5
$\begingroup$

Let's say $t$ is a real parameter and $\textbf{A}$ is $n \times n$ matrix. I know that

$$\frac{d}{dt} \exp(t\textbf{A}) = \textbf{A} \exp(t\textbf{A})$$

But what if there are multiple parameters $t_1, ..., t_n$ and multiple matrices $\textbf{A}_1, \dots , \textbf{A}_n$ that don't commute, does the same relation, namely

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t_k}\exp \left(\sum_{i=1}^n t_i \textbf{A}_i \right) = \textbf{A}_k \exp \left(\sum_{i=1}^n t_i \textbf{A}_i\right)$$

still hold? If not, is there a closed form for the derivative?

| cite | improve this question | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $\exp(tA+sB)-\exp(tA)\neq\exp(tA)(\exp(sB)-I)$ if $A$ and $B$ do not commute, so no, it doesn't. $\textbf{A}_k \exp(\sum_{i=1}^n t_i \textbf{A}_i)\neq \exp(\sum_{i=1}^n t_i \textbf{A}_i)\textbf{A}_k$ either, as it was with a single generator. $\endgroup$ – Conifold Jan 10 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ This can also be simply seen from the BCH formula $\endgroup$ – Mathphys meister Jan 10 at 11:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ok, but is there a closed-form result for the derivative in this case? $\endgroup$ – xaxa Jan 10 at 11:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is no closed form unless you have some simple commutation relations among the generators. $\endgroup$ – Conifold Jan 10 at 23:42
3
$\begingroup$

PARTIAL ANSWER.

If there is a general formula for $$ \partial_t e^{tX+sY}, \qquad \partial_s e^{tX+sY}, $$ then it surely descends from the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, which is known to be rather complicated. So, I will only consider a simpler special case.


In the special case of $X$ and $Y$ commuting with the commutators, that is $$\tag{1}[X, [X, Y]]=[Y, [X, Y]]=0,$$ the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula simplifies to $$\tag{2} e^{tX+sY+\frac{ts}{2}[X, Y]}=e^{tX}e^{sY}, $$ and since, by (1), $tX+sY$ commutes with $[X, Y]$,
$$ e^{tX+sY}=e^{tX}e^{sY}e^{-\frac{ts}{2}[X, Y]}, $$ from which we infer $$\begin{split} \partial_t e^{tX+sY} &= Xe^{tX}e^{sY}e^{-\frac{ts}{2}[X,Y]} - e^{tX}e^{sY}\left(\frac{s}{2}[X, Y]\right)e^{-\frac{ts}{2}[X,Y]}\\ &=(X-\frac{s}{2}[X, Y])e^{tX+sY}, \end{split}$$ where we used (1), which implies that $[X,Y]$ commutes with $e^{tX}$ and with $e^{sY}$.

Reversing the roles of $X$ and $Y$, and using that $[Y, X]=-[X, Y]$, we have $$ \partial_s e^{tX+sY} = (Y+\frac{t}{2}[X, Y])e^{tX+sY}.$$

In particular, we see that in general it is not true that $$\tag{!!} \partial_t e^{tX+sY} = X e^{tX+sY}.$$


SOME WORDS ON THE GENERAL CASE.

If we drop the assumption (1), then the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula becomes much more complicated; $$\tag{3} e^{tX+sY+\frac{ts}{2}[X, Y]+\frac1{12}\left( t^2s[X,[X,Y]] - ts^2[Y, [X,Y]]\right)+\ldots} =e^{tX}e^{sY}.$$ I don't know how to pass from (3) to a formula of the form $$ e^{tX+sY}=e^{tX}e^{sY}e^{\Phi(t, s)},$$ which is what we need for the above computation.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! In this case, one might consider function $\exp(tA+B)$ with B and A not commuting. Then we have $\exp((t+dt)A+B) = \exp(tA+B + dt\,A)$, so we cam use BCH formula with $X=tA+B$ and $Y=dt\,A$, $[X,Y]=[B,A]dt$. This might be helpful becaise $Y$ is linear in $dt$ and we don't need higher orders of $dt$ when calculating derivatives, so we might only consider commutators like $[X,Y]$, $[X,[X,Y]]$ and so on. But still... I don't see where to go with that. $\endgroup$ – xaxa Jan 10 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ If you do that kind of manipulations you will end up with some formula. But I am not sure that it will be simple enough to be usable. $\endgroup$ – Giuseppe Negro Jan 10 at 14:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can get an expression of the type written at the end from the Zassenhaus formula, see also multivariable Zassenhaus formula. $\endgroup$ – Conifold Jan 10 at 23:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Conifold: Thank you, that's exactly what is needed here. $\endgroup$ – Giuseppe Negro Jan 13 at 10:13
2
$\begingroup$

