arxiv: v1 [math.na] 1 Sep 2018

Transcription

1 On the perturbation of an L -orthogonal projection Xuefeng Xu arxiv: v1 [mathna] 1 Sep 018 September Abstract The L -orthogonal projection is an important mathematical tool in scientific computing and numerical analysis which has been widely applied in many fields such as linear least squares problems eigenvalue problems ill-posed problems and randomized algorithms In some numerical applications the entries of a matrix will seldom be known exactly so it is necessary to develop some bounds to characterize the effects of the uncertainties caused by matrix perturbation In this paper we establish new perturbation bounds for the L - orthogonal projection onto the column space of a matrix which involve upper lower bounds and combined upper lower bounds The new results contain some sharper counterparts of the existing bounds Numerical examples are also given to illustrate our theoretical results Keywords: orthogonal projection perturbation singular value decomposition AMS subject classifications: 15A09 15A18 47A55 65F35 1 Introduction The L -orthogonal projection onto a subspace is an important geometric construction in finitedimensional spaces which has been applied in many fields such as linear least squares problems eigenvalue singular value problems ill-posed problems and randomized algorithms see eg [ ] However in some numerical applications the entries of a matrix will seldom be known exactly Thus it is necessary to establish some bounds to characterize the effects arising from matrix perturbation Over the past decades many researchers have investigated the stability of an L -orthogonal projection and developed various upper bounds to characterize the deviation of the L -orthogonal projection after perturbation which can be found eg in [ ] Let C m n C m n r and U n be the set of all m n complex matrices the set of all m n complex matrices of rank r and the set of all unitary matrices of order n respectively For any M C m n the symbols M M rankm M U M F M and P M denote the LSEC Institute of Computational Mathematics and Scientific/Engineering Computing Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China and School of Mathematical Sciences University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China xuxuefeng@lsecccaccn 1

2 conjugate transpose the Moore Penrose inverse the rank the general unitarily invariant norm the Frobenius norm the spectral norm and the L -orthogonal projection onto the column space of M respectively Let A C m n r B C m n s and E = B A Sun [19] established the following estimates: In particular if s = r then P B P A U A + B U 11a P B P A F A + B F 11b P B P A max A B P B P A U min A B U 11c 1a P B P A F min A B F 1b P B P A min A B Recently Chen et al [ Theorems 4 and 5] improved the above estimates and proved that 1c P B P A U EA U + EB U P B P A F EA F + EB F P B P A max EA EB 13a 13b 13c In particular if s = r then P B P A U min EA U EB U 14a P B P A F min EA F EB F 14b P B P A min EA EB 14c Moreover Chen et al derived the following combined estimate see [ Theorem 8]: A P B P A F + min B B A P B P A F A + B F 15 In particular if s = r then A P B P A F + min B B A P B P A F min A B F 16 P B P A F + P B P A F 4 A B A + B F 17 More recently Li et al [13 Corollary 4] showed that P B P A F A + B In particular if s = r then P B P A F min B F B A F B A A E F A B B E F 18 A E F A F A B B E F 19

