Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have two square matrices - $A$ and $B$. $A^{-1}$ is known and I want to calculate $(A+B)^{-1}$. Are there theorems that help with calculating the inverse of the sum of matrices? In general case $B^{-1}$ is not known, but if it is necessary then it can be assumed that $B^{-1}$ is also known.

share|cite|improve this question
This article may be of help, although I don't have access to it right now. – Adrián Barquero Jan 16 '11 at 20:54
@Arturo: I know that they might not be invertible, but let's assume they are. @Adrian: Unfortunately I don't have direct access to jstor. – Tomek Tarczynski Jan 16 '11 at 20:58
up vote 55 down vote accepted

In general, $A+B$ need not be invertible, even when $A$ and $B$ are. But one might ask whether you can have a formula under the additional assumption that $A+B$ is invertible.

As noted by Adrián Barquero, there is a paper by Ken Miller published in the Mathematics Magazine in 1981 that addresses this.

He proves the following:

Lemma. If $A$ and $A+B$ are invertible, and $B$ has rank $1$, then let $g=\mathrm{trace}(BA^{-1})$. Then $g\neq -1$ and $$(A+B)^{-1} = A^{-1} - \frac{1}{1+g}A^{-1}BA^{-1}.$$

From this lemma, we can take a general $A+B$ that is invertible and write it as $A+B = A + B_1+B_2+\cdots+B_r$, where $B_i$ each have rank $1$ and such that each $A+B_1+\cdots+B_k$ is invertible (such a decomposition always exists if $A+B$ is invertible and $\mathrm{rank}(B)=r$). Then you get:

Theorem. Let $A$ and $A+B$ be nonsingular matrices, and let $B$ have rank $r\gt 0$. Let $B=B_1+\cdots+B_r$, where each $B_i$ has rank $1$, and each $C_{k+1} = A+B_1+\cdots+B_k$ is nonsingular. Setting $C_1 = A$, then $$C_{k+1}^{-1} = C_{k}^{-1} - g_kC_k^{-1}B_kC_k^{-1}$$ where $g_k = \frac{1}{1 + \mathrm{trace}(C_k^{-1}B_k)}$. In particular, $$(A+B)^{-1} = C_r^{-1} - g_rC_r^{-1}B_rC_r^{-1}.$$

(If the rank of $B$ is $0$, then $B=0$, so $(A+B)^{-1}=A^{-1}$).

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, I was looking for something like this. – Tomek Tarczynski Jan 17 '11 at 15:18
The lemma is the Sherman-Morrison formula, isn't it? – Rahul Apr 30 '14 at 8:15
Can this theorem be used in finding the inverse of $${\large[}g_{\mu\nu}+\chi \frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{k^2}{\large]}$$ where $g$ is the Minkowski metric tensor and the $k$'s are four-vectors? Please see this question in Physics.SE: Thanks. – Faq Oct 16 '14 at 15:59

$(A+B)^{-1} = A^{-1} - A^{-1}BA^{-1} + A^{-1}BA^{-1}BA^{-1} - A^{-1}BA^{-1}BA^{-1}BA^{-1} + \cdots$

provided $\|A^{-1}B\|<1$ or $\|BA^{-1}\| < 1$ (here $\|\cdot\|$ means norm). This is just the Taylor expansion of the inversion function together with basic information on convergence.

(posted essentially at the same time as mjqxxx)

share|cite|improve this answer

This I found accidentally.

Suppose given $A$, and $B$, where $A$ and $A+B$ are invertible. Now we want to know the expression of $(A+B)^{-1}$ without imposing the all inverse. Now we follow the intuition like this. Suppose that we can express $(A+B)^{-1} = A^{-1} + X$, next we will present simple straight forward method to compute $X$ \begin{equation} (A+B)^{-1} = A^{-1} + X \end{equation} \begin{equation} (A^{-1} + X) (A + B) = I \end{equation} \begin{equation} A^{-1} A + X A + A^{-1} B + X B = I \end{equation} \begin{equation} X(A + B) = - A^{-1} B \end{equation} \begin{equation} X = - A^{-1} B ( A + B)^{-1} \end{equation} \begin{equation} X = - A^{-1} B (A^{-1} + X) \end{equation} \begin{equation} (I + A^{-1}B) X = - A^{-1} B A^{-1} \end{equation} \begin{equation} X = - (I + A^{-1}B)^{-1} A^{-1} B A^{-1} \end{equation}

