Storing and inverting a 500. Overall. Since y(x∗ ) = x∗ . similarly to Newton’s method.48 From the meanvalue theorem. We know that in this case minimizing f (x) is equivalent to solving the linear system (4. but it only requires gradient information. if an image has. steepest descent requires the gradient gk for selecting the step direction pk . a quarter of a million pixels. called the motion ﬁeld. the method converges to the solution in n steps. Thus. However. the method of conjugate gradients discussed in this section seems to violate this principle: it achieves fast. This means that the number of iterations is ﬁxed. It will be introe duced in three steps. 000 × 500. this motion. system (4. This quadratic function f (x) was introduced in equation (4. In contrast. The method of conjugate gradients. storing and manipulating a Hessian can be prohibitive. for a total of n + n derivatives.1). system (4. Thus. This is very important in cases where x has thousands or even millions of components. Conjugate gradients works by taking n steps for each of the steps in Newton’s method. conjugate gradients for the quadratic case can also be seen as an alternative method for solving a linear system. at least. superlinear convergence.2) of Newton’s method. Newton’s method approximates f with paraboloids. conjugate gradients saves the day. At every pixel in the image. In cases like these.1). we have xk+1 − x∗ = y(xk ) − y(x∗ ) ≤ CHAPTER 4. so that x the ﬁrst term in the righthand side above vanishes. and a line search in the direction pk to ﬁnd the step size. and then jumps at every iteration to the lowest point of the current approximation. however. say. Steepest descent locally approximates the function with planes.3 Conjugate Gradients Newton’s method converges faster (quadratically) than steepest descent (linear convergence rate) because it uses more information about the function f being minimized.2). although the version presented here will only work if the matrix of the system is symmetric and positive deﬁnite. The bottom line is that fast convergence requires work that is equivalent to evaluating the Hessian of f . First. For very large problems. because it only uses gradient information. in which the dimension n of x is thousands or more. the work done by conjugate gradients is equivalent to that done by Newton’s method. and the matrix Q is never stored. It effectively solves the linear system (4. and xk+1 − x∗ ≤ c xk − x∗ 2 where c depends on thirdorder derivatives of f near x∗ . discussed in the next section. but it does so by a sequence of n onedimensional minimizations. the ﬁrst derivatives of y at x∗ are zero. For a quadratic function. Speciﬁcally. conjugate gradients is a direct method for the quadratic case. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION ∂y 1 ∂2y (xk − x∗ ) + xk − x∗ T ∂x x=x∗ 2 ∂x∂xT x=x ˆ 2 where ˆ is some point on the line between x∗ and xk . The conjugate gradients method described in these notes is the socalled PolakRibi` re variation. or. This paradox. Partial differential equations relate image intensities over space and time to the motion of the underlying image features. Because of the equivalence with a linear system. 4. is only apparent. each requiring one gradient computation and one line search. All it can do is to go downhill. Say for instance that we want to compute the motion of points in an image as a consequence of camera motion. However. this single iteration in Newton’s method is more expensive. but without paying the storage cost of Newton’s method. it will be developed for the simple case of minimizing a quadratic function with positivedeﬁnite and known Hessian. there are n = 500. is motivated by the desire to accelerate convergence with respect to the steepest descent method. because it requires both the gradient gk and the Hessian Qk to be evaluated. the convergence rate of Newton’s method is of order at least two. In 2 addition. the Hessian must be inverted. Prima facie. is represented by a vector whose magnitude and direction describe the velocity of the image feature at that pixel. where n is the number of components of x.15) must be solved. Rather than an iterative method. These highdimensional problems arise typically from the discretization of partial differential equations.2) is never constructed explicitly. 000 Hessian is out of the question. 000 unknown motion ﬁeld values. while Newton’s method reaches the minimum in one step. as in equation (4.
. Given an arbitrary set of ellipsoidal isosurfaces. NY. The next step is in the direction of the gradient. This combination of fast convergence. evaluated at n different points x1 . the assumption that the Hessian Q in expression (4. However. How can we start from a point x0 on one of these ellipsoids and reach x∗ by a ﬁnite sequence of onedimensional searches? In connection with steepest descent. Third. The ﬁrst step takes from x0 to x1 . If the function f starts to behave like a quadratic function early. This would then take us to x∗ right away. so that the new direction p1 is orthogonal to the previous direction p0 . the second step then yields the minimum in the space spanned by p0 and p1 . In summary. the method is no longer direct. Then the quadratic function f (x) is constant over ellipsoids. As discussed above. but only the quantity gk = Qxk + a that is. Finding tight bounds for the convergence rate of conjugate gradients is hard. the conjugate gradients method will be extended to general functions f (x). since p0 . and so forth. and we will omit this proof. positive deﬁnite matrix Q. . In this case. will lead to the minimum for spherical isosurfaces. centered at the minimum x∗ . 4. we noticed that for poorly conditioned Hessians orthogonal directions lead to many small steps.4. and the line between x0 and x1 is tangent to an isosurface at x1 . and the cost of ﬁnding the minimum depends on the desired accuracy. called isosurfaces. then we can write 1 1 T x Qx = yT y 2 2 . We now consider an alternative solution method that does not need Q. that is. Suppose however that we cannot afford to compute this special direction p1 orthogonal to p0 . in which the variable x in f (x) is a threedimensional vector. and that the quadratic approximation becomes more and more valid as the algorithm converges to the minimum.16) where Q is a symmetric. In spite of this. . each line minimization is independent of the others: The ﬁrst step yields the minimum in the space spanned by p0 . We rely instead on the intuition that conjugate gradients solves system (4.1) is known will be removed. Formal proofs can be found in Elijah Polak. This occurs because the Hessian of f is no longer a constant. It is easy to see that in that case n steps will take us to x∗ . this is the main reason for using conjugate gradients. but iterative. As a consequence. the gradient of f (x). pn−1 span the whole space. a certain property that holds in the quadratic case is now valid only approximately. We will see that the conjugate gradients method requires n gradient evaluations and n line searches in lieu of each n × n matrix inversion in Newton’s method. Optimization — Algorithms and consistent approximations. . convergence is fast. . Springer. positive deﬁnite matrix. to slow convergence. any set of orthogonal directions. (4.2).17) We know how to solve such a system. The arguments offered below appeal to intuition. and each of the steps is simple. with a line search in each direction. that is. the minimum x∗ is the solution to the linear system Qx = −a . as it requires close to the n steps that are necessary in the quadratic case. and x has n components. In fact.1 The Quadratic Case 1 f (x) = c + aT x + xT Qx 2 Suppose that we want to minimize the quadratic function (4.3. since isosurfaces are spheres. . When the ellipsoids are spheres. As we saw in our discussion of steepest descent. if f is nearly quadratic in a large neighborhood of the minimum. CONJUGATE GRADIENTS 49 Second. After n steps we must be done. . there is a onetoone mapping with a spherical system: if Q = U ΣU T is the SVD of the symmetric. the convergence rate of conjugate gradients is superlinear. as it was in the quadratic case. and low computational cost per iteration explains the popularity of conjugate gradients methods for the optimization of functions of a large number of variables. Consider the case n = 3. this works much better. xn . somewhere between Newton’s method and steepest descent.3. 1997. on the other hand. but that we can only compute some direction p1 orthogonal to p0 (there is an n − 1dimensional space of such directions!). all the methods we have seen so far involve explicit manipulation of the matrix Q. modest storage requirements.
pp. First. We will henceforth simply say “conjugate” for brevity.j becomes pT U Σ1/2 Σ1/2 U T pj = 0 i or pT Qpj = 0 . n − 1 αk = arg minα≥0 f (xk + αpk ) xk+1 = xk + αk pk gk+1 = g(xk+1 ) gT Qp k+1 γ k = pT Q p k k k pk+1 = −gk+1 + γk pk end where gk = g(xk ) = is the gradient of f at xk . (4. . which also incorporates the steps from x0 to xn : g0 = g(x0 ) p0 = −g0 for k = 0 . Of course. FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION y = Σ1/2 U T x . 1952). pT Qpk+1 k = pT Q(−gk+1 + γk pk ) k = −pT Qgk+1 + k gT Qpk T k+1 p Qpk pT Qpk k k ∂f ∂x x=xk = −pT Qgk+1 + gT Qpk = 0 .j = Σ1/2 U T pi. If two directions qi and qj are orthogonal in the spherical context. Here is the procedure. .18) Consequently. Details can be found in Polak’s book mentioned earlier.j .18) in the algorithm. we reach the minimum in at most n steps. . we ﬁnd conjugate directions whose deﬁnitions do involve Q. k k+1 It is somewhat more cumbersome to show that pi and pk+1 for i = 0. pn−1 that are mutually conjugate. 409436. . . Vol 49.4. we cannot use the transformation (4. Then. In summary. due to Hestenes and Stiefel (Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems. Bureau National Standards.50 where CHAPTER 4. This can be done by induction.2) to produce conjugate rather than orthogonal vectors. i what does this translate into in terms of the directions pi and pj for the ellipsoidal problem? We have qi.19) This condition is called Qconjugacy. It is simple to see that pk and pk+1 are conjugate. k are also conjugate. . The proof is based on the observation that the vectors pk are found by a generalization of GramSchmidt (theorem 2. i (4. we rewrite these expressions without Q. . We do this in two steps. in the next subsection. So now we need to ﬁnd a method for generating n conjugate directions without using either Q or its SVD. then pi and pj are said to be Qconjugate or Qorthogonal to each other. . . In fact. or Qorthogonality: if equation (4. that is. because Σ and especially U T are too large. . if we can ﬁnd n directions p0 . Res.19) holds. and if we do line minimization along each direction pk . . there must be a condition for the original problem (in terms of Q) that is equivalent to orthogonality for the spherical problem. . J. section B. so that orthogonality for qi. if qT qj = 0 .
which is too large. CONJUGATE GRADIENTS 51 4. To this end. n iterations will not sufﬁce. This expression for γk can be further simpliﬁed by noticing that pT gk+1 = 0 k because the line along pk is tangent to an isosurface at xk+1 . as the algorithm approaches the minimum x∗ .3 Extension to General Functions We now know how to minimize the quadratic function (4. We can therefore write γk = gT αk Qpk gT (gk+1 − gk ) gT Qpk k+1 = k+1 = k+1 . We now show that γk can be rewritten in terms of the gradient values gk and gk+1 only. g(x) = a + Qx so that gk+1 = g(xk+1 ) = g(xk + αk pk ) = a + Q(xk + αk pk ) = gk + αk Qpk . In fact. which was constant for the quadratic case.2 Removing the Hessian The algorithm shown in the previous subsection is a correct conjugate gradients algorithm. pT Qpk pT αk Qpk pT (gk+1 − gk ) k k k and Q has disappeared. Similarly.3. the denominator of γk becomes pT (gk+1 − gk ) = −pT gk = (gk − γk−1 pk−1 )T gk = gT gk . we then lose conjugacy. . since pk and pk+1 are associated to different Hessians. or αk Qpk = gk+1 − gk . k−1 Then.3. Strictly speaking. we notice that gk+1 = gk + αk Qpk . However. and a few cycles of n iterations each will achieve convergence. the Hessian. gT gk k 4. pT gk = 0 .16) in n steps. without ever constructing the Hessian explicitly.4. However.3. However. now is a function of xk . k k k In conclusion. we obtain the PolakRibi` re formula e γk = gT (gk+1 − gk ) k+1 . it is computationally inadequate because the expression for γk contains the Hessian Q. In fact. the same algorithm can be used. When the function f (x) is arbitrary. while the gradient gk+1 is orthogonal to the isosurface at xk+1 . the quadratic approximation becomes more and more valid.
FUNCTION OPTIMIZATION .52 CHAPTER 4.
Often. there is an intimate. the equation b = U ΣV T x can be written as follows U T b = ΣV T x . T and where Σ is diagonal. the SVD does nothing useful for systems of linear differential equations. the fact that A is square is not a coincidence. that is. x is assumed to be a function ˙ of some real scalar variable t (often time). preexisting relation between x and x. The most important example is perhaps that of a system of linear differential equations. of the form ˙ x = Ax where A is n × n. if V is an orthogonal matrix and we deﬁne y = V Tx . the singular value decomposition A = U ΣV of A transforms the domain of the transformation via the matrix V T and its range via the matrix U T so that the transformed system is diagonal. dt ˙ In other words. because it diagonalizes A by two different transformations. however. while we need a single transformation. one for the domain and one for the range. and one cannot change coordinates for x ˙ without also changing those for x accordingly. c = Σy where y = V Tx and c = UT b . This is a fundamental transformation to use whenever the domain and the range of A are separate spaces. Ideally. and x is the derivative of x with respect to t: ˙ x= dx . In fact. we would like to ﬁnd an orthogonal matrix S and a diagonal matrix Λ such that A = SΛS T 53 (5. ˙ ˙ then the deﬁnition of x forces us to transform x by V T as well: dx dV Tx ˙ =VT = V Tx .1) . In fact. dt dt In brief.Chapter 5 Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors Given a linear transformation b = Ax . In fact. domain and range are intimately related to one another even independently of the transformation A. For this equation.
scalar differential equations. they can be even nonreal. for complex matrices we generalize the notion of transpose by introducing the Hermitian operator: The matrix QH (pronounced “Q Hermitian”) is deﬁned to be the complex conjugate of the transpose of Q. If we refer back to ﬁgure 3. 2 = xH S H Sx = xH x = x . which can be solved separately. If Q happens to be real. Finally. A matrix that is equal to its Hermitian is called a Hermitian matrix. In summary. in order to diagonalize a square matrix A from a system of linear differential equations we generally look for a decomposition of A of the form A = QΛQ−1 (5. It is like doing an SVD but with the additional constraint U = V . 1 then Sx1 and Sx2 are orthogonal as well: xH S H Sx2 = xH x2 = 0 . the norm squared is deﬁned as x and if S is unitary we have Sx 2 2 = xH x . We will see all of this in greater detail soon. a nonunitary transformation Q can change the norms of vectors. we weaken the constraints in several ways: • the elements of S and Λ are allowed to be complex. To distinguish invertible from orthogonal matrices we use the symbol Q for invertible and S for orthogonal. it will be possible to diagonalize A by orthogonal transformations S and S T .1. The solutions can then be recombined through x = Sy . For complex vectors. because it is a system of n independent. in fact. In order to make a decomposition like (5. 1 1 In contrast. • the elements on the diagonal of Λ are allowed to be negative. now the circle and the ellipse live in the same space. In some cases. so unitary generalizes orthogonal for complex matrices. Unitary matrices merely rotate or ﬂip vectors. This is now much easier to handle. so the Hermitian is a generalization of the transpose. rather than real. Unfortunately. as well as the inner products between vectors. Furthermore. A matrix S is said to be unitary if S H S = SS H = I . in the sense that xH x2 = 0 . This will only occur for very special matrices.1) is not always possible. because now we are imposing stronger constraints on the terms of the decomposition. • S is required to be only invertible. if x1 and x2 are mutually orthogonal.54 so that if we deﬁne CHAPTER 5.2) . This stands to reason. writing A in the form (5. conjugate transposition becomes simply transposition.1) possible. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS y = ST x we can write the equivalent but diagonal differential system ˙ y = Λy . and the constraint U = V implies that the vectors vi on the circle that map into the axes σi ui of the ellipse are parallel to the axes themselves. rather than orthogonal. in the sense that they do not alter the vectors’ norms.