3 In addition Li et al obtained the following combined estimate see [13 Theorem 5]: P B P A F + P B P A F max A B F A EB F + B EA F min A B 110 In particular if s = r then P B P A F + P B P A F 4 A B A + B F A EB F + B EA F A + B 111 Although the estimate 13b has improved 11b the upper bound in 13b is still too large in certain cases We now give a simple example Let ε A = and B = 1+ε 0 ε where 0 < ε < 1 In this example we have that P B P A F 1 Direct computation yields that the upper bound in 13b is which is very large when 0 < ε 1 Alternatively ε 1+ε if we apply 18 to the above example the upper bound for P B P A 99 F is which 1+ε is larger than 31 5 P B P A F for any 0 < ε < 1 Clearly under the setting of 11 the upper bound in 18 is smaller than that in 13b In [13] Li et al also demonstrated the superiority of 18 compared with 13b via some examples However it is difficult to compare 18 with 13b theoretically Actually the estimate 18 is not always sharper than 13b which can be illustrated by the following example Let 1 A = and B = Direct calculations yield that the upper bounds in 13b and 18 are 5 4 and respectively Therefore there is no determined relationship between the estimates 13b and 18 Motivated by the above observations we revisit the perturbation of an L -orthogonal projection under the Frobenius norm In this paper we establish new upper bounds for P B P A F which include the counterparts of 13b 14b 18 and 19 Some new combined upper bounds for P B P A F and P B P A F are also derived which contain the counterparts of and 111 Theoretical analysis shows that our upper bounds are sharper than these existing bounds To characterize the variation of an L -orthogonal projection after perturbation we also develop novel lower bounds for P B P A F and combined lower bounds for P B P A F and P B P A F Furthermore we give two numerical examples to illustrate the performances of our theoretical results The rest of this paper is organized as follows In section we introduce a trace inequality and several identities on P B P A F and P B P A F In section 3 we present some new perturbation bounds for P B P A F and P B P A F which involve upper bounds lower bounds combined upper bounds and combined lower bounds In section 4 we exhibit some numerical comparisons between the new perturbation bounds and the existing ones Finally some conclusions are given in section 5 3

4 Preliminaries In this section we introduce a useful trace inequality and several important identities on the deviations P B P A F and P B P A F Let M C n n and N C n n be Hermitian matrices The following lemma provides an interesting estimate for the trace of M N see eg [10 Theorem 4353] which depends on the eigenvalues of M and N Lemma 1 Let λ i n i=1 and µ i n i=1 be the spectra of the Hermitian matrices M Cn n and N C n n respectively where λ 1 λ n and µ 1 µ n Then n λ i µ n i+1 trmn i=1 n λ i µ i 1 i=1 Based on the singular value decomposition SVD of a matrix we can derive some identities on P B P A F and P B P A F Let A Cm n r and B C m n s have the following SVDs: Σ A = U V = U 1 Σ 1 V1 a B = Ũ Σ Ṽ = Ũ1 Σ 1 Ṽ 1 b where U = U 1 U U m V = V 1 V U n Ũ = Ũ1 Ũ U m Ṽ = Ṽ1 Ṽ U n U 1 C m r V 1 C n r Ũ1 C m s Ṽ1 C n s Σ 1 = diagσ 1 σ r Σ 1 = diag σ 1 σ s σ 1 σ r > 0 and σ 1 σ s > 0 In view of a and b the Moore Penrose inverses A and B can be explicitly expressed as follows: Σ 1 A = V Σ 1 B = Ṽ Ũ = On the basis of a b 3a and 3b we have U = V 1 Σ 1 1 U 1 3a 1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 Ũ1 3b P A = AA = U 1 U 1 P A = A A = V 1 V 1 P B = BB = Ũ1Ũ 1 P B = B B = Ṽ1Ṽ 1 The following lemma is the foundation of our analysis see [ Lemma 3] which gives the explicit expressions for P B P A F and P B P A F Lemma Let A C m n r Then and B C m n s have the SVDs a and b respectively P B P A F = 1 U F + U 1 F 4a P B P A F = Ṽ 1 V F + Ṽ V 1 F 4b 4