As for analytical functions in one dimension, one can define a matrix function for square matrices $\mathbf{X}$ by an infinite series: $$ f(\mathbf{X}) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n \mathbf{X}^n$$ assuming the limit exists and is finite. If the coefficients $c_n$ fulfils $\sum c_n x^n <\infty$, then one can prove that the above series exists and is finite

source: The matrix cookbook

So we know that $\exp(t\mathbf{A})$:

$$ \exp(t\mathbf{A}) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{t^n \mathbf{A}^n}{n!} $$

and thus

$$ \frac{\textrm{d}}{\textrm{d}t}\exp(t\mathbf{A}) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{n t^{n-1} \mathbf{A}^n}{n!} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{t^{n} \mathbf{A}^{n+1}}{n!}=\textbf{A}\,\exp(t\mathbf{A}) = \exp(t\mathbf{A})\,\textbf{A} $$

The OP is interested in

$$ \frac{\partial}{\partial t_p}\exp\left\{\sum_{i=1}^nt_i\mathbf{A}_i\right\}. $$

This is not as straightforward as it seems. To explain this you need to understand that:

$$ \exp(\mathbf{A} + \mathbf{B}) = \exp(t\mathbf{A})\,\exp(t\mathbf{B}),\quad\textrm{if}\quad \mathbf{AB}=\mathbf{BA} $$

If $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ do not commute, this is not the case. You can see this from the simple expansion:

$$ \exp(\mathbf{A} + \mathbf{B}) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{t^n (\mathbf{A}+\mathbf{B})^n}{n!}$$

Only if $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ commute, you can use the binomial expansion, in the other case it becomes really messy. To give an example, the second term becomes:

$$\begin{align} \exp(\mathbf{A} + \mathbf{B}) =& \mathbf{I} + \mathbf{A}+\mathbf{B} \\ & + \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbf{A}^2 + \mathbf{AB} + \mathbf{BA} + \mathbf{B}^2\right) \\ & + \frac{1}{3!}\left(\mathbf{A}^3 + \mathbf{A}^2\mathbf{B} + \mathbf{A}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{A} +\mathbf{B}\mathbf{A}^2 + \mathbf{B}^2\mathbf{A} + \mathbf{B}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B} +\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B}^2+ \mathbf{B}^3\right)\\ &+\ldots \end{align}$$

So, in the OP, if $\mathbf{A}_p\mathbf{A}_q = \mathbf{A}_q\mathbf{A}_p$ for all combinations of $p$ and $q$, then

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t_p}\exp\left\{\sum_{i=1}^nt_i\mathbf{A}_i\right\} = \textbf{A}_p\,\exp\left\{\sum_{i=1}^nt_i\mathbf{A}_i\right\} = \exp\left\{\sum_{i=1}^nt_i\mathbf{A}_i\right\}\,\textbf{A}_p$$

If the matrices do not commute, i.e. $\mathbf{A}_p\mathbf{A}_q \ne \mathbf{A}_q\mathbf{A}_p$ for any combination of $p$ and $q$, it quickly blows up.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I assume that my question is really equivalent to $d/dt \exp(tA+B)$ where $B$ doesn't depend on $t$ and $[A,B] \ne 0$. Given that $B$ doesn't depend on t, is it possible to simplify the series for derivative? I don't see how, but maybe I'm missing something or maybe there is a known theorem for such a case. $\endgroup$ – xaxa Jan 10 at 11:33
  • $\begingroup$ Do you know something about higher order commutators. In this case the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula becomes very useful. $\endgroup$ – kvantour Jan 10 at 11:38
1
$\begingroup$

Let $$\eqalign{ t&=t_i,\quad A=A_i,\quad B=\sum_{k\ne i} t_kA_k \\ G(t) &= \frac{d}{dt}\exp(B+tA) \\ }$$ To evaluate $G(t)$ at $t=0$, use the block-triangular method. $$\eqalign{ \exp\left(\left[\matrix{B&A\\0&B}\right]\right) &= \left[\matrix{\exp(B)&G(0)\\0&\exp(B)}\right] \\ }$$ To evaluate $G$ at $t=s,\,$ shift the definition of $B\to (B+sA)$

Define block-analogs of the standard basis vectors $$e_1=\pmatrix{1\\0},\quad e_2=\pmatrix{0\\1}$$ by replacing the {${0,1}$} elements with the $n\times n\,$ {zero, identity} matrices $$E_1=\pmatrix{I\\0},\quad E_2=\pmatrix{0\\I} \in{\mathbb R}^{2n\times n}$$ Then would this qualify as a closed-form solution? $$\eqalign{ G(s) &= E_1^T\,\exp\left(\left[\matrix{B+sA&A\\0&B+sA}\right]\right)\,E_2 \\ }$$

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Oh this is so cool! And the paper you cite is amazing, thank you. I need some time to meditate around this and see if I can get anything useful in my case $\endgroup$ – xaxa Jan 14 at 18:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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