The equation A = QΛQ−1 can be rewritten as follows: AQ = QΛ or separately for every column of Q as follows: Aqi = λi qi where Q= q1 ··· qn and Λ = diag(λ1 . and the diagonal entries of Λ are called eigenvalues. 2 1. (5. and Λ is diagonal.3) Thus.5 −2 −2 −1 0 1 2 Figure 5. The columns of Q are called eigenvectors.5 −1 −1.5 0 −0.5) A= 0 2 .5) on a sample of points on the unit circle.55 where Q and Λ are complex. diagonal or not.1: Effect of the transformation (5. λn ) . . they are said to be similar to each other. and the transformation of B into A (and vice versa) is called a similarity transformation. For some special matrices. the columns of qi of Q and the diagonal entries λi of Λ are solutions of the eigenvalue/eigenvector equation Ax = λx . are related by A = QBQ−1 . Q is invertible. That real eigenvectors and eigenvalues do not always exist can be clariﬁed by considering the eigenvalue problem from a geometrical point of view in the n = 2 case. we have derived this equation from the requirement of diagonalizing a matrix by a similarity transformation. The dashed lines are vectors that do not change direction under the transformation. In contrast. an invertible linear transformation transforms the unit circle into an ellipse. . Each point on the unit circle is transformed into some point on the ellipse.1 shows the effect of the transformation represented by the matrix √ 2/3 4/ 3 (5. . Figure 5. . As we know. (5. Whenever two matrices A and B.4) which is how eigenvalues and eigenvectors are usually introduced. this may specialize to A = SΛS H with unitary S.5 1 0.
q2 that are mapped into themselves by the original transformation A (see equation (5. · (λ − λn ) where some of the λi may coincide. Notice that there are many transformations that map the unit circle into the same ellipse. . Given that the directions of the input vectors are generally changed by the transformation A. but they are complex. We will see that the answer depends on the matrix A. (5. In other cases.6) This is a homogeneous. deﬁned as the (n − 1) × (n − 1) matrix obtained by removing row i and column j from B. by very simple induction. bi ··· bj ··· bn ) = − det( b1 ··· bj ··· bi ··· bn ). In fact. . The geometric intuition is hidden. so x can be assumed to be a unit vector without loss of generality. equation (5. there are n real. that the lefthand side of equation (5. all eigenvalues exist. which admits nontrivial solutions iff the matrix A − λI is rankdeﬁcient. we have to give up the idea of diagonalizing A. and the problem is best treated as an algebraic one.7) From the deﬁnition of determinant. In particularly good cases. In other words. Each rotation yields another matrix A. the eigenvalues and their eigenvectors exist.7) is a polynomial of degree n in λ. Volumes have been written about the properties of the determinant. an n × n matrix has at most n distinct eigenvalues. This turns out to be good enough for solving linear differential systems. In ﬁgure 5. square system of equations. just as triangularization was sufﬁcient for solving linear algebraic systems. 5.1 can be rotated. . Therefore. it is not obvious whether the eigenvalue problem admits a solution at all. as evident from ﬁgure 5.1. and that the coefﬁcient of λn is 1.6) to admit nontrivial solutions. bn are linearly dependent. det(B) = b11 n i+1 bi1 i=1 (−1) det(Bi1 ) if B is 1 × 1 otherwise is zero. . it is sufﬁcient to recall the following properties from linear algebra: • det(B) = det(B T ). For our purposes. the curvetocurve transformation from circle to ellipse is unique. pulling the solid lines along. which is called the characteristic equation of A. The eigenvalue problem amounts to ﬁnding axes q1 . EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS for a sample of points on the unit circle. the two eigenvectors are shown as dashed lines. but not enough eigenvectors can be found. Thus. and that a rather diverse array of situations may arise. In this expression. for system (5. but the resulting ellipse is unchanged. has n complex solutions.1. • det( b1 • det( b1 ··· ··· bn ) = 0 iff b1 . Notice that they do not correspond to the axes of the ellipse. Bij is the algebraic complement of entry bij . . . In other words. A square matrix B is rankdeﬁcient iff its determinant.7). perhaps all real. • det(BC) = det(B) det(C). and the matrix A cannot be diagonalized. Matrices represent pointtopoint transformations. In some cases. in the sense that det(A − λI) = (−1)n (λ − λ1 ) · . and that they are not orthogonal.3)). In bad cases. The case of exactly n distinct eigenvalues is of particular interest. but the pointtopoint transformation is not. .1 Computing Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors Algebraically Let us rewrite the eigenvalue equation Ax = λx as follows: (A − λI)x = 0 . the circle in ﬁgure 5. and we can only triangularize it.56 CHAPTER 5. orthonormal eigenvectors.4) is homogeneous in x. because of the following results. we need det(A − λI) = 0 . it follows. (5. Equation (5.
. . . . . Proof.9) Since A = AH . + ck Axk = 0 and because x1 .1 Eigenvectors x1 . .1. . the last equation can be rewritten as follows: xH A = λ∗ xH . . .8) we have c1 (λ1 − λk )x1 + . the situation is even better.10) λxH x = λ∗ xH x . . In summary.1. . . . + ck−1 xk−1 = 0 .8) For Hermitian matrices (and therefore for real symmetric matrices as well). Since all λi are distinct. . we have c1 λ1 x1 + . = ck = 0. + ck λk xk = 0 and subtracting this equation from equation (5. By multiplying by A we obtain c1 Ax1 + . ∆ (5. . . so that c2 x2 + . from c1 x1 + . . and this forces c1 = 0. .10) from the right by x. + ck xk = 0 implies that c1 = . . xk corresponding to distinct eigenvalues λ1 . . . Thus. . xk are eigenvectors corresponding to eigenvalues λ1 . we obtain xH Ax xH Ax which implies that = = λxH x λ∗ xH x (5. xk are linearly independent.5. . Suppose that c1 x1 + . therefore forcing c2 = 0. . . + ck λk xk = 0 . . . + ck xk = 0 where the xi are eigenvectors of a matrix A. (5. . .1. . λk . . and we can replace each xi by xi = (λi − λk )xi . . . that the vectors x1 . Theorem 5. A matrix A is Hermitian iff A = AH . = ck = 0. that is. . We need to show that then c1 = . and so forth. If we multiply equation (5. . By taking the Hermitian we obtain xH AH = λ∗ xH . λk are linearly independent. the differences in parentheses are all nonzero. the equation c1 x1 + . which is still an eigenvector of A: c1 x1 + . + ck−1 (λk−1 − λk )xk−1 = 0 . + ck xk = 0 This entire argument can be repeated for the last equation.2 A Hermitian matrix has real eigenvalues. . . we have reduced the summation to one containing k − 1 terms. . . However. . + ck xk = 0 we also have c1 λk x1 + . Let λ and x be an eigenvalue of A and a corresponding eigenvector: Ax = λx . . .9) from the left by xH and equation (5. We can repeat this procedure until only one term remains. COMPUTING EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS ALGEBRAICALLY 57 Theorem 5. Proof.
1.2 show that when some eigenvalues coincide. Proof.1. ∆ In summary. If we multiply these two equations by yH from the left and x from the right. λyH x = µyH x (λ − µ)yH x = 0 . ∆ Since the two eigenvalues are distinct.2 µ = µ∗ .1. and any square Hermitian matrix with n distinct eigenvalues can be diagonalized by a unitary similarity transformation. Proof. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS Since x is an eigenvector. ∆ Theorem 5. however. Let λ and µ be two distinct eigenvalues of A. eigenvectors.1. Since the eigenvalue equation Ax = λx is homogeneous in x. the n × n identity matrix has n equal eigenvalues but n orthonormal eigenvectors (which can be chosen in inﬁnitely many ways). we point out a simple but fundamental fact about the eigenvalues of a triangular matrix. we obtain yH Ax yH Ax which implies or = = λyH x µyH x . the scalar xH x is nonzero. rather diverse situations can arise concerning the eigenvectors. any square matrix with n distinct eigenvalues can be diagonalized by a similarity transformation. Theorem 5.1.58 CHAPTER 5. A real and symmetric matrix is Hermitian.5 An n × n Hermitian matrix with n distinct eigenvalues admits n orthonormal eigenvectors. the vector x can be normalized without violating the equation. so that we have λ = λ∗ as promised. the eigenvectors can be made to be orthonormal. Consequently. First. The examples in section 5.1. Notice that the converse is not true: a matrix can have coincident eigenvalues and still admit n independent. and even orthonormal.3 A real and symmetric matrix has real eigenvalues. respectively. Proof. For instance. λ − µ is nonzero. From theorem 5. .4. ∆ Corollary 5. the eigenvectors of an n × n Hermitian matrix with n distinct eigenvalues are all mutually orthogonal. and we must have yH x = 0. and let x and y be corresponding eigenvectors: Ax Ay = = λx µy ⇒ yH A = µyH because A = AH and from theorem 5.6 The determinant of a triangular matrix is the product of the elements on its diagonal.4 Eigenvectors corresponding to distinct eigenvalues of a Hermitian matrix are mutually orthogonal. Corollary 5.
Then. and from the previous theorem we obtain det(A − λI) = (a11 − λ) · . ∆ Corollary 5. .11) 0 1 has eigenvalues 2 and 1 and eigenvectors s1 = 1 0 s2 = 0 1 . ∆ Note that diagonal matrices are triangular. Proof. · (ann − λ) which is equal to zero for λ = a11 .2 Good and Bad Matrices Solving differential equations becomes much easier when matrices have a full set of orthonormal eigenvectors. . GOOD AND BAD MATRICES 59 Proof. . 5. ann . for otherwise we can repeat the argument for the transpose. we obtain det(B) = b11 · . . so this result holds for diagonal matrices as well. The eigenvalues of a matrix A are the solutions of the equation det(A − λI) = 0 . Normal matrices are good news.7 The eigenvalues of a triangular matrix are the elements on its diagonal. which because of the properties above has the same eigenvalues. we can assume a triangular matrix B to be uppertriangular. . For instance. . This follows immediately from the deﬁnition of determinant. . If A is triangular.2.1. Matrices with n orthonormal eigenvectors are called normal.5. Without loss of generality. and the summation in the deﬁnition of determinant given above reduces to a single term: det(B) = b11 b11 det(B11 ) if B is 1 × 1 otherwise . so is B = A − λI. the only possibly nonzero bi1 of the matrix B is b11 . eλn t c . . By repeating the argument for B11 and so forth until we are left with a single scalar. . · bnn .. the matrix 2 0 A= (5. because then the n × n system of differential equations ˙ x = Ax has solution n x(t) = i=1 ci si eλi t = S eλ1 t .