5 In particular if s = r then P B P A F = 1 U F = U 1 F 5a P B P A F = Ṽ 1 V F = Ṽ V 1 F 5b Using Lemma we can obtain the following identities on P B P A F and P B P A F which do not involve the auxiliary matrices U i Ũi V i and Ṽi i = 1 Lemma 3 Let A C m n r B C m n and E = B A Then s P B P A F = EA F + EB F BB EA F AA EB F P B P A F = A E F + B E F A EB B F B EA A F 6a 6b In particular if s = r then P B P A F = EA F BB EA F = EB F AA EB F 7a P B P A F = A E F A EB B F = B E F B EA A F 7b Proof By a b 3a and 3b we have Σ1 Ũ EA Ṽ1 U = V 1Σ 1 1 Ũ 1 U Ũ U Σ1 Ũ BB EA Ṽ1 U = V 1Σ 1 1 Ũ 1 U Hence Using 8 and 9 we obtain EA F = Σ 1 Ṽ 1 V 1 Σ 1 1 Ũ 1 U 1 F + U 1 F 8 BB EA F = Σ 1 Ṽ 1 V 1 Σ 1 1 Ũ 1 U 1 F 9 U 1 F = EA F BB EA F 10 Similarly we have U EB U1 Ũ = Ũ1 Σ 1 V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ U Ũ U AA EB U1 Ũ = Ũ1 Σ 1 V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ Thus EB F = U1 Ũ1 Σ 1 V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 F + Ũ 1 U F 11 AA EB F = U1 Ũ1 Σ 1 V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 F 1 5

6 From 11 and 1 we have 1 U F = EB F AA EB F 13 The identity 6a then follows by combining 4a 10 and 13 In particular if s = r using 5a 10 and 13 we can obtain the identity 7a Replacing A and B in 6a by A and B respectively we can derive the identity 6b Analogously the identity 7b can be deduced from 7a This completes the proof In view of Lemma 3 we can easily get the following corollary Corollary 1 Let A C m n r In particular if s = r then B C m n and Ẽ = B A Then s P B P A F = AẼ F + BẼ F AẼBB F BẼAA F P B P A F = ẼA F + ẼB F B BẼA F A AẼB F P B P A F = AẼ F AẼBB F = B Ẽ F BẼAA F P B P A F = ẼA F B BẼA F = ẼB F A AẼB F Remark 1 In what follows we will apply Lemmas and 3 to establish the perturbation bounds for an L -orthogonal projection the corresponding results based on Corollary 1 can be derived in a similar manner Moreover the uncombined perturbation bounds for P B P A F will be omitted which can be directly deduced from that for P B P A F 3 Main results In this section we present new upper and lower bounds for P B P A F Some novel combined upper and lower bounds for P B P A F and P B P A F are also developed We first give an interesting estimate for P B P A F which depends only on the ranks of A and B Theorem 31 Let A C m n r i If s + r m then ii If s + r > m then and B C m n s s r P B P A F s + r 31 s r P B P A F m s r 3 Proof Observe first that P B P A F = trp B + P A P B P A P A P B = s + r trp B P A If s + r m by 1 we have 0 trp B P A mins r 6

7 which yields s r P B P A F s + r On the other hand if s + r > m then s + r m trp B P A mins r which leads to This completes the proof s r P B P A F m s r Remark 31 According to the lower bounds in 31 and 3 we deduce that a necessary condition for lim B A P B = P A B is viewed as a variable is that rankb = ranka always holds when B tends to A Indeed it is also a sufficient condition for lim B A P B = P A see [19 0] Remark 3 Under the setting of the example in 11 we have that m = r = 1 and s = hence s + r > m Applying 3 to the example we obtain that the upper and lower bounds for P B P A F are both 1 In what follows we are devoted to developing some perturbation bounds involving the matrices E = B A and Ẽ = B A 31 Upper bounds In this subsection we present several new upper bounds for P B P A F which have improved the existing results On the basis of 6a and 7a we can get the following estimates for P B P A F which are sharper than 13b and 14b Theorem 3 Let A C m n r Then In particular if s = r then B C m n s E = B A and Ẽ = B A Define α 1 := max B EA F B α := max A EB F A BẼA F A AẼB F B P B P A F EA F + EB F α 1 α 33 P B P A F min EA F α 1 EB F α 34 Proof Using a b 3a and 3b we obtain Ṽ 1 V 1 Σ 1 Ṽ B EA U = V A EB Ũ = 1 1 Σ 1 Ũ1 U 1 U 1 Ũ1 V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ Σ 1 7