This lemma is simplification of lemma presented by Ken Miller, 1981

share|cite|improve this answer
Where did you find this? Can you give a citation? – Daniel Renshaw Jun 11 '13 at 10:55
How is this a simplification of the lemma shown in Ken Miller 1981? Are we talking about "On the Inverse of the Sum of Matrices" or any other work? (In any case, I find this property quite useful, just need to cite it properly). – Rufo Apr 10 '14 at 15:15
Interesting to notice that line 3 is a Sylvester equation. – ati Dec 11 '14 at 16:26
In order to conclude last line,we must have (I+A^-1B) invertible. So how are we sure about that, It might be easy but (I am not getting. Can you please explain @ Muhammad Fuday. – Sry Feb 16 '15 at 5:43

Assuming everything is nicely invertible, you are probably looking for the SMW identity (which, i think, can also be generalized to pseudoinverses if needed)

Please see caveat in the comments below; in general if $B$ is low-rank, then you'd be happy using SMW.

share|cite|improve this answer
It also requires $(A^{-1} + B^{-1})^{-1}$ to be known, doesn't it? – mjqxxxx Jan 16 '11 at 21:06
The Sherman-Morrison "update" formula is most efficient if $B$ is of low rank. So the usual application (rank one or two if symmetry is to be preserved) doesn't require $B^{-1}$ to exist. – hardmath Jan 16 '11 at 21:07
@mjqxxxx: yes, actually smw does require that inverse, which actually renders this answer useless, unless one is looking for inverses where $B$ is low-rank, and is written as $B=UCV^T$. – user1709 Jan 16 '11 at 22:01

I am wondering why nobody mentioned the paper by H. V. Henderson:

On Deriving the Inverse of a Sum of Matrices

To me, this paper gives the most general result:


There are several other variations of the above form (see equations (22)-(26) in this paper).

I think this result is good because it only requires $A$ and $A+B$ to be nonsingular. As a comparison, the SMW identity or Ken Miller's paper (as mentioned in the other answers) requires some nonsingualrity or rank conditions of $B$.

share|cite|improve this answer

A formal power series expansion is possible: $$ \begin{eqnarray} (A + \epsilon B)^{-1} &=& \left(A \left(I + \epsilon A^{-1}B\right)\right)^{-1} \\ &=& \left(I + \epsilon A^{-1}B\right)^{-1} A^{-1} \\ &=& \left(I - \epsilon A^{-1}B + \epsilon^2 A^{-1}BA^{-1}B - ...\right) A^{-1} \\ &=& A^{-1} - \epsilon A^{-1} B A^{-1} + \epsilon^2 A^{-1} B A^{-1} B A^{-1} - ... \end{eqnarray} $$ Under appropriate conditions on the eigenvalues of $A$ and $B$ (such that $A$ is sufficiently "large" compared to $B$), this will converge to the correct result at $\epsilon=1$.

share|cite|improve this answer
The point about eigenvalues is apt, because this works even if $\|A^{-1}B\|\geq1$ and $\|BA{^-1}\|\geq1$ as long as the spectral radius of $A^{-1}B$ or $BA^{-1}$ is less than $1$. – Jonas Meyer Jan 17 '11 at 2:20

It is possible to come up with pretty simple examples where $A$,$A^{-1}$,$B$, and $B^{-1}$ are all very nice, but applying $(A+B)^{-1}$ is considered very difficult.

The canonical example is where $A = \Delta$ is a finite difference implementation of the Laplacian on a regular grid (with, for example, Dirichlet boundary conditions), and $B=k^2I$ is a multiple of the identity. The finite difference laplacian and it's inverse are very nice and easy to deal with, as is the identity matrix. However, the combination $$\Delta + k^2 I$$ is the Helmholtz operator, which is widely known as being extremely difficult to solve for large $k$.

share|cite|improve this answer

I'm surprising that no one realize it's a special case of well-known matrix inverse lemma or [Woodbury matrix identity][1], it says,

$ \left(A+UCV \right)^{-1} = A^{-1} - A^{-1}U \left(C^{-1}+VA^{-1}U \right)^{-1} VA^{-1}$ ,

just set U=V=I, it immediately gets

$ \left(A+C \right)^{-1} = A^{-1} - A^{-1} \left(C^{-1}+A^{-1} \right)^{-1} A^{-1}$ ,

share|cite|improve this answer

If A and B were numbers, there is no simpler way to write $\frac{1}{A+B}$ in term of $ \frac{1}{A}$ and $B$ so I don't know why you would expect there to be for matrices. It is even possible to have matrices, A and B, so that neither $A^{-1}$ and $B^{-1}$ exist but $(A+B)^{-1}$ does or, conversely, such that both $A^{-1}$ nor $B^{-1}$ exist but $(A+B)^{-1}$ doesn't.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.