It belongs to the scum of all matrices: 0 2 −1 A= 0 2 1 . repeated twice. 0 0 2 Its eigenvalues are 0. things can be worse yet. which has eigenvalues 2 and 1 and nonorthogonal eigenvectors q1 = 1 0 2 2 1 1 . to have fewer than n eigenvectors. . is that it have repeated eigenvalues. eλn t Computationally this is more expensive. so zero eigenvalues are not the problem. because a computation of a Hermitian is replaced by a matrix inversion.1) that a matrix with distinct eigenvalues (zero or nonzero does not matter) has a full set of eigenvectors (perhaps nonorthogonal. and there is no q3 .60 CHAPTER 5. The simplest example of a defective matrix is 0 1 0 0 which has double eigenvalue 0 and only eigenvector [1 0]T . A necessary condition for an n × n matrix to be defective. repeated eigenvalues are not a sufﬁcient condition for defectiveness. eλn t Fortunately these matrices occur frequently in practice. but they may not be orthonormal. q1 and q2 are not orthogonal to each other. Furthermore. A has to have a repeated eigenvalue if it is to be defective. An example of such a matrix is 2 0 −1 1 √ q2 = H S x(0) . as we now show. but independent). First. because the unitary matrix S is replaced by an invertible matrix Q. because the matrix is singular. However. and the solution becomes λt e 1 −1 . and the vector c of constants ci is c = S H x(0) . In fact. we have seen (theorem 5. λi are the eigenvalues. and the eigenvectors it has are not orthogonal. Its two eigenvectors are √ 1 1 2 1 q1 = 0 . x(t) = S eλ1 t .1. . as the identity matrix proves.. However. More compactly. This is conceptually only a slight problem. there may still be a complete set of n eigenvectors. and a full set of eigenvectors may fail to exist. has fewer than n eigenvectors. and 2. x(t) = Q Q x(0) . q2 = 2 0 0 corresponding to eigenvalues 0 and 2 in this order. . while 3 1 0 3 has double eigenvalue 3 and only eigenvector [1 0]T . not all matrices are as good as these. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS where S = [s1 · · · sn ] are the eigenvectors. How bad can a matrix be? Here is a matrix that is singular. that is. However..
x = . T y = λy where y = Q−1 x . This transformation is equivalent to factoring A into the product A = ST S H . and this product is called the Schur decomposition of A. Fortunately. In this note. Numerically stable and efﬁcient algorithms exist for the Schur decomposition. x . It is important to notice that if a matrix A is triangularized by similarity transformations. but only show that all square matrices admit a Schur decomposition. The Schur decomposition does even better.3. We will show later on that this allows solving systems of linear differential equations regardless of the structure of the system’s matrix of coefﬁcients. 5. . then the eigenvalues of the triangular matrix T are equal to those of the original matrix A. In fact. It is intuitively obvious that any nonzero real vector x can be rotated into a vector parallel to e1 .3. . then that is. QT Q−1 x = λx .3 Computing Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors Numerically The examples above have shown that not every n × n matrix admits n independent eigenvectors.5. so λ is also an eigenvalue for T . however. sT sT x n n 0 which is parallel to e1 as desired. But the trick is the same: let s1 = x . so some matrices cannot be diagonalized by similarity transformations. Formally. 0 ST x = . It may be less obvious that a complex vector x can be transformed into a real vector parallel to e1 by a unitary transformation. COMPUTING EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS NUMERICALLY 61 5. . if Ax = λx . and since all the other sj are orthogonal to s1 . since it triangularizes any square matrix A by a unitary (possibly complex) transformation: T = S H AS . x Since sT x = xT x/ x = x . we will not study these algorithms. .1 Rotations into the x1 Axis An important preliminary fact concerns vector rotations. as we now show. The eigenvectors. take any orthogonal matrix S whose ﬁrst column is x s1 = . T = Q−1 AQ . are changed according to the last equation. we have 1 T T x s1 s1 x . = . Let e1 be the ﬁrst column of the identity matrix. these matrices can be triangularized by similarity transformations. .
Let U be a unitary transformation that transforms the (possibly complex) eigenvector x of A into a real vector on the x1 axis: r 0 x=U . .2 The Schur Decomposition The Schur decomposition theorem is the cornerstone of eigenvalue computations. .12) .62 CHAPTER 5. . T = U H AU (5.12) and rearranging we have r r 0 0 AU . sH sH x n n x 0 . such that T = λ 0 . . . By substituting this into (5. 5. . just about like before. 0 = = λ λ r 0 . and unitary transformations preserve eigenvalues. 0 where r is the nonzero norm of x. . = . .3. if the Schur decomposition of a matrix can be computed. a system of linear differential equations can be solved regardless of the structure of the matrix of its coefﬁcients. Lemma 5. It states that any square matrix can be triangularized by unitary transformations. . . 0 0 C . its eigenvalues can be determined. Consequently. Moreover. We are now ready to triangularize an arbitrary square matrix A. EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS Now s1 may be complex. 0 Proof. We have sH x = xH x/ x = x . x = . 0 .1 If A is an n × n matrix and λ and x are an eigenvalue of A and its corresponding eigenvector. . Ax = λx then there is a transformation where U is a unitary. n × n matrix. 0 1 0 . SH x = . . and 1 sH 1 sH x 1 . . as we will see later. . = λU . . . . 0 1 0 . U H AU U H AU 0 r 0 . . .3. The diagonal elements of a triangular matrix are its eigenvalues. .
there is a stable and efﬁcient algorithm to compute the Schur decomposition. Suppose it holds for all matrices of order n − 1. 0 λ 0 . By induction. Furthermore. 0 Clearly. V .5. . . 0 where λ is any eigenvalue of A. and the corresponding righthand side is of the form required by the lemma. . Let 0 ··· 0 1 0 S=U . S can be chosen so that the eigenvalues λi of A appear in any order along the diagonal of T . Partition C into a row vector and an (n − 1) × (n − 1) matrix G: C= wH G . . ∆ This theorem does not say how to compute the Schur decomposition.2 (Schur) If A is any n × n matrix then there exists a unitary n × n matrix S such that S H AS = T where T is triangular. 63 = The last lefthand side is the ﬁrst column of T .3. . The theorem obviously holds for n = 1: 1A1 = A . the order of eigenvalues can be chosen arbitrarily. 0 . . This is the preferred way to compute eigenvalues numerically.3. S H AS is the Schur decomposition of A. COMPUTING EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS NUMERICALLY T 1 0 . there is a unitary matrix V such that V H GV is a Schur decomposition of G. C . . Because we can pick any eigenvalue as λ. only that it exists. and S H AS is uppertriangular. Then from the lemma there exists a unitary U such that λ 0 U H AU = . Fortunately. ∆ Theorem 5. S is a unitary matrix. Since the elements on the diagonal of a triangular matrix are the eigenvalues. . Proof. By the inductive hypothesis.
1. and this is the ﬁrst equation of the theorem (the diagonal of a Hermitian matrix must be real).64 CHAPTER 5. a general relation between determinant and eigenvalues. Let now A = ST S H be the Schur decomposition of A. But eigenvectors are the solution of the homogeneous system (5. Λ is real and diagonal. and S H = S T .1. Theorem 5.1 The determinant of a matrix is equal to the product of its eigenvalues. so Λ is real. First.5). T = S H AS. S is real. we know that the eigenvalues of a matrix A are equal to those of the triangular matrix in the Schur decomposition of A. ∆ We saw that an n × n Hermitian matrix with n distinct eigenvalues admits n orthonormal eigenvectors (corollary 5. Furthermore.1). we know from theorem 5. real or not. But the only way that T can be both triangular and Hermitian is for it to be diagonal. and T H = (S H AS)H = S H AH S = S H AS = T . so is T . EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS 5. All that is left to prove is that then its eigenvectors are real. xT Qx = 1 . Proof. It is positive semideﬁnite if for every nonzero x we have xT Ax ≥ 0.4. now that we have the Schur decomposition. Let now A be real and symmetric. we also establish a link between singular values/vectors and eigenvalues/vectors. The proof is very simple. Since A is Hermitian. ∆ ⇒ A = SΛS H ⇒ A = SΛS T . Notice that a positive deﬁnite matrix is also positive semideﬁnite. and that the determinant of a product of matrices is equal to the product of the determinants. the Schur decomposition of a Hermitian matrix is in fact a diagonalization. A = AT In either case. While this link is very important.2). They also occur in geometry through the equation of an ellipsoid. In the process. In fact. We recall that a real matrix A such that for every nonzero x we have xT Ax > 0 is said to be positive deﬁnite. because 0∗ = 0.6 that the determinant of a triangular matrix is the product of the elements on its diagonal.2 (Spectral theorem) Every Hermitian matrix can be diagonalized by a unitary matrix. The assumption of distinct eigenvalues made the proof simple.1. We already know that Hermitian matrices (and therefore real and symmetric ones) have real eigenvalues (theorem 5. If in addition the matrix is real. it is useful to remember that eigenvalues/vectors and singular values/vectors are conceptually and factually very distinct entities (recall ﬁgure 5.4. In fact. In fact.6). and therefore admits nontrivial real solutions. the proof is complete. and every real symmetric matrix can be diagonalized by an orthogonal matrix: A = AH A real. If we recall that a unitary matrix has determinant 1 or 1.4 Eigenvalues/Vectors and Singular Values/Vectors In this section we prove a few additional important properties of eigenvalues and eigenvectors. In other words. which is both real and rankdeﬁcient. Thus. Proof. so are its eigenvectors. with distinct eigenvalues or not. Thus. we can state the following stronger result. Theorem 5. S real . given the Schur decomposition.4. but is otherwise unnecessary. a Hermitian matrix. has real eigenvalues and n orthonormal eigenvectors. Positive deﬁnite or semideﬁnite matrices arise in the solution of overconstrained linear systems. because AT A is positive semideﬁnite for every A (lemma 5.5). that the determinants of S and S H are the same.
.5. the entries in Λ are nonnegative. . + λn c2 > 0 (or ≥ 0) 1 n because the λi are positive (nonnegative) and not all ci can be zero. Since real and symmetric matrices have n orthonormal eigenvectors (theorem 5.4. symmetric matrix is positive semideﬁnite iff all its eigenvalues are nonnegative. let x be any nonzero vector.4 A real. . A is positive deﬁnite (semideﬁnite). both left and right. In physics. . Theorem 5. . + cn λn sn ) = c1 λ1 xT s1 + .3 implies one of the two directions: If A is real. It is positive deﬁnite iff all its eigenvalues are positive. we also obtain that if A is real. Lemma 5. + cn Asn ) = xT (c1 λ1 s1 + . and in particular sT Asi ≥ 0. . from Asi = λsi we obtain sT Asi = sT λsi = λsT si = λ si i i i 2 =λ. The eigenvectors of A are also its singular vectors. symmetric. where both Λ and S are real. the concepts coincide. . symmetric. positive deﬁnite matrices. + cn sn ) = xT (c1 As1 + . ∆ ci = xT si . ∆ Theorem 5. Conversely. . From the previous theorem. i But A = SΛS T with nonnegative diagonal entries in Λ is the singular value decomposition A = U ΣV T of A with Σ = Λ and U = V = S. and positive deﬁnite. Theorem 5. . symmetric. sn as an orthonormal basis for Rn . we can use these eigenvectors s1 .4. .3 establishes one connection between eigenvalues/vectors and singular values/vectors: for symmetric. Theorem 5. In fact. Recall that the eigenvalues in the Schur decomposition can be arranged in any desired order along the diagonal. so that λ ≥ 0. positive semideﬁnite matrix A are equal to its singular values. EIGENVALUES/VECTORS AND SINGULAR VALUES/VECTORS 65 in which Q is positive deﬁnite. Furthermore. Their physical meaning makes them positive deﬁnite. or at least positive semideﬁnite (for instance. This result can be used to introduce a less direct link.4. Since xT Ax > 0 (or ≥ 0) for every nonzero x. Proof. .4. positive deﬁnite matrices are associated to quadratic forms xT Qx that represent energies or secondorder moments of mass or force distributions. then its eigenvalues are nonnegative. + cn λn xT sn = λ1 c2 + . If A is positive semideﬁnite. + cn sn with But then xT Ax = xT A(c1 s1 + . then xT Ax ≥ 0 for any nonzero x. . To this end.3 The eigenvalues of a real. If the proof of that theorem is repeated with the strict inequality.5 AT A is positive semideﬁnite. The following result relates eigenvalues/vectors with singular values/vectors for positive semideﬁnite matrices. we show that if all eigenvalues λ of a real and symmetric matrix A are positive (nonnegative) then A is positive deﬁnite (semideﬁnite). and positive semideﬁnite. . Proof.4.4.2). then its eigenvalues are positive. but for arbitrary matrices. . .4. energies cannot be negative). A = SΛS T . and write x = c1 s1 + . . .
. Proof. we have AAH = AH A if and only if T T H = T H T . Because S is invertible (even unitary). . Let A = ST S H be the Schur decomposition of A. . if and only if A can be diagonalized by a unitary similarity transformation. . the ith column of the n × n identity matrix.4. for m ≤ n. Bei is the ith column of B. The theorem below characterizes the class of all matrices with this property. then T T H = T H T . and B H ei is the ith column of B H . We now proceed through i = 2.4. The converse is also obviously true: if T is diagonal. from the lemma. AAT = U ΣV T V ΣU T = U Σ2 U T is a Schur decomposition with S = U and T = Λ = Σ2 . which is the conjugate of the ith row of B. For any nonzero x we can write xT AT Ax = Ax CHAPTER 5. Since conjugation does not change the norm of a vector. and the eigenvectors of AAT are the left singular vectors of A. Similarly. Let i = 1. . However. so the only way that its norm can be t11  is for all other entries in the ﬁrst row to be zero. If m ≥ n and A = U ΣV T is the SVD of A. the equality (5. . n. then for every i = 1. AAH = AH A if and only if T is diagonal.66 Proof. the eigenvectors of AT A are the right singular vectors of A. that is. that is.13) implies that the ith column of B has the same norm as the ith row of B. . ∆ We have seen that important classes of matrices admit a full set of orthonormal eigenvectors. In fact. the ﬁrst column of T has norm t11 . n. . Then.8 An n × n matrix is normal if an only if it commutes with its Hermitian: AAH = AH A . Proof. Thus. Lemma 5. (5. the norm of the ith row of T is equal to the norm of its ith column. To prove the theorem. From BB H = B H B we deduce Bx 2 = xH B H Bx = xH BB H x = B H x 2 . ∆ Theorem 5.7 If for an n × n matrix B we have BB H = B H B. we ﬁrst need a lemma. for m ≤ n. This is the deﬁnition of a normal matrix. The ﬁrst row has ﬁrst entry t11 . EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS 2 ≥ 0. a triangular matrix T for which T T H = T H T must be diagonal. ∆ .4. the norm of the ith row of B equals the norm of its ith column. Proof. and reason similarly to conclude that T must be diagonal. we have AT A = V ΣU T U ΣV T = V Σ2 V T which is in the required format to be a (diagonal) Schur decomposition with S = V and T = Λ = Σ2 . AAH = ST S H ST H S H = ST T H S H and AH A = ST H S H ST S H = ST H T S H . Then. Similarly. the class of all normal matrices. the eigenvalues of AAT are the squares of the singular values of A.6 The eigenvalues of AT A with m ≥ n are the squares of the singular values of A.13) If x = ei . ∆ Theorem 5.