8 Then B EA F = Ṽ 1 V 1 Σ Σ 1 Ũ1 U 1 F 35 A EB F = Σ 1 1 U 1 Ũ1 V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 F 36 According to and 36 we deduce that Analogously we have Hence BB EA F = Σ 1 Ṽ 1 V 1 Σ 1 1 AA EB F = Σ 1 Σ 1 1 U 1 Ũ1 V1 1 Σ 1 Ũ1 U 1 F B EA F B 37 Ṽ1 Σ 1 Ũ Ũ BẼAV = 1 U 1 Σ 1 Σ 1 Ṽ1 V U AẼBṼ = Σ 1 V1 Ṽ1 U1 Ũ1 Σ From and 310 we deduce that 1 F A EB F A 38 BẼA F = Σ 1 Ṽ 1 V 1 Ũ 1 U 1 Σ 1 F 39 AẼB F = U 1 Ũ1 Σ 1 Σ 1 V 1 Ṽ1 F 310 BB EA F = Σ 1 Ṽ1 V 1 Ũ 1 U 1 Σ 1 Σ 1 1 F BẼA F A 311 AA EB F = U1 Ũ1 Σ 1 Σ 1 V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 F AẼB F B 31 Based on and 31 we arrive at BB EA F max B EA F B AA EB F max A EB F A BẼA F A AẼB F B The inequality 33 then follows by using 6a 313 and 314 In particular if s = r using 7a 313 and 314 we can derive the inequality 34 In view of 4a and 5a we can obtain the following theorem Theorem 33 Let A C m n r B C m n s E = B A and Ẽ = B A Define β 1 := min A F BB E F A Ẽ F ẼBB F β := min B F AA E F B Ẽ F ẼAA F 8

9 Then In particular if s = r then P B P A F β 1 + β 315 P B P A F min β 1 β 316 Proof By a b 3a and 3b we have U EṼ = U1 Ũ1 Σ 1 Σ 1 V1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 V1 Ṽ U Ũ1 Σ 317 U AA EṼ = U1 Ũ1 Σ 1 Σ 1 V1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 V1 Ṽ 318 From 317 and 318 we deduce that Σ 1 Ũ 1 U F = F AA E F Due to Ũ 1 U F B Σ 1 Ũ1 U F it follows that In addition we have 1 U F B F AA E F Ṽ ẼU = By 319 and 30 we have Because 1 U F B Thus Σ 1 1 Ṽ ẼAA U = Σ 1 1 Ũ 1 U 1 Ṽ 1 V 1Σ 1 1 Ṽ V 1Σ 1 Σ 1 1 Ũ 1 U 1 Ṽ 1 V 1Σ 1 Ṽ V 1Σ 1 Ũ 1 U Σ 1 1 Ũ1 U F = Ẽ F ẼAA F 1 Σ 1 Ũ1 U F it follows that 1 U F B Ẽ F ẼAA F Ũ 1 U F min B F AA E F B Ẽ F ẼAA F 31 Similarly we can derive Σ1 Ũ Ṽ1 EV = V 1 Ũ 1 U 1Σ 1 Σ1 Ṽ1 V Ũ U 3 1Σ Σ1 Ũ BB Ṽ1 EV = V 1 Ũ 1 U 1Σ 1 Σ1 Ṽ1 V 33 V ẼŨ = V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 Σ 1 1 U 1 Ũ1 Σ 1 1 U 1 Ũ V 1 34 Ṽ1 Σ V ẼBB Ũ = V 1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 1 Σ 1 1 U 1 Ũ V 1 35 Ṽ1 Σ 9

