Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

I have a complex symmetric matrix $A$, (i.e. non-Hermitian and obeying $A=A^T$), which is positive definite, in the sense that: $$\Re({z^HAz}) > 0$$ for any $z$. I am able to verify this numerically by noting that the Hermitian part of this matrix $(A + A^H)/2$ has all-positive eigenvalues (or that any negative parts are small enough to be attributable to rounding error and hopefully negligible)

I know that for my problem only a few eigenvalues of this matrix contribute to the solution, so I have performed a spectral decomposition of my matrix $$A = U\cdot diag(\lambda) \cdot V$$

with $V$ and $U = V^{-1}$ representing the (non-orthogonal) eigenvectors and $\lambda$ the eigenvalues. This then gives me a representation of $A$ in terms of "partial matrices", $$A = \sum_i \lambda_i U_i\otimes V_i$$

However, these partial matrices are no-longer positive definite (i.e. some of them have quite significant negative eigenvalues of their Hermitian parts), hence they cannot yield meaningful decompositions of the solution to my problem.

  • Is there some explanation as to why these partial matrices are not positive definite?
  • Is there an alternative decomposition which would preserve this property?


As this is a complex symmetric system, there is the additional relationship $V=U^{T}$

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

In the answer to another question, Qiaochu Yuan said that

It's not misleading as long as you change your notion of equivalence. When a matrix represents a linear transformation $V \to V$, the correct notion of equivalence is similarity: $M \simeq B^{-1} MB$ where $B$ is invertible. When a matrix represents a bilinear form $V \times V \to \mathbb{R}$, the correct notion of equivalence is congruence: $M \simeq B^TMB$ where $B$ is invertible. As long as you keep this distinction in mind, you're fine.

Since you are dealing with a $z^HAz$, $A$ should be viewed as a bilinear form rather than a linear transformation. Therefore, if you want to find an equivalent matrix to $A$ via matrix decomposition, what you should use is not a similarity transform, but a matrix congruence. Actually, even in case of $\mathbb{R}$, a similarity transform in general wouldn't help. You may think of it this way: positive definiteness is a basis-independent property. If $x^TAx>0$ for all $x$ in the standard basis, by a change of basis $x\mapsto Sy$ ($S$ is an invertible matrix), $x^TAx=y^T(S^TAS)y$ is also positive for all $y$. Therefore, what preserves positive definiteness is the congruence $A\mapsto S^TAS$ but not a similarity transform $A\mapsto S^{-1}AS$.

Surely, when $A$ is real symmetric or Hermitian, $A$ is orthogonally/unitarily similar to a diagonal matrix. So, in this case, we have both congruence and similarity in one shot. For a general $A$, however, we are not that lucky. I am not sure what is the best way to go. This varies from scenario to scenario. Yet, if the preservation of positive definiteness is of utmost importance, I think the best one can do is perhaps just a Schur decomposition $A=UTU^H$, where $U$ is a unitary matrix and $T$ is upper triangular. You may still read off the eigenvalues from the diagonal of $T$, but $T$ is not a diagonal matrix so that in general you can only write $A$ as a linear combination of $n(n+1)/2$ tensor products.

share|improve this answer
Thanks for that. I haven't quite absorbed your answer fully but it's definitely pointed me in the right direction. In the case of complex matrices, should I consider congruence to be $A -> S^T A S$ (which I have) or $A -> S^H A S$ (valid for Hermitian matrices)? –  DaveP Dec 11 '12 at 22:14
$A\mapsto S^HAS$ is called (by some authors) a $\ast$-congruence ("star-congruence"). Again, which of congruence or $\ast$-congruence is more appropriate depends on your needs. Star-congruence preserves positive definiteness, but congruence can bring you some nicely structured matrix. See Tagaki factorization for example. –  user1551 Dec 13 '12 at 11:14
add comment

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.