67 ∆ Checking that AH A = AAH is much easier than computing eigenvectors.5. real symmetric. and orthogonal matrices are all normal. unitary (and therefore also real orthogonal) matrices: UUH = UHU = I . We proved this in the proof of theorem 5.8.4. EIGENVALUES/VECTORS AND SINGULAR VALUES/VECTORS Corollary 5.9 A triangular. . so theorem 5.8 is a very useful characterization of normal matrices.4. Notice that Hermitian (and therefore also real symmetric) matrices commute trivially with their Hermitians. unitary.4.4. Proof. but so do. Hermitian. Thus. normal matrix must be diagonal. for instance.
EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS .68 CHAPTER 5.
in section 6. we set up and solve a particular differential system as an illustrative example. xn n−1 d y dtn−1 With this deﬁnition.1) (6. n − 1 . + c1 + c0 y = b(t) . .2). .3. we make this result more speciﬁc by showing that the solution to a homogeneous system is a linear combination of exponentials multiplied by polynomials in t.2. dn y dn−1 y dy + cn−1 n−1 + . . .4 and 6. which is numerically preferable to the more commonly used Jordan canonical form. and the vector function b(t) is a function of time. we show that scalar differential equations of order greater than one can be reduced to systems of ﬁrstorder differential equations. the coefﬁcients aij in the n × n matrix A are constant. . . we have di y dti dn y dtn = = xi+1 dxn .2) x(0) = where x = x(t) is an ndimensional vector function of time t. In section 6. This result is based on the Schur decomposition introduced in chapter 5. First.3) In fact. . such an equation can be reduced to a ﬁrstorder system of the form (6. Finally. n dt dt dt (6.1) subsumes also the case of a scalar differential equation of order n. = x= .1) by introducing the ndimensional vector y x1 dy . in sections 6. These systems have the following form: ˙ x = Ax + b(t) x0 (6.5. dt . deﬁnes the initial value of the solution.1 Scalar Differential Equations of Order Higher than One The ﬁrstorder system (6. . The equation (6. possibly greater than 1. Then. 6. the dot denotes differentiation. we recall a general result for the solution of ﬁrstorder differential systems from the elementary theory of differential equations. dt 69 for i = 0.Chapter 6 Ordinary Differential Systems In this chapter we use the theory developed in chapter 5 in order to solve systems of ﬁrstorder linear differential equations with constant coefﬁcients. in which x0 is a known vector. . .
n − 1. If we write the original system (6.4). 0 −c1 b(t) = 0 1 . Ax x0 The two solution components xh and xp can be written by means of the matrix exponential. . ··· 1 · · · −cn−1 . . the exponential is introduced by other means.3) and 0 0 . . .2) is given by x(t) = xh (t) + xp (t) where xh (t) is the solution of the homogeneous system ˙ x = x(0) = and xp (t) is a particular solution of ˙ x = x(0) = Ax + b(t) 0.2 General Solution of a Linear Differential System We know from the general theory of differential equations that a general solution of system (6. 0 −c2 ··· ··· . . introduced in the following. is the socalled companion matrix of (6. . . For matrices. the exponential eZ of a matrix Z ∈ Rn×n is instead deﬁned by the inﬁnite series expansion Z Z2 e =I+ + + ··· = 1! 2! Z 1 Not ∞ j=0 Zj .1) with initial condition (6. .4) dt for i = 1.3) together with the n − 1 differential equations (6.. . 0 b(t) 6. For the scalar exponential eλt we can write a Taylor series expansion eλt = 1 + λt λ2 t2 + + ··· = 1! 2! ∞ j=0 λj t j . . and the Taylor series expansion above is proven as a property. the exponential is deﬁned through its Taylor series. . ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS dxi (6. .70 and x satisﬁes the additional n − 1 equations CHAPTER 6. . . in calculus classes. we obtain the ﬁrstorder system ˙ x = Ax + b(t) xi+1 = where A= 0 0 . . 0 −c0 1 0 . . 0 0 . j! always. j! Usually1 . In some treatments.
since by differentiating this expression for xp we obtain ˙ xp = AeAt 0 t e−As b(s) ds + eAt e−At b(t) = Axp + b(t) . This is easily veriﬁed.5) gives deAt dt A2 t A3 t2 + + ··· 1! 2! At A2 t2 = A I+ + + ··· 1! 2! = A+ = AeAt .9) (6. (6.1). Substituting Z = At gives eAt = I + Differentiating both sides of (6. It can be shown that this solution is unique.2. By using the initial values (6. the function xh (t) = eAt w satisﬁes the homogeneous differential system ˙ xh = Axh .8) (6.1) is given by t xp (t) = 0 eA(t−s) b(s) ds . j! (6.7) (6. The solution to ˙ x = Ax + b(t) with initial value x(0) = x0 is x(t) = xh (t) + xp (t) where and xp (t) = 0 (6.2) we obtain w = x0 . It turns out that this inﬁnite sum converges (to an n × n matrix which we write as eZ ) for every matrix Z.5) deAt dt Thus.6. and xh (t) = eAt x(0) (6. At A2 t2 A3 t3 + + + ··· = 1! 2! 3! ∞ j=0 Aj tj .1) with b(t) = 0 and initial values (6. In summary. we also know that a particular solution to the nonhomogeneous (b(t) = 0) equation (6. GENERAL SOLUTION OF A LINEAR DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEM 71 Here I is the n × n identity matrix.6) is a solution to the differential system (6. so xp satisﬁes equation (6. for any vector w. From the elementary theory of differential equations. we have the following result.11) .10) xh (t) = eAt x(0) t eA(t−s) b(s) ds .2). and the general term Z j /j! is simply the matrix Z raised to the jth power divided by the scalar j!.
consider the ﬁrst order system of linear differential equations ˙ x = x(0) = Ax x0 . or is does not. However. In a fundamental paper on the subject. this is shown via the Jordan canonical form. we have seen that matrices with coincident eigenvalues can still have a full set of linearly independent eigenvectors (see for instance the identity matrix). but we will not discuss how this is done2 . (6. . . . ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS Since we now have a formula for the general solution to a linear differential system.1 A is Not Defective In chapter 5 we saw how to ﬁnd the homogeneous part xh (t) of the solution when A has a full set of n linearly independent eigenvectors.2 is the same as would be obtained with the method of section 6.3.3 Structure of the Solution For the homogeneous case b(t) = 0. constant matrix A. . we have seen that if (but not only if) A has n distinct eigenvalues then it has n linearly independent eigenvectors (theorem 5. qn with corresponding eigenvalues λ1 . Then. However. Let Q = q1 · · · qn . When the matrix A is constant.3 is superior in practice.10) can be written as a linear combination.3.1. a similar result can be found through the Schur decomposition introduced in chapter 5. A full discussion of this matter is beyond the scope of these notes.7).3 If A is not defective.12) (6. the solution procedure we introduce in section 6. square. To be sure. then it has n linearly independent eigenvectors q1 . In chapter 5. For a nonhomogeneous system. The naive solution to use the deﬁnition (6. in the paper cited above.2.3.1. expm(A) is the matrix exponential of A. the procedure can be carried out analytically if the functions in the righthand side vector b(t) can be integrated. . However. we can be much more speciﬁc about the structure of the solution (6.5) requires too many terms for a good approximation.13) Two cases arise: either A admits n distinct eigenvalues. 2 In 3 Parts Matlab. If the matrix has a full complement of eigenvectors. In section 6. This result is brieﬂy reviewed in this section for convenience.3. of this subsection and of the following one are based on notes written by Scott Cohen. of scalar exponentials multiplied by polynomials.2 for the case of n coincident eigenvalues can be applied regardless to how many linearly independent eigenvectors exist. However. vol. 6. and small perturbations in the data can change the results dramatically. we will only point out that several methods exist for computing a matrix exponential. and particularly so about the solution xh (t) to the homogeneous part. no. Once these two extreme cases (nondefective matrix or allcoincident eigenvalues) have been handled.3.1. and produces a result analogous to that obtained via Jordan decomposition for the homogeneous part xh (t) of the solution. 80136). with constant vector coefﬁcients.3 for solving a homogeneous or nonhomogeneous differential system for any. we show a general procedure in section 6. as we currently assume. and we have shown how to ﬁnd xh (t) by solving an eigenvalue problem. pointing out that no one of them is appropriate for all situations. the solution obtained in section 6. since it is based on the numerically sound Schur decomposition.3. the method of section 6. we seem to have all we need. Speciﬁcally.3. the matrix exponential (6.3. pp. we show how to compute the homogeneous solution xh (t) in the extreme case of an n × n matrix A with n coincident eigenvalues. Fortunately. λn . in section 6. . As we have done for the SVD and the Schur decomposition. . This procedure is based on backsubstitution.1). 6. . . 4. Cleve Moler and Charles Van Loan discuss a large number of different methods. we do not know how to compute the matrix exponential. we brieﬂy review this solution.9) of system (6.72 CHAPTER 6. defective or not. 20. In the general theory of linear differential systems. Moler and Van Loan point out that the Jordan form cannot be computed reliably. The next section shows how to do this. Nineteen dubious ways to compute the exponential of a matrix (SIAM Review.
it should be the case that −1 eQ(Λt)Q = QeΛt Q−1 .14) where Λ = diag(λ1 . How can we compute the matrix exponential in the extreme case in which A has n coincident eigenvalues.3. H . This follows easily from the deﬁnition of eZ and the fact that (Q(Λt)Q−1 )j = Q(Λt)j Q−1 . if it has n orthonormal eigenvectors q1 . . . we see that the solution to the homogeneous system (6. . Thus we can write T as T = Λ + N. Similarly. Using the relation x = Qy. eλn t ). (6. then the solution to (6. . (6.16) represents n uncoupled. regardless of the number of its linearly independent eigenvectors? In any case. ˙ The solution is yh (t) = eΛt y(0). Q−1 is replaced by S H .3. we obtain A = QΛQ−1 .12) is xh (t) = QeΛt Q−1 x(0).2). and eS(Λt)S H = SeΛt S H . Since Aqi = λi qi . If A is normal. .12) is xh (t) = SeΛt S H x(0). . homogeneous.6. where Λ is diagonal and N is strictly upper triangular. STRUCTURE OF THE SOLUTION This square matrix is invertible because its columns are linearly independent. . qn .12) becomes xh (t) = SeΛt S H x(0).6) in this case becomes xh (t) = eS(T t)S x(0) = SeT t S H x(0) = SeΛt+N t S H x(0). The last equation (6. λn ) is a square diagonal matrix with the eigenvalues of A on its diagonal. The solution (6. where S is Hermitian. A admits a Schur decomposition A = ST S H (theorem 5. then Q is replaced by the Hermitian matrix S = s1 · · · sn . we derived that the solution to (6.14) by Q−1 on the right. and the consequent relation y(0) = Q−1 x(0). 6. system (6. we have AQ = QΛ. . 73 (6. and the solution to (6.6). where eΛt = diag(eλ1 t .15) Then. . Comparing with (6. We recall that S is a unitary matrix and T is upper triangular with the eigenvalues of A on its diagonal. . if A = SΛS H .2 A Has n Coincident Eigenvalues When A = QΛQ−1 .12) is xh (t) = QeΛt Q−1 x(0). Multiplying both sides of (6. . differential equations yi = λi yi .12) can be rewritten as follows: ˙ x = Ax ˙ x = QΛQ−1 x −1 ˙ Q x = ΛQ−1 x ˙ y = Λy. that is.3.16) where y = Q−1 x.
The fact that N t is strictly upper triangular makes the computation of this matrix exponential much simpler than for a general matrix Z.6) if we can compute eT t = eΛt+N t . and the exponential reduces to a matrix polynomial. Suppose. Λ = λI is a multiple of the identity matrix containing the coincident eigenvalues of A on its diagonal. in our case. Then N has three nonzero superdiagonals. and N 4 is the zero matrix: 0 ∗ ∗ ∗ 0 0 ∗ ∗ 0 0 ∗ ∗ 0 0 0 ∗ 2 N = 0 0 0 ∗ →N = 0 0 0 0 → 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ∗ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 N3 = 0 0 0 0 →N = 0 0 0 0 . when all the eigenvalues of A coincide. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS Thus we can compute (6. in this case. and N is strictly upper triangular.13) when the n × n matrix A has n coincident eigenvalues is given by n−1 xh (t) = SeΛt j=0 N j tj H S x0 j! (6. that N is 4 × 4. In fact..e. so it remains to show how to compute eN t . that is if Z1 Z2 = Z2 Z1 . Thus. This turns out to be almost as easy as computing eΛt when the diagonal matrix Λ is a multiple of the identity matrix: Λ = λI that is. Λt and N t commute: Λt N t = λ It N t = λt N t = N t λt = N t λ It = N t Λt .74 CHAPTER 6. for a strictly upper triangular n × n matrix.12) with initial value (6. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In general. N 2 has two nonzero superdiagonals. ∞ n−1 N j tj N j tj eN t = = j! j! j=0 j=0 is simply a ﬁnite sum. then eZ1 +Z2 = eZ1 eZ2 = eZ2 eZ1 . we have N j = 0 for all j ≥ n (i. for example.17) where A = S(Λ + N )S H is the Schur decomposition of A. Therefore. It can be shown that if two matrices Z1 and Z2 commute. We already know how to compute eΛt . In summary. N is nilpotent of order n). N 3 has one nonzero superdiagonal. we can write eΛt+N t = eΛt eN t . . the general solution to the homogeneous differential system (6.