10 Using 3 and 33 we obtain U 1 F A U 1 Σ 1 F = A F BB E F In light of 34 and 35 we have U 1 F A U 1 Σ 1 1 F = A Ẽ F ẼBB F Hence Ũ U 1 F min A F BB E F A Ẽ F ẼBB F 36 On the basis of 4a 31 and 36 we conclude that the inequality 315 holds In particular if s = r using 5a 31 and 36 we can get the inequality 316 Remark 33 By 318 we have AA E F = Σ 1 Σ 1 1 U 1 Ũ1 Σ 1 V1 Ṽ1 F + Σ 1 V1 Ṽ F A E F A where we have used the fact that A E F = Σ 1 1 U 1 Ũ1 Σ 1 V 1 Ṽ1 F + V 1 Ṽ F Analogously we have BB E F B E F B Then β 1 A F B E F B and β B F A E F A Therefore the estimates 315 and 316 are sharper than 18 and 19 respectively The following corollary provides an alternative version of Theorem 33 Corollary 31 Let A C m n r B C m n s E = B A and Ẽ = B A Define γ 1 := min A EA A F BẼA F A A AẼ F A EB F γ := min B EB B F AẼB F B B BẼ F B EA F Then In particular if s = r then P B P A F γ 1 + γ 37 P B P A F min γ 1 γ 38 Proof By a b 3a and 3b we have U EB BṼ = U 1 Ũ1 Σ 1 Σ 1 V Ṽ B BẼU = Σ Ṽ U Ũ1 Σ 39 Ũ1 U 1 Ṽ 1 V 1Σ 1 1 Σ 1 1 Ũ1 U

11 According to 310 and 39 we deduce that Using 35 and 330 we get Hence 1 U F min 1 U F B Σ 1 Ũ 1 U F = B EB B F AẼB F Ũ 1 U F B Σ 1 1 Ũ1 U F = B B BẼ F B EA F B EB B F AẼB F B B BẼ F B EA F 331 Similarly we have Σ1 Ũ EA Ṽ1 AV = V 1 Ũ 1 U 1Σ Ũ U 33 1Σ V A AẼŨ = V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 Σ 1 1 U 1 Ũ1 Σ 1 1 U 1 Ũ 333 Using 39 and 33 we obtain U 1 F A U 1 Σ 1 F = A EA A F BẼA F In view of 36 and 333 we have Thus U 1 F min U 1 F A U 1 Σ 1 1 F = A A AẼ F A EB F A EA A F BẼA F A A AẼ F A EB F 334 The rest of the proof is similar to Theorem 33 3 Lower bounds As is well known the L -orthogonal projection onto the column space of a matrix is not necessarily a continuous function of the entries of the matrix [19 0] In this subsection we attempt to establish some novel lower bounds to characterize the deviation P B P A F The first theorem is based on the identities 6a and 7a Theorem 34 Let A C m n r Then In particular if s = r then B C m n E = B A and Ẽ = B A Define s α 1 := min B B EA F A BẼA F α := min A A EB F B AẼB F P B P A F EA F + EB F α 1 α 335 P B P A F max EA F α 1 EB F α

12 Proof Similarly to the proof of Theorem 3 we have Therefore BB EA F = Σ 1 Ṽ 1 V 1 Σ Σ 1 Ũ1 U 1 F B B EA F BB EA F = Σ 1 Ṽ 1 V 1 Ũ 1 U 1 Σ 1 Σ 1 1 F A BẼA F AA EB F = Σ 1 Σ 1 1 U 1 Ũ1 V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 F A A EB F AA EB F = U1 Ũ1 Σ 1 Σ 1 V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 F B AẼB F BB EA F min B B EA F A BẼA F AA EB F min A A EB F B AẼB F Using 6a and 7a we can get the desired results immediately The following theorem is derived by bounding 1 U F and U 1 F directly Theorem 35 Let A C m n r Then In particular if s = r then B C m n s E = B A and Ẽ = B A Define β 1 := max F BB E F A β := max F AA E F B Proof According to the proof of Theorem 33 we have Thus Ẽ F ẼBB F A Ẽ F ẼAA F B P B P A F β 1 + β 337 P B P A F max β 1 β 338 Ũ 1 U F Σ 1 Ũ1 U F B Ũ 1 U 1 Σ 1 Ũ1 F U F B U 1 F U 1Σ 1 F A U 1 F U 1Σ 1 1 F A 1 U F max F AA E F B U 1 F max F BB E F A = F AA E F B = Ẽ F ẼAA F B = F BB E F A = Ẽ F ẼBB F A Ẽ F ẼAA F B Ẽ F ẼBB F A Using 4a and 5a we can obtain the estimates 337 and 338 1