. and consider the transformed system ˙ y(t) = T y(t) + c(t) where y(t) = S H x(t) and c(t) = S H b(t) . . ck (t) where ci has ni entries.18) (6.. . The remaining nonzero blocks Tij with i < j can be in turn bundled into matrices Ri = Ti. STRUCTURE OF THE SOLUTION 75 6.19) in the general case of a constant matrix A.3 The General Case We are now ready to solve the linear differential system ˙ x = x(0) = Ax + b(t) x0 (6. . . c(t) = . .i+1 ··· Ti. . . .20) can then be solved by backsubstitution as follows: for i = k down to 1 if i < k di (t) = Ri [yi+1 (t). . yk (0) The triangular system (6. with arbitrary b(t).3. . 0 ··· 0 Tkk where the diagonal blocks Tii for i = 1. The vector c(t) can be partitioned correspondingly as follows c1 (t) . In fact. . . defective or not. . k are of size ni ×ni (possibly 1×1) and contain allcoincident eigenvalues.6. (6.k that contain everything to the right of the corresponding Tii . .3. . j j ni −1 Ni t j=0 j! yi (0) + t 0 eλi I(t−s) j j ni −1 Ni (t−s) j=0 j! (ci (s) + di (s)) ds .20) The triangular matrix T can always be written in the following form: T11 · · · · · · T1k 0 T22 · · · T2k T = . . y(0) = . and the same can be done for y1 (t) . y(t) = . . . yk (t) and for the initial values y1 (0) . let A = ST S H be the Schur decomposition of A. yk (t)]T else di (t) = 0 (an nk dimensional vector of zeros) end Tii = λi I + Ni (diagonal and strictly uppertriangular part of Tii ) yi (t) = eλi It end.21) (6.
= t11 0 1 0 t12 t22 t12 t 1 y1 y2 . the 2 × 2 homogeneous. . In the general case.1). While y2 (t) is the same in both cases. Thus. y2 (t) = t22 y2 ˙ has solution We then have and y1 (t) = y1 (0)eλ1 t + 0 t y2 (t) = y2 (0) eλ2 t .10). (6.17) with S = I. we consider a very small example. the applicability of this routine depends on whether the integral in the expression for yi (t) can be computed analytically. (6. As an illustration. d1 (t) = t12 y2 (t) = t12 y2 (0) eλ2 t eλ1 (t−s) d1 (s) ds t 0 = = = = y1 (0)eλ1 t + t12 y2 (0) eλ1 t y1 (0)eλ1 t + t12 y2 (0) eλ1 t 0 e−λ1 s eλ2 s ds e(λ2 −λ1 )s ds t t12 y2 (0) λ1 t (λ2 −λ1 )t e (e − 1) λ2 − λ1 t12 y2 (0) λ2 t y1 (0)eλ1 t + (e − eλ1 t ) λ2 − λ1 y1 (0)eλ1 t + Exercise: verify that this solution satisﬁes both the differential equation (6. the expression for yi (t) is a direct application of equations (6. This is certainly the case when b(t) is a constant vector b. we have y1 (t) = y1 (0) eλt + t12 y2 (0) t eλt t12 y2 (0) λ2 t (e − eλ1 t ) y1 (t) = y1 (0)eλ1 t + λ2 − λ1 if if t11 = t22 t11 = t22 .22) and the initial value equation y(0) = y0 . and it is easy to verify that this solution satisﬁes the differential system (6. which can be integrated by parts.76 CHAPTER 6. triangular case. this becomes y1 (t) = y2 (t) = (y1 (0) + t12 y2 (0) t) eλt y2 (0) eλt .22). (6. because then the integrand is a linear combination of exponentials multiplied by polynomials in t − s. we obtain y(t) = eλIt In scalar form. and (6. The solution x(t) for the original system (6. y1 ˙ y2 ˙ When t11 = t22 = λ.9). When t11 = λ1 = t22 = λ2 .22) y(0) . we could solve the system by ﬁnding the eigenvectors of T . since we know that in this case two linearly independent eigenvectors exist (theorem 5.11). the solutions to system (6. we apply the backsubstitution procedure introduced in this section.18) is then x(t) = Sy(t) .1. Instead. The second equation of the system. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS In this procedure.22) for t11 = t22 and for t11 = t22 have different forms.
By Hooke’s law. λ1 →λ λ − λ1 and the transition between the two cases is smooth. is not a problem. Suppose that we want to study the evolution of the system over time. eλt − eλ1 t lim = t eλt . the new equations are differential. because the solution would suddenly switch from one form to the other as the difference between t11 and t22 changes from about zero to exactly zero or viceversa. time. however. as opposed to partial. Consider the mechanical system in ﬁgure 6.1: A system of masses and springs.4. Two linear differential equations of the second order4 result. This. into a real solution in a form appropriate to the problem at hand. computed with any of the methods described above. Because differentiation occurs only with respect to one variable. We will then transform these into four linear differential equations of the ﬁrst order. The initial system has two secondorder equations. the two masses would assume the positions indicated by the dashed lines. The 4 × 4 matrix of the resulting system has an interesting structure. 6. these are ordinary differential equations. the three springs exert forces that are proportional to the springs’ elongations: f1 f2 4 Recall = = c1 v1 c2 (v2 − v1 ) that the order of a differential equation is the highest degree of derivative that appears in it. In fact. .6. In the following we write the differential equations that describe this system. In the absence of external forces. A CONCRETE EXAMPLE 77 1 v1 rest position of mass 1 1 2 v2 2 rest position of mass 2 3 Figure 6. Since forces are proportional to accelerations. and is transformed into a ﬁrstorder system with four equations.1. which allows ﬁnding eigenvalues and eigenvectors analytically with a little trick. and since accelerations are second derivatives of position. The point of this section is to show how to transform the complex formal solution of the differential system. This would seem to present numerical difﬁculties when t11 ≈ t22 .4 A Concrete Example In this section we set up and solve a more concrete example of a system of differential equations. because of Newton’s law.
23). We also assume that initial conditions v(0) and ˙ v(0) (6.78 f3 = CHAPTER 6. (6. The accelerations of masses 1 and 2 (springs are assumed to be massless) are proportional to their accelerations. in matrix form.24) are replaced by the (known) vector u(0) = In the next section we solve equation (6.26). For uniformity. we deﬁne four new variables u1 v1 u v u= 2 = 2 (6. we will ﬁrst transform it to a system of four ﬁrstorder equations. which specify positions and velocities of the two masses at time t = 0.23) . and u4 = v2 . the trick is to introduce variables to denote the ﬁrstorder derivatives of v. the initial conditions (6. .25) u3 v1 ˙ u4 v2 ˙ so that u3 = v1 ˙ while the original system (6. To solve the secondorder system (6. v(0) ˙ v(0) . according to Newton’s second law: m1 v1 ¨ m2 v2 ¨ or.24) are given. so that secondorder derivatives of v are ﬁrstorder derivatives of the new variables. ˙ We can now gather these four ﬁrstorder differential equations into a single system as follows: ˙ u = Au where 0 0 A= 0 0 B 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 .23) becomes u3 ˙ u4 ˙ =B u1 u2 . As shown in the introduction to this chapter.26) Likewise. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS −c3 v2 where the ci are the positive spring constants (in newtons per meter). ¨ = Bv v where v= v1 v2 and B= +c − c1m1 2 c2 m2 c2 m1 c2 +c3 − m2 = −f1 + f2 = −c1 v1 + c2 (v2 − v1 ) = −(c1 + c2 )v1 + c2 v2 = −f2 + f3 = −c2 (v2 − v1 ) − c3 v2 = c2 v1 − (c2 + c3 )v2 (6.
λ2 = − −α + γ .29) λ1 = √ √ λ3 = −α − γ . then the eigenvalues of A are √ √ √ √ λ1 = µ1 λ2 = − µ1 λ3 = µ2 λ4 = − µ2 . SOLUTION OF THE EXAMPLE 79 6.27) . √ √ −α + γ . With the system of springs in ﬁgure 6. z we can write Ax = 0 B I 0 y z = z By so that the eigenvalue equation (6. The eigenvalues of A are solutions to the equation Ax = λx . We then obtain µ1. so that the two solutions µ1. and I is the 2 × 2 identity matrix.5. the zeros in A are 2 × 2 matrices of zeros. = λy = λz .30) .5 Solution of the Example Not all matrices have a full set of linearly independent eigenvectors. the eigenvalues of A are the square roots of the eigenvalues of B: if we denote the two eigenvalues of B as µ1 and µ2 . (6.6. however. y x= . we are lucky. where γ= α2 − β = 1 4 c1 + c2 c2 + c3 − m1 m2 2 + c2 2 . λ4 = − −α − γ (6. The eigenvalues µ1 and µ2 of B are the solutions of det(B − µI) = where α= 1 2 c1 + c2 c2 + c3 + m1 m2 and β= c1 c2 + c1 c3 + c2 c3 m1 m2 c1 + c2 +µ m1 c2 + c3 c2 2 +µ − = µ2 + 2αµ + β = 0 m2 m1 m2 are positive constants that depend on the elastic properties of the springs and on the masses.1.2 are real and negative. and the four eigenvalues of A.27) can be written as the following pair of equations: z By which yields By = µy with µ = λ2 . If we partition the vector x into its upper and lower halves y and z. where we recall that A= 0 B I 0 and B= +c − c1m1 2 c2 m2 c2 m1 c2 +c3 − m2 (6. m1 m2 The constant γ is real because the radicand is nonnegative. Here. (6.2 = −α ± γ . We also have that α ≥ γ.28) In other words.
0 λ4 (6. To simplify our manipulation. The amplitudes and phases of the sinusoids. Also the eigenvectors of A can be derived from those of B. m1 The general solution to the ﬁrstorder differential system (6. The ﬁrst equation reads − c2 c1 + c2 − α ± γ y1 + y2 = 0 m1 m1 and is obviously satisﬁed by any vector of the form y=k c1 +c2 m1 c2 m1 −α±γ where k is an arbitrary constant.17). however. As we see in the following. the masses’ motions can be described by the superposition of two sinusoids whose frequencies depend on the physical constants involved (masses and spring constants). since our system of springs obviously exhibits an oscillatory behavior.31) ±λy The eigenvectors of B are the solutions of (B − (−α ± γ)I)y = 0 . depend on the initial conditions. from equation (6. This completes the solution of our system of differential equations. secondorder system (6.80 CHAPTER 6.33) where c1 + c2 . This is to be expected.31) the four eigenvectors of A are proportional to the four columns of the following matrix: c2 c2 c2 c2 Q= a + λ2 1 c λ1 m21 λ1 a + λ2 1 m1 a + λ2 2 c λ2 m21 λ2 a + λ2 2 a= m1 a + λ2 3 c λ3 m21 λ3 a + λ2 3 m1 a + λ2 4 c λ4 m21 λ4 a + λ2 4 m1 (6. (6.23) can be obtained from equation (6.32) Since ±(−α ± γ) are eigenvalues of B. we note that u(t) = QeΛt w . the values of λi are given in equations (6. .32) must be linearly dependent. we can write more simply u(t) = QeΛt Q−1 u(0) where λ1 0 Λ= 0 0 0 λ2 0 0 0 0 λ3 0 0 0 . and Q is in equation (6. For k = 0. the solution to the original. then there are two corresponding eigenvectors for A of the form y x= . In fact.25) by noticing that v is equal to the ﬁrst two components of u.30). y denotes the two eigenvectors of B. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS come in nonreal. and from equation (6. and the two scalar equations in (6.33). (6. Finally.34) In these expressions. the determinant of this equation is zero.26) is then given by equation (6. complexconjugate pairs.28) we see that if y is an eigenvector of B corresponding to eigenvalue µ = λ2 . it may be useful to add some algebraic manipulation in order to show that the solution is indeed oscillatory. Since we just found four distinct eigenvectors. on the other hand. However.
Numerical values for the constants can be found from the initial conditions u(0) by equation (6. (6. :)eΛt w . Since the λs are imaginary but v(t) is real. :) denotes the ﬁrst two rows of Q. we have v(0) = q1 (k1 + k2 ) + q2 (k3 + k4 ) and from the derivative ˙ v(t) = q1 λ1 k1 eλ1 t − k2 e−λ1 t + q2 λ3 k3 eλ3 t − k4 e−λ3 t we obtain ˙ v(0) = q1 λ1 (k1 − k2 ) + q2 λ3 (k3 − k4 ) . Finally. the ki must come in complexconjugate pairs: and (6. v(t) = q1 k1 eλ1 t + k2 e−λ1 t + q2 k3 eλ3 t + k4 e−λ3 t . ejx + e−jx = cos x .35) We now leave the constants in w unspeciﬁed.36) follow.35).30)). ∗ k1 = k2 ∗ k3 = k4 . Since the vectors qi are independent (assuming that the mass c2 is nonzero).36) In fact.5. :) = where we deﬁned q1 = Thus. We have v(t) = Q(1 : 2. we have Q(1 : 2. we can write c2 m1 c1 +c2 m1 + λ4 = −λ3 q1 q2 q2 c2 m1 c1 +c2 m1 + q1 λ2 1 and q2 = λ2 3 . Since λ2 = −λ1 and (see equations (6. where Q(1 : 2. this means that k1 + k2 is real k3 + k4 is real from which equations (6.6. and derive the general solution v(t) for the original. SOLUTION OF THE EXAMPLE where we deﬁned 81 w = Q−1 u(0) . by using the relation k1 − k2 is purely imaginary k3 − k4 is purely imaginary . secondorder problem. 2 and simple trigonometry we obtain v(t) = q1 A1 cos(ω1 t + φ1 ) + q2 A2 cos(ω2 t + φ2 ) where ω1 = √ α−γ = 1 (a + b) − 2 1 (a + b) + 2 c2 1 2 (a − b)2 + 4 m1 m2 1 c2 2 (a − b)2 + 4 m1 m2 ω2 = √ α+γ = .
y) = (0. 0). on the other hand. depend on the constants ki as follows: A1 = 2k1  .35) and (6. 0) y if x > 0 arctan( x ) y π + arctan( x ) if x < 0 arctan2 (y. ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEMS b= c2 + c3 . CHAPTER 6. Re(k3 )) where Re. x) = if x = 0 and y > 0 π 2π −2 if x = 0 and y < 0 and is undeﬁned for (x. This function returns the arctangent of y/x (notice the order of the arguments) in the proper quadrant. . and not on the initial conditions.82 and a= c1 + c2 m1 . Re(k1 )) A2 = 2k3  φ2 = arctan2 (Im(k3 ). Im denote the real and imaginary part and where the twoargument function arctan2 is deﬁned as follows for (x. and extends the function by continuity along the y axis.25). m2 Notice that these two frequencies depend only on the conﬁguration of the system. ˙ The two constants k1 and k3 can be found from the given initial conditions v(0) and v(0) from equations (6. y) = (0. φ1 = arctan2 (Im(k1 ). The amplitudes Ai and phases φi .
The output can be the temperature of the reaction product. models take on frequently the form of dynamic systems. as well as in most other sciences.7.6 we will see that the shell can be shot down before it hits us. One often says that a system evolves over time. as is very often the case. Although in this chapter we will barely scratch its surface. As discussed in section 7. To this purpose. and the supply rate of the gas. u input S system y output Figure 7. we will develop the theory of the Kalman ﬁlter. that of modeling the trajectory of an enemy mortar shell. the theory of state estimation. The input is the force applied to the mass and the output is the position of the mass.1: A general system. For instance. the term system refers to some physical entity on which some action is performed by means of an input u. The system reacts to this input and produces an output y (see ﬁgure 7. • A mass suspended from a spring. whose inputs are the external temperature. Simple examples of a dynamic system are the following: • An electric circuit. A dynamic system is a mathematical description of a quantity that evolves over time.Chapter 7 Stochastic State Estimation Perhaps the most important part of studying a problem in robotics or vision. 7. is to determine a good model for the phenomena and events that are involved. studying manipulation requires deﬁning models for how a robot arm can move and for how it interacts with the world. • A chemical reactor. A dynamic system is a system whose phenomena occur over time. 83 .1). Analyzing image motion implies deﬁning models for how points move in space and how this motion projects onto the image. and in section 7. an informal deﬁnition of a dynamic system is given in the next section. Kalman ﬁltering has intimate connections with the theory of algebraic linear systems we have developed in chapters 2 and 3. in the particular form of Kalman ﬁltering. the temperature of the gas being supplied. we will consider one of its most popular and useful aspects. whose input is the current in a given branch and whose output is a voltage across a pair of nodes. When motion is involved. In sections 7.1 Dynamic Systems In its most general meaning.3 through 7. The theory of dynamic systems is both rich and fascinating. The deﬁnition is then illustrated by setting up the dynamic system equations for a simple but realistic application.5.
and with continuous ﬁrst derivative. differentiable. t) where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to time. If time varies continuously. Specifying the initial state x0 completes the deﬁnition of a continuous dynamic system. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION In all these examples. knowledge of both x(t1 ) and u[t1 . which leads to postulating a new quantity. called the state. the laws of classical mechanics allow computing the new position and velocity of the mass at time t2 given its position and velocity at time t1 and the forces applied over the interval [t1 . t2 ): x(t2 ) = φ(x(t1 ). In practice. all quantities are vectors. t1 . Similarly. the way that the input changes the state at time instant number k into the new state at time instant k + 1 can be represented by a simple equation: xk+1 = f (xk . what is input and what is output is a choice that depends on the application. Furthermore. continuous or discrete. In that case. is essentially the same as for the discrete case: y(t) = h(x(t). For the mass attached to a spring. A discrete dynamic system is completely described by these two equations and an initial state x0 . the output y of the system happens to coincide with one of the two state variables. however. that is. the laws that govern a given physical . can be given in the case of a regular system. A description of the system in terms of functions. For continuous systems. in a dynamic system the input affects the state. rather than functionals. t) . but rather compute x(t2 ) as a functional φ of x(t1 ) and the entire input u over the interval [t1 . and k. Speciﬁcally. 7. the relation between state and output can be expressed by another function: yk = h(xk .84 CHAPTER 7. The relation from state to output. Thus.t2 ) . all the quantities in the examples vary continuously with time. and uk is the input at time k. and the output is a function of the state. k) . 7. t2 ) where u(·) represents the entire function u. For a discrete system. the system is said to be discrete.1. Also. for instance. the value x(t) taken by the state at time t must be sufﬁcient to determine the output at the same point in time. the system is said to be continuous. one can show that there exists a function f such that the state x(t) of the system satisﬁes the differential equation ˙ x(t) = f (x(t). which summarizes information about the past and the present of the system. In other cases. must allow computing the state (and hence the output) at time t2 . so one cannot compute xk+1 as a function of xk . u(t). the state could be the position and velocity of the mass. not just one of its values. it is more natural to consider time as a discrete variable. Rather. and is therefore always deducible from the latter. if time varies discretely. u(·).2 Uncertainty The systems deﬁned in the previous section are called deterministic. In fact. for which the functional φ is continuous. the modeling problem is to somehow correlate inputs (causes) with outputs (effects). t2 ). An effort of abstraction is therefore required. Also. an unrealistic state of affairs. since the evolution is exactly determined once the initial state x at time 0 is known. Determinism implies that both the evolution function f and the output function h are known exactly.1 State Given a dynamic system. uk . This is. of the state at time t1 and the input over the interval t1 ≤ t < t2 . time does not come in quanta. The examples above suggest that the output at time t cannot be determined in general by the value assumed by the input quantity at the same point in time.1. k) where f is some function that represents the change. as for instance for switching networks and computers. In general. uk . in this example. on the other hand. the output is the result of the entire history of the system.
the example of the mortar shell will be discussed in order to see some of the technical issues involved in setting up the equations of a dynamic system. We assume that the input u is a vector in Rp . and the output y is in Rm . In particular. is that η and ξ are zeromean Gaussian random variables with known covariance matrices Q and R. the system equations become xk+1 yk for the discrete case. in the case of the mortar shell. and the covariance matrix of the output noise ξ is m × m.1.7. AN EXAMPLE: THE MORTAR SHELL 85 system are known up to some uncertainty. that is. 7. which is sometimes valid and always simpliﬁes the mathematics.3 through 7. unresolvable uncertainty in both f and h. the state propagation matrix F is n × n. Then. The coefﬁcients that appear in the equations are known only approximately. Then. k) + ηk = h(xk . You want to track incoming projectiles with a Kalman ﬁlter so you can aim your guns . The mean may not be known. the equations themselves are simple abstractions of a complex reality. and can change over time as a result of temperature changes. respectively. This is a very important task. For instance. t) + η(t) h(x(t).2 An Example: the Mortar Shell In this section.3 Linearity The mathematics becomes particularly simple when both the evolution function f and the output function h are linear. This uncertainty can be represented as noise that perturbs the equations we have presented so far. in either f or h. the state is the (initially unknown) position and velocity of the shell. we want to determine the state x of the system. and the mean perturbations are no different. but we choose to model it as a discrete system for easier implementation on a computer. In sections 7. but this is a different story: in general the parameters that enter into the deﬁnitions of f and h must be estimated by some method. The covariance matrix Q of the system noise η is n × n. You spotted an enemy mortar installation about thirty kilometers away. uk . It is useful to specify the sizes of the matrices involved. component wear. A more realistic model then allows for some inherent. = f (xk . on a hill that looks about 0. k) + ξk Without loss of generality.2. the state x is in Rn . Estimating the state then leads to enough knowledge about the shell to allow driving an antiaircraft gun to shoot the shell down in midﬂight.5 kilometers higher than your own position. while the output is a set of observations made by a tracking system. for otherwise the mean can be incorporated into the deterministic part. the noise distributions can be assumed to have zero mean. the input matrix G is n × p.5. we consider the state estimation problem: given observations of the output y over an interval of time. u(t). we consider discretization issues because the physical system is itself continuous. t) + ξ(t) . A discrete system then takes on the following form: xk+1 yk and for a continuous system ˙ x(t) = y(t) = f (x(t). and so forth. and the output matrix H is m × n. and ˙ x(t) = y(t) = F (t)x(t) + G(t)u(t) + η(t) H(t)x(t) + ξ(t) = = Fk xk + Gk uk + ηk Hk xk + ξk for the continuous one. 7. A common assumption. In fact.
where I4 is the 4 × 4 identity matrix. Because of this.2) yields z(t + dt) − z(t) 1 1 = z(0) + z(0)(t + dt) − g(t + dt)2 − z(0) + z(0)t − gt2 ˙ ˙ 2 2 1 = (z(0) − gt)dt − g(dt)2 ˙ 2 1 = z(t)dt − g(dt)2 . 0).4) You do not have very precise estimates of the noise that corrupts e and s. ˙ 2 The reasoning for the horizontal component d is the same. the aiming angle of the camera gives you elevation information about the projectile’s position. you have 1 zk+1 = zk + zk dt − g(dt)2 .6 kilometers/second for the horizontal component. ˙ ˙ Consequently. your estimate of the initial state of the projectile is ˙ −0. The projectile’s elevation is z e = 1000 (7. you are at (0.2) are continuous. so you just guess some values: 0.1 kilometers/second for the vertical component.3) d when the projectile is at (d.1 The Dynamic System Equation Equations (7.8 × 10−3 kilometers per second squared. you decide to ignore air drag. except that there is no acceleration: ˙ dk+1 = dk + dk dt . STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION accurately. You do not know the initial velocity of the projectiles. and dots denote derivatives with respect to time. Thus.6) (7. ˙ 2 since z(0) − gt = z(t). From your highschool physics.1) and (7. 0. (7. Thus. you want to discretize these equations. Since you are taking measurements every dt = 0.1I4 . equation (7.2) where g is the gravitational acceleration. you introduce a state update covariance matrix Q = 0. given that you know the actual size of the projectiles used and all the camera parameters.1) (7. so you guess measurement covariances Re = Rs = 1000.5 z where d is the horizontal coordinate. the size of the blob in pixels is s= √ 1000 . For the z component. and the size of the blob tells you something about the distance.86 CHAPTER 7. Similarly. z is the vertical. you remember that the laws of motion for a ballistic trajectory are the following: d(t) z(t) ˙ = d(0) + d(0)t 1 = z(0) + z(0)t − gt2 ˙ 2 (7.5) . Since you do not trust your physics much.6 d d 30 ˆ0 = x z = 0. and you have little time to get ready. 7. if t + dt is time instant k + 1 and t is time instant k.2. where you see a blob that increases in size as the projectile gets closer.1 ˙ 0. equal to 9. All you have to track the shells is a camera pointed at the mortar that will rotate so as to keep the projectile at the center of the image. d2 + z 2 (7. which you put along the diagonal of a 2 × 2 diagonal measurement covariance matrix R. z).2 seconds.
4) express the available measurements as a function of the true values of the projectile coordinates d and z.7. The two matrices F and G are as follows: 0 1 0 0 0 dt 1 0 0 0 F = G= 0 0 1 0 dt .6) can be rewritten as a single system update equation xk+1 = F xk + Gu where ˙ dk d xk = k zk ˙ zk 87 is the state.2 The Measurement Equation The two nonlinear equations (7.2. −dt2 0 0 dt 1 2 7.3). we have zk zk − zk ˆ zk ˆ zk ˆ ˆ ek = 1000 ≈ 1000 + − (dk − dk ) . ˆ ˆ ˆ dk dk d2 k (7. (7. and the 4 × 1 control matrix G depends on dt.5) and (7.3) and (7. the 4 × 4 matrix F depends on dt. the control scalar u is equal to −g.7) The two measurements sk and ek just deﬁned can be collected into a single measurement vector yk = sk ek . From the elevation equation (7. AN EXAMPLE: THE MORTAR SHELL Equations (7.8) 1000 ≈ 2 d2 + zk k 1000 ˆ d2 + zk ˆ2 k − ˆ 1000dk 1000ˆk z ˆ (d − dk ) − (z − zk ) ˆ ˆ2 + z 2 )3/2 k ˆ2 + z 2 )3/2 k (dk ˆk (dk ˆk zk zk ˆ zk ˆ ≈ 1000( − dk ) .8) can be written in the matrix form yk = Hk xk where the measurement matrix Hk depends on the current state estimate ˆk : x ˆ zk ˆ dk 0 0 3/2 3/2 ˆ z2 ˆ z2 (d2 +ˆk ) (d2 +ˆk ) k k Hk = −1000 zk ˆ 0 0 − d1 ˆ2 ˆ d k k (7. we develop both equations as Taylor series around the current estimate and truncate them after the linear term. We want to replace these equations with linear approximations.2. and the two approximate measurement equations (7. ˆk ˆk ˆ dk d d d2 k so that after simplifying we can redeﬁne the measurement to be the discrepancy from the estimated value: ek = ek − 1000 We can proceed similarly for equation (7.4): sk = and after simplifying: sk = sk − ˆ 2000 dk zk ˆ ≈ −1000 dk + zk ˆ ˆ ˆ2 + z 2 (d2 + zk )3/2 ˆ2 (d2 + zk )3/2 ˆ2 d ˆ k k .9) .7) and (7. To this end.