13 Using the similar argument as in Corollary 31 we can get the following corollary which is an alternative version of Theorem 35 Corollary 3 Let A C m n r Then In particular if s = r then B C m n s E = B A and Ẽ = B A Define γ 1 := max EA A F BẼA F A γ := max EB B F AẼB F B 33 Combined upper bounds A AẼ F A EB F A B BẼ F B EA F B P B P A F γ 1 + γ 339 P B P A F max γ 1 γ 340 In this subsection we present some new combined upper bounds for the deviations P B P A F and P B P A F which are established in a parameterized manner The sharper counterparts of the existing results can be acquired by taking some special parameters For simplicity we first define t I M t := M + 1 t M M C m n \0 t [0 1] Theorem 36 Let A C m n r B C m n s E = B A and Ẽ = B A For any parameters λ [0 1] and µ [0 1] we define Then Φλ := λ F AẼB F + 1 λ Ẽ F B EA F Ψµ := µ F BẼA F + 1 µ Ẽ F A EB F P B P A IA λ F + min I B λ I Bµ P B P A F Φλ I A µ I B λ + Ψµ I A µ 341 P B P A F + P B P A Φλ + Ψµ F min I A λ I B λ I A µ I B µ 34 In particular if s = r then Proof Using 317 and 310 we obtain I B λ P B P A F + I A λ P B P A F Φλ 343 I A µ P B P A F + I B µ P B P A F Ψµ 344 F = U 1 Ũ1 Σ 1 Σ 1 V 1 Ṽ1 F + Σ 1 V 1 Ṽ F + U Ũ1 Σ 1 F AẼB F + V 1 Ṽ F A + U Ũ1 F B 13

14 which gives By 3 and 39 we have 1 U F B + Ṽ V 1 F A F AẼB F 345 F = Σ 1 Ṽ 1 V 1 Ũ 1 U 1 Σ 1 F + Σ 1 Ṽ 1 V F + U 1 Σ 1 F BẼA F + Ṽ 1 V F B + U 1 F A which yields Ũ U 1 F A + Ṽ 1 V F B F BẼA F 346 Similarly based on and 36 we can derive 1 U F B U 1 F A From 345 and 347 we deduce that In light of 346 and 348 we have + Ṽ V 1 F A + Ṽ 1 V F B Ẽ F B EA F 347 Ẽ F A EB F 348 I B λ 1 U F + I A λ Ṽ V 1 F Φλ 349 I A µ U 1 F + I B µ Ṽ 1 V F Ψµ 350 Combining 4a 4b 349 and 350 we can obtain the estimates 341 and 34 In particular if s = r using 5a 5b 349 and 350 we can arrive at the estimates 343 and 344 Under the assumptions of Theorem 36 taking λ = µ = 1 we can get the following corollary Corollary 33 Let A C m n r A P B P A F + min B C m n s E = B A and Ẽ = B A Then P B P A F B B A A + B F B AẼB F A BẼA F 351 P B P A F + P B P A F max A B F AẼB F BẼA F 35 In particular if s = r then A P B P A F + min P B P A F B B A min A F A BẼA F B F B AẼB F 353 P B P A F + P B P A F A B A + B F AẼB F BẼA F