It is really the ensemble of all observations that let one estimate the state. one observation happens to be sufﬁcient). and R. . Szeliski. T. 82:34–45. A single image is twodimensional. “Recursive 3D motion estimation from a monocular image sequence. Finally. Knowing the model for the mortar shell amounts to knowing the laws by which the object moves and those that relate the position of the projectile to our observations. yj . 7. Here.” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems. since we have developed all the necessary tools in the ﬁrst part of this course. in general. Qk ) N (0. 3(3):209236. ˆ as well as a (possibly completely wrong) estimate x0 of the initial state and an initial covariance matrix P0 of the estimate ˆ0 . Section 7. the second to which measurements are being used for the estimate.88 CHAPTER 7.6 reconsiders the example of the mortar shell. and T. Kanade.” Transactions of the ASME Journal Basic Engineering. the ﬁrst k in the subscript refers to which variable is being estimated. we frantically start studying state estimation. “Kalman ﬁlterbased algorithms for estimating depth from image sequences. “A new approach to linear ﬁltering and prediction problems. we want to know xk . Also. Most importantly. E. and section 7.10) (7. the hat x means that the quantity is an estimate. Clearly. . and R.3 State Estimation In this section. Even without noise. thereby determining xk as well. at least when the dynamics of the system are known exactly (the system noise ηk is zero). and perhaps predict where it will be in a few seconds. In other words. Broida. The next few sections will be read under this impending threat. In fact. from x0 we can simulate the system up until time t. 1960) is still one of the most readable treatments of this subject from the point of view of stochastic estimation. . The original paper by Kalman (R. the state of the dynamic system. The next section deﬁnes the state estimation problem for a discrete dynamic system in more detail. A scheme that reﬁnes an initial estimation of the state as new observations are acquired is called a recursive1 state estimation system. Then. section 7. as they become available. 26(4):639–656. Chandrashekhar. Matthies. See for instance L. . . July 1990. the Kalman ﬁlter computes the optimal estimate ˆkk at time k given the measurements y0 . . Rk ) . The x x ﬁlter also computes an estimate Pkk of the covariance of ˆkk given those measurements. This is a very interesting aspect of state estimation. we would like to know where the mortar shell is right now. S. 1 The term “recursive” in the systems theory literature corresponds loosely to “incremental” or “iterative” in computer science. yk . Given a discrete dynamic system xk+1 yk = = Fk xk + Gk uk + ηk Hk xk + ξk (7.5 develops the equation of the Kalman ﬁlter. we do not want to have all the observations before we shoot: we would be dead by then.11) where the system noise ηk and the measurement noise ξk are Gaussian variables. September 1989. the estimation problem is deﬁned in some more detail. Thus.J.4 deﬁnes the essential notions of estimation theory that are necessary to understand the quantitative aspects of Kalman ﬁltering. so by itself it conveys no threedimensional information. section 7. Chellappa. and yet observations are processed one at a time. Kalman ﬁlters exist that recover shape information from a sequence of images. The Kalman ﬁlter is one of the most versatile schemes for recursive state estimations. A classical example of this situation in computer vision is the reconstruction of threedimensional shape from a sequence of images. ˆij is the estimate of the value that x x assumes at time i given the ﬁrst j + 1 measurements y0 . knowing x0 instead is equivalent. a single observation yk may not be sufﬁcient to determine the state xk (in the example. Kalman. In these expressions.7 establishes a connection between the Kalman ﬁlter and the solution of a linear system. . . and in particular Kalman ﬁltering.” International Journal of Computer Vision. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION As the shell approaches us. we introduce the Kalman ﬁlter from the simpler point of view of least squares estimation. So what else is there left to do? From the observations. so we can direct an antiaircraft gun to shoot down the target. . in the hope to build a system that lets us shoot down the shell before it hits us. ηk ξk ∼ ∼ N (0.
through the measurement equation (7. . The update stage of the Kalman ﬁlter uses Rk and Pkk−1 to weigh past evidence (ˆkk−1 ) and new observations (yk ). even if the latter was obtained through a large number of previous measurements. The uncertainty about the state just before the new measurement yk becomes available is Pkk−1 . The idea is that as time goes by the uncertainty on the state decreases. and we can consider the residue rk = yk − ˆkk−1 = yk − Hk ˆkk−1 . This stage is represented graphically in the middle x of ﬁgure 7. we could compute the new measurement yk x x x without even looking at it. we probably need to correct our estimate of the state xk . The uncertainty about the former is Rk . the estimate x ˆkk−1 = Hk ˆkk−1 y x is still our best bet. yk−1 . just before the new measurement yk comes in. measurements count less and less as the estimate approaches its true value. also the uncertainty measure Pkk−1 must be updated. this uncertainty becomes usually smaller: Pkk < Pkk−1 .11). so that the new prediction ˆkk = Hk ˆkk y x of the measurement value is closer to the measurement yk than the old prediction ˆkk−1 = Hk ˆkk−1 y x that we made just before the new measurement yk was available. y x If this residue is nonzero. while that about the measurements may remain the same. Because a new measurement has been read. Even if ˆkk−1 is not exact. . of transforming ˆkk−1 into ˆkk . If ˆkk−1 were exact.1 Update The covariance matrix Pkk must be computed in order to keep the Kalman ﬁlter running. At time k. . by how much should we correct our estimate of the state? We do not want to make ˆkk y coincide with yk . Now yk becomes available.3. Then. we x need some criterion for comparing the quality of the new measurement yk with that of our old estimate ˆkk−1 of the x state. as well as the consequent growing uncertainty. but that we do not trust our state estimate ˆkk−1 at all.2. the covariance of the observation error.2: The update stage of the Kalman ﬁlter changes the estimate of the current system state xk to make the prediction of the measurement closer to the actual measurement yk .7. The question however is. Now we face the problem of incorporating the new measurement yk into our estimate. Propagation then accounts for the evolution of the system state. that is. Thus. STATE ESTIMATION 89 yk1 k1 Hk ^ xk1  k1 Pk1  k1 propagate ^ xk  k1 Pk  k1 yk k ^ yk  k1 ^ xk  k Pk  k ^ xk+1  k Pk+1  k yk+1 time k+1 update propagate Figure 7. At the same time. 7. we have an estimate ˆkk−1 of the state vector xk based on the x previous measurements y0 . That would mean that we trust the new measurement completely. . so that it becomes available for the next step. in the following sense.3. .
5. . Similarly.13) is. and any distance between ˆ and x must be zero. Both these changes are shown on the right in ﬁgure 7.3. and inaccuracies in our model of how this happens lead to greater uncertainty. y = h(x) + n . just as the state vector xk represents all the information necessary to describe the evolution of a deterministic system.1 Linear Estimation Given a quantity y (the observation) that is a known function of another (deterministic but unknown) quantity x (the state) plus some amount of noise. The state changes according to the system equation (7. x A less trivial example occurs. The function L is called an estimator.10). This is the x . x because of the system noise ηk . x Hopefully. that is. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION 7. (7. The optimal estimator is then represented by the matrix L = H −1 and the optimal estimate is ˆ = Ly . In fact. If the function h is invertible and the noise term n is zero.13) is overconstrained. there is usually no inverse to H. The Kalman ﬁlter itself is derived in section 7. This increase in uncertainty depends on the system noise covariance Qk . starting with the deﬁnition of a linear estimation problem. In this case. and its value ˆ given the observations y x x is called an estimate. we see what this means. the covariance matrix Pkk contains all the necessary information about the probabilistic part of the system.2. our uncertainty about this estimate may be somewhat greater than one time epoch ago. for a linear observation function. we have so far considered the criterion x that prefers a particular ˆ if it makes the Euclidean norm of the vector y − Hx as small as possible. . x In summary.90 CHAPTER 7. The system equation (7. about how both the system noise ηk and the measurement noise ξk corrupt the quality of the state estimate ˆkk . in that case ˆ is equal to x. then L is the inverse of h. this intuitive introduction to Kalman ﬁltering gives you an idea of what the ﬁlter does. in this somewhat trivial sense. a problem of estimation. both state estimate and state covariance matrix have been updated as described above. 7. But between time k and time k + 1 both state and covariance may change.4 BLUE Estimators In what sense does the Kalman ﬁlter use covariance information to produce better estimates of the state? As we will se later. 7. nonsingular system x x y = Hx (7. which are discussed in the next section. Thus. so that the system (7. Inverting a function is an example of estimation. In this section. both state estimate and covariance must be propagated to the new time k + 1 to yield the new state estimate ˆk+1k and the new covariance Pk+1k .12) the estimation problem amounts to ﬁnding a function ˆ = L(y) x such that ˆ is as close as possible to x. and what information it needs to keep working. and then considering the attributes “best” and “unbiased” in turn. In particular.4. To turn these concepts into a quantitative algorithm we need some preliminaries on optimal estimation. . the Kalman ﬁlter computes the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate (BLUE) of the state. so our estimate ˆk+1k of xk+1 given y0 . For linear systems. when the matrix H has more rows than columns.10) essentially “dead reckons” the new state from the old. solving a square. . and again one must say in what sense ˆ is required to be “as close as possible” to x. no matter how the phrase “as close as possible” is interpreted. yk should reﬂect this change as well.2 Propagation Just after arrival of the measurement yk .
If L is required to be linear but h is not. The noise term. What the least squares approach is really saying is that even at the solution ˆ there is some residue x n = y − Hˆ x (7.13) and its “noisy” version (7. 7.2. if the equality sign is to be taken literally. one needs to deﬁne a measure of goodness of an estimate. (7. However. However. In fact.4. alternatively. We know the solution from normal equations: ˆ = ((W H)T W H)−1 (W H)T W y = (H T R−1 H)−1 H T R−1 y . each equation counts the same when computing the norm of the residue. In other words.4. can be used to generalize the problem. Thus. In fact. an overconstrained system of the form (7. different equations can have noise terms of different variance.13) has no exact solution when there are more independent equations than unknowns. BLUE ESTIMATORS 91 (unweighted) least squares criterion.14) does not change the nature of the problem. the estimation problem for the observation equation (7. even. x 2 = nT n (the square is of course irrelevant when it comes to minimization).14) are really the same problem. this distance is deﬁned as the Euclidean norm of the residue vector y − Hˆ x between the left and the righthand sides of equation (7. by some linear transformation of them: n → Wn so instead of minimizing n minimize where R−1 = W T W is a symmetric. the Euclidean norm of the residue (7.13). In fact.13).14)) equally.2 Best In order to deﬁne what is meant by a “best” estimator. Notice that the observation function h can still be nonlinear. however.15) treats all components (all equations in (7. “unweighted” sense. called weighted least squares. nonnegativedeﬁnite matrix.15) and we would like to make that residue as small as possible in the sense of the Euclidean norm. This minimization problem. In the least squares approach to solving a linear system like (7. is only slightly different from its unweighted version.13) by a “noisy x equation”. Replacing (7.4. that we want to enforce different equations to different degrees. we now Wn 2 = nT R−1 n . we will probably have an estimator that produces a worse estimate than a nonlinear one. evaluated at the solution ˆ. this can be enforced by some scaling of the entries of n or. Even equation (7. From the point of view of least squares. namely. y = Hx + n (7.7. we will see that in a very precise sense ordinary least squares solve a particular type of estimation problem. This amounts to saying that we have reasons to prefer the quality of some equations over others or.14) is the correct version. it still makes sense to look for the best possible linear estimator. The best estimator for a linear observation function happens to be a linear estimator. In section 7. we have W n = W (y − Hx) = W y − W Hx so we are simply solving the system W y = W Hx in the traditional. An estimator is said to be linear if the function L is linear.12) with h a linear function and n Gaussian zeromean noise with the indentity matrix for covariance. so requiring equality is hopeless.
this same solution is obtained from a completely different criterion of goodness of a solution ˆ. The estimate ˆ of x is some function of the x measurements y. so which norm we actually use is irrelevant. Some matrix norms were mentioned in section 3. This x criterion is a probabilistic one. In fact. we can pick any norm we like. requires a notion of “size” for matrices: how large is P ? Fortunately. we only use properties shared by all norms. Mathematically. in the derivations that follow.4. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION Interestingly. in the sense that given two different deﬁnitions P 1 and P 2 of matrix norm there exist two positive scalars α.92 CHAPTER 7. we give a necessary and sufﬁcient condition for L to be unbiased. and is therefore x a random vector itself. however. we want to choose a linear estimator L such that the estimates ˆ = Ly x it produces minimize the following covariance matrix: P = E[(x − ˆ)(x − ˆ)T ] . from measurements corrupted by different noise samples from the same distribution. 7. Lemma 7. most interesting matrix norms are equivalent. We consider this different approach because it will let us show that the Kalman ﬁlter is optimal in a very useful sense. which in turn are corrupted by noise.4 The BLUE ˆ = Ly x We now address the problem of ﬁnding the Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (BLUE) of x given that y depends on x according to the model (7.2. Thus. the identity matrix. In this sense.16) . we also want it to be unbiased. in the sense that if repeat the same estimation experiment many times we neither consistently overestimate nor consistently underestimate x. E[x − ˆ] x = E[x − Ly] = E[x − L(Hx + n)] = E[(I − LH)x] − E[Ln] = (I − HL)E[x] (7. ˆ is a function of a random vector (noise). the estimates are random. we obtain different estimates.3 Unbiased In additionto requiring our estimator to be linear and with minimum covariance.16) be zero mean. First. The new criterion is the socalled minimumcovariance criterion. which is repeated here for convenience: y = Hx + n . x 7. if we estimate the same quantity many times. Proof.4. β such that α P 1 < P 2 <β P 1 . Then the linear estimator L is unbiased if an only if LH = I .1 Let n in equation (7. It makes therefore sense to measure the quality of an estimator by requiring that its variance be as small as possible: the ﬂuctuations of the estimate ˆ with respect to the true (unknown) value x from one estimation experiment to the x next should be as small as possible. Intuitively. Formally. this translates into the following requirement: E[x − ˆ] = 0 x and E[ˆ] = E[x] .14).4. Thus. x x Minimizing a matrix.