15 Remark 34 Evidently the estimates and 354 are sharper than and 17 respectively In addition because AẼB F = U1 Ũ1 Σ 1 V1 1 Ṽ1 Σ 1 Σ 1 F AA EB F B BẼA F = Σ 1 Ṽ 1 V 1 Σ 1 1 Ũ 1 U 1 Σ 1 F BB EA F A A EB F A B B EA F A B we conclude that 35 and 354 are sharper than 110 and 111 respectively 34 Combined lower bounds In this subsection we develop some novel combined lower bounds for the deviations P B P A F and P B P A F For simplicity we define J M t := t M + 1 t M M C m n \0 t [0 1] Theorem 37 Let A C m n r B C m n s E = B A and Ẽ = B A Let Φξ and Ψη be defined as in Theorem 36 where ξ [0 1] and η [0 1] Then P B P A JA ξ F + max J B ξ J Bη P B P A F Φξ J A η J B ξ + Ψη J A η 355 P B P A F + P B P A Φξ + Ψη F max 356 J A ξ J B ξ J A η J B η In particular if s = r then J B ξ P B P A F + J A ξ P B P A F Φξ 357 J A η P B P A F + J B η P B P A F Ψη 358 Proof According to the proof of Theorem 36 we deduce that B 1 U F + A Ṽ V 1 F F AẼB F 359 A U 1 F + B Ṽ 1 V F F BẼA F 360 B 1 U F + A Ṽ V 1 F Ẽ F B EA F 361 A U 1 F + B Ṽ 1 V F Ẽ F A EB F 36 Based on and 36 we can obtain The rest of the proof is similar to Theorem 36 J B ξ 1 U F + J A ξ Ṽ V 1 F Φξ J A η U 1 F + J B η Ṽ 1 V F Ψη Choosing ξ = η = 0 we can acquire the following corollary 15

16 Corollary 34 Let A C m n r A P B P A F + max B C m n s E = B A and Ẽ = B A Then B B A P B P A F 1 A + 1 B Ẽ F A EB F A B EA F B 363 P B P A F + P B P A F Ẽ F A EB F B EA F max A B 364 In particular if s = r then A P B P A F + max B B A P B P A F Ẽ F max B EA F B Ẽ F A EB F A 365 P B P A F + P B P A F A + B Ẽ F A EB F B EA F Numerical experiments In section 3 we have derived some new perturbation bounds for the L -orthogonal projection onto the column space of a matrix and compared the new results with the existing ones theoretically In this section we give two examples to illustrate the differences between the new perturbation bounds and the existing ones In order to show the numerical performance intuitively we plot some figures of the bounds The first one is actually the example in 11 which is used to illustrate the performances of the new bounds developed in subsections 31 and 3 Example 41 Let where 1 10 < ε < 1 A = and B = ε 1+ε 0 ε 0 10 In this example it is easy to see that P B P A 1 F 1 for any 10 < ε < 1 Under the setting of Example 41 the lower bounds in 335 and 337 are listed in Table 1 Estimate Lower bound for P B P A F Table 1: The lower bounds in 335 and 337 Furthermore the upper bounds in 13b and 315 are listed in Table and the numerical behaviors of these upper bounds are shown in Figure 1 16

17 Estimate Upper bound for P B P A F 13b ε 1+ε ε Table : The upper bounds in 13b and Existing bound 13b New bound Existing bound 18 New bound Upper bound Upper bound " " Figure 1: Numerical comparison of the upper bounds in 13b and 33 left; numerical comparison of the upper bounds in 18 and 315 right From Tables 1 and we see that the perturbation bounds in and 315 have attained the exact value 1 Moreover Figure 1 shows that the upper bound in 13b has deviated the exact value seriously especially when ε is small and the upper bound in 18 is not very tight We now give the second example which is used to illustrate the performances of the combined bounds established in subsections 33 and 34 Example 4 Let where 1 10 < ε < 1 A = and B = ε 1+ε 0 0 ε We first remark that the combined lower bounds in 363 and 364 will attain the exact values under the setting of Example 4 that is both 363 and 364 hold as equalities We next focus on the performances of the combined upper bounds in 351 and 35 Define A C 1 := P B P A F + min B B A C := P B P A F + P B P A F P B P A F 17