4. the norm of the sum is greater or equal to either norm. x x Proof. P = L0 RLT + (L − L0 )R(L − L0 )T . = L0 RLT = (H T R−1 H)−1 H T R−1 RR−1 H(H T R−1 H)−1 0 = (H T R−1 H)−1 H T R−1 H(H T R−1 H)−1 = (H T R−1 H)−1 ∆ .17).17) because L is unbiased. let L be any (other) linear unbiased estimator. Theorem 7.18) is the best. 0 (L − L0 )RLT = 0 .4. that is.7. This proves that the estimator given by (7. To show that L0 = (H T R−1 H)−1 H T R−1 L = L0 + (L − L0 ) (7. that is.18) we obtain so that (L − L0 )RLT = (L − L0 )H(H T R−1 H)−1 = (LH − L0 H)(H T R−1 H)−1 . so it is zero as well.18) is the best choice. We can write P = = = E[(x − ˆ)(x − ˆ)T ] = E[(x − Ly)(x − Ly)T ] x x E[(x − LHx − Ln)(x − LHx − Ln)T ] = E[((I − LH)x − Ln)((I − LH)x − Ln)T ] E[LnnT LT ] = L E[nnT ] LT = LRLT (7. For this to hold for all x we need I − LH = 0. when L = L0 . and The term L0 R(L − L0 )T is the transpose of this. so that LH = I. 0 0 RLT = RR−1 H(H T R−1 H)−1 = H(H T R−1 H)−1 0 From (7. 0 But L and L0 are unbiased. In conclusion. 93 ∆ And now the main result. To prove that the covariance P of ˆ is given by equation (7.2 The Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (BLUE) ˆ = Ly x for the measurement model y = Hx + n where the noise vector n has zero mean and covariance R is given by L = (H T R−1 H)−1 H T R−1 and the covariance of the estimate ˆ is x P = E[(x − ˆ)(x − ˆ)T ] = (H T R−1 H)−1 . we simply substitute L0 for L in P = LRLT : x P as promised. 0 the sum of two positive deﬁnite or at least semideﬁnite matrices. so this expression is minimized when the second term vanishes. We can trivially write and P = = LRLT = [L0 + (L − L0 )]R[L0 + (L − L0 )]T L0 RLT + (L − L0 )RLT + L0 R(L − L0 )T + (L − L0 )R(L − L0 )T . so LH = L0 H = I. For such matrices. BLUE ESTIMATORS since E[Ln] = L E[n] and E[n] = 0. that it has minimum covariance.
linear. . which is related to the state xk by the equation yk = Hk xk + ξk with error covariance T E[ξk ξk ] = Rk . . . To summarize. we have y = Hxk + n . two pieces of data are available. R) . Rk ) . ηk ξk ∼ ∼ N (0. blockdiagonal matrix. This estimate comes with its covariance matrix Pkk−1 .21) We can summarize this available information by grouping equations 7. the Kalman ﬁlter computes the best. One is the estimate ˆkk−1 of the state xk given measurements up to but not x including yk .94 CHAPTER 7.20) The other piece of data is the new measurement yk itself. Computation occurs according to the x phases of update and propagation illustrated in ﬁgure 7.5 The Kalman Filter: Derivation We now have all the components necessary to write the equations for the Kalman ﬁlter.2. Given a dynamic system with system and measurement equations xk+1 yk = = Fk xk + Gk uk + ηk Hk xk + ξk (7. linear. 7. (7. unbiased estimate x0 of the initial state with an error covariance matrix P0 . The ﬁlter also x computes the covariance Pkk of the error ˆkk − xk given those measurements. Qk ) N (0. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION 7.1 Update At time k. n ∼ N (0. Another way of saying this is that the estimate ˆkk−1 differs from the true state xk by an error term ek whose covariance is Pkk−1 : x ˆkk−1 = xk + ek x with E[ek eT ] = Pkk−1 . given a linear measurement equation y = Hx + n where n is a Gaussian random vector with zero mean and covariance matrix R.5.20 and 7. and packaging the error covariances into a single. k (7. Thus. yk .19) where the system noise ηk and the measurement noise ξk are Gaussian random vectors.21 into one. . We now apply the results from optimal estimation to the problem of updating and propagating the state estimates and their error covariances. the best linear unbiased estimate ˆ of x is x where the matrix ˆ = P H T R−1 y x P = E[(ˆ − x)(ˆ − x)T ] = (H T R−1 H)−1 x x ∆ is the covariance of the estimation error. unbiased estimate ˆkk at time k given the measurements y0 . ˆ as well as the best.
19.5. THE KALMAN FILTER: DERIVATION where y= and where n has covariance R= Pkk−1 0 0 Rk . unbiasedness requires ˆk+1k = Fk ˆkk + Gk uk . n= ek ξk . x x is usually referred to as the Kalman gain matrix. This pair of equations represents the update stage of the Kalman ﬁlter. and the noise term ηk is zero mean. the solution to this classical estimation problem is ˆkk x Pkk = = Pkk H T R−1 y (H T R−1 H)−1 . and the matrix x T −1 Kk = Pkk Hk Rk ∆ ∆ Pkk H T R−1 y Pkk −1 Pkk−1 T −1 Hk Rk ˆkk−1 x yk −1 T −1 Pkk (Pkk−1 ˆkk−1 + Hk Rk yk ) x −1 T −1 T −1 Pkk ((Pkk − Hk Rk Hk )ˆkk−1 + Hk Rk yk ) x T −1 ˆkk−1 + Pkk Hk Rk (yk − Hk ˆkk−1 ) . x 7.5. the difference rk = yk − Hk ˆkk−1 x is the residue between the actual measurement yk and its best estimate based on ˆkk−1 . For this reason. Since the new state is related to the old through the system equation 7. These expressions are somewhat wasteful. ˆkk−1 x yk . because it speciﬁes the amount by which the residue must be multiplied (or ampliﬁed) to obtain the correction term that transforms the old estimate ˆkk−1 of the state xk into its new x estimate ˆkk . x x . 95 As we know. H= I Hk . because the matrices H and R contain many zeros. these two update equations are now rewritten in a more efﬁcient and more familiar form.2 Propagation Propagation is even simpler. We have −1 Pkk = H T R−1 H = I T Hk −1 Pkk−1 0 0 −1 Rk I Hk −1 T −1 = Pkk−1 + Hk Rk Hk and ˆkk x = = = = = In the last line.7.
STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION which is the state estimate propagation equation of the Kalman ﬁlter. obtaining ˆ0k .2. For this it is also necessary that any given point of the trajectory is reached by the estimate at the same time instant. we now show that estimating the initial state x0 from the ﬁrst k + 1 measurements. the dynamic system equations for a mortar shell were set up. Figure 7. = ˆkk−1 + Kk (yk − Hk ˆkk−1 ) x x −1 T −1 = Pkk−1 + Hk Rk Hk where the Kalman gain is deﬁned as and by the propagation equations T −1 Kk = Pkk Hk Rk ˆk+1k x Pk+1k = = Fk ˆkk + Gk uk x T Fk Pkk Fk + Qk .7 Linear Systems and the Kalman Filter In order to connect the theory of state estimation with what we have learned so far about linear systems.3 shows the true and estimated trajectories. Notice that coincidence of the trajectories does not imply that the state estimate is uptodate. the Kalman ﬁlter evolves an initial estimate and an initial error covariance matrix. Matlab routines available through the class Web page implement a Kalman ﬁlter (with naive numerics) to estimate the state of that system from simulated observations.10) and (7. Notice that the covariance goes to zero only asymptotically. Figure 7.11) can be expanded as follows: yk = = = Hk xk + ξk = Hk (Fk−1 xk−1 + Gk−1 uk−1 + ηk−1 ) + ξk Hk Fk−1 xk−1 + Hk Gk−1 uk−1 + Hk ηk−1 + ξk Hk Fk−1 (Fk−2 xk−2 + Gk−2 uk−2 + ηk−2 ) + Hk Gk−1 uk−1 + Hk ηk−1 + ξk .5. 7. Figure 7. amounts to solving a linear x system of equations with suitable weights for its rows.96 CHAPTER 7.6 Results of the Mortar Shell Experiment In section 7. that is. x 7.3 Kalman Filter Equations ∆ ∆ In summary. 7. by the update equations ˆkk x −1 Pkk and P0−1 = P0 . and this occurs in time for the shell to be shot down. The error covariance matrix is easily propagated thanks to the linearity of the expectation operator: Pk+1k = = = = E[(ˆk+1k − xk+1 )(ˆk+1k − xk+1 )T ] x x E[(Fk (ˆkk − xk ) − ηk )(Fk (ˆkk − xk ) − ηk )T ] x x T T Fk E[(ˆkk − xk )(ˆkk − xk )T ]Fk + E[ηk ηk ] x x T Fk Pkk Fk + Qk where the system noise ηk and the previous estimation error ˆkk − xk were assumed to be uncorrelated. The basic recurrence equations (7.5 shows the 2norm of the covariance matrix over time. ˆ0−1 = ˆ0 x x both assumed to be given.4 shows that the distance between estimated and true target position does indeed converge to zero.
3: The true and estimated trajectories get closer to one another.4 1.2 1 0.4: The estimate actually closes in towards the target.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Figure 7.7. .2 0 −0.6 1.4 0. Trajectories start on the right.2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Figure 7.8 1. LINEAR SYSTEMS AND THE KALMAN FILTER 97 true (dashed) and estimated (solid) missile trajectory 1. distance between true and estimated missile position vs.6 0.4 1.6 0.2 1 0.7.8 0.8 0. time 2 1.
23) . F0 x0 + Hk (Fk−1 . . . + ηk−1 ) + ξk or in a more compact form. . . . = . We can write one system like the one in equation (7. downwards ones to state update. . . F1 G0 u0 + . K. . . .98 40 CHAPTER 7. STOCHASTIC STATE ESTIMATION norm of the state covariance matrix vs time 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Figure 7. yK (7. Fj 1 for l ≥ j for l < j νk = Hk j=1 Φ(k − 1. .22) where Φ(l. j)ηj−1 + ξk is noise. k yk = Hk Φ(k − 1. The key thing to notice about this somewhat intimidating expression is that for any k it is a linear system in x0 . . . 0)x0 + Hk j=1 Φ(k − 1. . . . . + Gk−1 uk−1 ) + Hk (Fk−1 . j)Gj−1 uj−1 + νk (7. .22) for every value of k = 0. . F1 η0 + . the initial state of the system. Upwards segments correspond to state propagation. the norm of the state covariance matrix converges to zero. where K is the last time instant considered. j) = and the term k Fl . . and we obtain a large system of the form zK = ΨK x0 + gK + nK where zK = y0 . = Hk Fk−1 Fk−2 xk−2 + Hk (Fk−1 Gk−2 uk−2 + Gk−1 uk−1 ) + Hk (Fk−1 ηk−2 + ηk−1 ) + ξk Hk Fk−1 .5: After an initial increase in uncertainty.
and therefore in that equation. the Kalman ﬁlter differs from a linear solver in the following important respects: 1. . K)GK−1 uK−1 ) ν0 . The noise terms in nK in equation 7. knowledge of the initial state may obsolesce and become less and less useful. HK Φ(K − 1. 99 nK HK (Φ(K − 1. This is equivalent to assuming that all the noise terms in nK are equally important. a small covariance means that we believe in that measurement. .23) all at once. = . Intuitively. νK Without knowing anything about the statistics of the noise vector nK in equation (7.23). However. . 0) 0 H1 G0 u0 . However. We know that if ΨK has full rank. having better and better approximations to the solution as new data come in is much preferable in a dynamic setting.23 are not equally important. where one cannot in general wait for all the data to be collected.23) is not solved all at once. Measurements come with covariance matrices. + Φ(K − 1.23 are equally important. The quantitative embodiment of this intuitive idea is at the core of the Kalman ﬁlter. the best we can do is to solve the system zK = ΨK x0 + gK in the sense of least squares. to obtain an estimate of x0 from the measurements y0 . the Kalman ﬁlter for a linear system has been shown to be equivalent to a linear equation solver. so we ought to be able to do better. As time goes by. the result with the pseudoinverse is the K same as we would obtain by solving the normal equations. LINEAR SYSTEMS AND THE KALMAN FILTER ΨK = gK = H0 H1 F0 . which should consequently be weighed more heavily than others. . and weigh each equation to keep these covariances into account. .23). that all the noise terms in nK in equation 7. and not only for the estimate ˆ0k of the initial state. A solution for the estimate ˆkk of the current state is given.7. . 1)G0 u0 + . In some applications. we know the covariance matrices of all these noise terms. an initial solution is reﬁned over time as new measurements become available. that is. . under the assumption that the noise that affects each of the equations has the same probability distribution. x x 3. . .7. . . . The Kalman ﬁlter computes uptodate information about the current state. and this is in fact the case. yK : ˆ0K = Ψ† (zK − gK ) x K where Ψ† is the pseudoinverse of ΨK . so that Ψ† = (ΨT ΨK )−1 ΨT . In summary.23) minimizes the residue between the left and the righthand side under the assumption that all equations are to be treated the same way. The ﬁnal solution can be proven to be exactly equal to solving system (7. . and the Kalman ﬁlter makes optimal use of this information for a proper weighting of each of the scalar equations in (7. However. Rather. The system (7. 2. Better information ought to yield more accurate results. K K K The least square solution to system (7. data my never stop arriving.