18 Direct calculations yield that C 1 = 1 + ε and C = Under the setting of Example 4 the combined upper bounds for C 1 in 15 and 351 are given in Table 3 and the combined upper bounds for C in 110 and 35 are listed in Table 4 In addition the numerical behaviors of these combined upper bounds are shown in Figure Estimate Combined upper bound for C ε ε 1 ε 1+ε ε Table 3: The combined upper bounds in 15 and 351 Estimate Combined upper bound for C ε 1 ε ε 1+ε ε 35 Table 4: The combined upper bounds in 110 and Existing bound 15 New bound Existing bound 110 New bound Combined upper bound Combined upper bound " " Figure : Numerical comparison of the combined upper bounds in 15 and 351 left; numerical comparison of the combined upper bounds in 110 and 35 right From Tables 3 and 4 we observe that the combined upper bounds in 351 and 35 have attained the exact values C 1 and C respectively Moreover Figure displays that the existing bounds 15 and 110 have deviated the corresponding exact values seriously when ε is small 5 Conclusions In this paper we have established some new characterizations for the perturbation of an L - orthogonal projection which involve upper bounds lower bounds combined upper bounds and 18

19 combined lower bounds Theoretical analysis suggests that our upper and combined upper bounds are sharper than the existing ones Furthermore the numerical examples in section 4 have illustrated the superiorities of our results Acknowledgments The author is grateful to Professor Chen-Song Zhang for his helpful suggestions This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China Grant No 016YFB the Major Research Plan of National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant Nos and the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of CAS References [1] M M Betcke and H Voss Restarting iterative projection methods for Hermitian nonlinear eigenvalue problems with minmax property Numer Math 135: [] Y Chen X Chen and W Li On perturbation bounds for orthogonal projections Numer Algor 73: [3] E S Coakley V Rokhlin and M Tygert A fast randomized algorithm for orthogonal projection SIAM J Sci Comput 33: [4] P Drineas M W Mahoney S Muthukrishnan and T Sarlós Faster least squares approximation Numer Math 117: [5] R D Fierro and J R Bunch Orthogonal projection and total least squares Numer Linear Algebra Appl : [6] R D Fierro and J R Bunch Perturbation theory for orthogonal projection methods with applications to least squares and total least squares Linear Algebra Appl 34: [7] G H Golub and C F Van Loan Matrix Computations The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore 4th edition 013 [8] J F Grcar Spectral condition numbers of orthogonal projections and full rank linear least squares residuals SIAM J Matrix Anal Appl 31: [9] M E Hochstenbach and L Reichel Subspace-restricted singular value decompositions for linear discrete ill-posed problems J Comput Appl Math 35: [10] R A Horn and C R Johnson Matrix Analysis Cambridge University Press New York nd edition 013 [11] Z Jia Composite orthogonal projection methods for large matrix eigenproblems Sci China Ser A 4:

20 [1] B Li W Li and L Cui New bounds for perturbation of the orthogonal projection Calcolo 50: [13] W Li Y Chen S Vong and Q Luo Some refined bounds for the perturbation of the orthogonal projection and the generalized inverse Numer Algor online 018 [14] S Morigi L Reichel and F Sgallari A truncated projected SVD method for linear discrete ill-posed problems Numer Algor 43: [15] S Morigi L Reichel and F Sgallari Orthogonal projection regularization operators Numer Algor 44: [16] S Nelson and M Neumann Generalizations of the projection method with applications to SOR theory for Hermitian positive semidefinite linear systems Numer Math 51: [17] G W Stewart On the perturbation of pseudo-inverses projections and linear least squares problems SIAM Rev 19: [18] G W Stewart and J-G Sun Matrix Perturbation Theory Academic Press New York 1990 [19] J-G Sun The stability of orthogonal projections J Grad Sch 1: in Chinese [0] J-G Sun Matrix Perturbation Analysis Science Press Beijing nd edition 001 in Chinese 0