5

Let $A$ be an $n \times n$ positive definite matrix. In this answer (based on a question I previously asked), a lower bound is given on $\text{tr}[A]$ as a function of $\text{tr}[A^{-1}]$:

$$\text{tr}[A] \geq \dfrac{n^2}{\text{tr}[A^{-1}]}$$

Is there also an upper bound? I can think of an upper bound on the trace as a function of the maximum eigenvalue of $A$. For example,

$$ \text{tr}[A] \leq n \lambda_{\max}[A] $$

However, I can't think of an upper bound as a function of the trace of the inverse of $A$.

Ralff
  • 1,601
  • The trace is the sum of the eigenvalues, and the trace of the inverse would thus be the sum of the inverse of the eigenvalues. And since SPD then all these eigenvalues are positive. So this provides an algebraic relationship, though perhaps murkier than you would like. – Christopher A. Wong Jul 08 '21 at 19:09
  • @ChristopherA.Wong Thanks for the suggestion! I tried looking at the sum of the eigenvalues, but I just ended up with the inequality given in my second equation, which is not a function of $\text{tr}[A^{-1}]$. Or, similar, looking at this results in a lower bound as in the first equation instead of an upper bound. – Ralff Jul 08 '21 at 19:13
  • Well, since the trace of $A$ and trace of $A^{-1}$ are precisely equal to those quantities, then any possible relationship would have to be equivalent to a relationship between $\lambda_1 + \ldots + \lambda_n$ and $1/\lambda_1 + \ldots + 1/\lambda_n$. – Christopher A. Wong Jul 08 '21 at 19:15

2 Answers2

10

The relationship between the trace of $A$ and the trace of $A^{-1}$ must depend on additional parameters other than $n$. Consider the example: $$ A = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & \delta \end{bmatrix}, $$ where $\delta > 0$ is small. We observe that $\mathrm{tr}(A) = 1 + \delta$, $\mathrm{tr}(A^{-1}) = 1 + 1/\delta$, so $\mathrm{tr}(A)$ is nearly constant for small $\delta$ while $\mathrm{tr}(A^{-1})$ blows up.

The missing ingredient needed is the condition number. Generally speaking, the relationship between $A$ and $A^{-1}$ can be often characterized by the value of the condition number $\kappa$. For a general $n \times n$ matrix $A$, the condition number is defined by $$ \kappa(A) = \frac{\sigma_{max}(A)}{\sigma_{min}(A)}, $$ where $\sigma_{max}$ and $\sigma_{min}$ are the largest and smallest singular values. If $A$ is invertible then this is equal to $\|A\| \|A^{-1}\|$. For an SPD matrix, this is equivalent to $\lambda_{max}(A)/\lambda_{min}(A)$.

Suppose $\kappa$ is large. Then, rescaling $A$ to have $\sigma_{max} = 1$, this means that $A$ has small norm but $A^{-1}$ has a large norm. This means that $A$ has a small trace, yet $A^{-1}$ has a large trace. Conversely, if $\kappa$ is close to $1$, then $A$ and $A^{-1}$ has similar norms, and their traces are also similar.

Going back to our original example, $\kappa(A) = 1/\delta$. Because the condition number of this matrix is large, then the trace of $A$ is close to $1$ while the trace of $A^{-1}$ is very large.

Now we can address your question. We have \begin{align} \mathrm{tr}(A) & = \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 + \ldots + \lambda_n \\ \mathrm{tr}(A^{-1}) & = \frac{1}{\lambda_1} + \frac{1}{\lambda_2} + \ldots + \frac{1}{\lambda_n}. \end{align}

Assuming $\lambda_1 \geq \ldots \geq \lambda_n > 0$, and utilizing the inequalities $$ \frac{\lambda_1}{\kappa} \leq \lambda_j \le \lambda_n \kappa, $$ we have \begin{align} \mathrm{tr}(A) \mathrm{tr}(A^{-1}) & \ge \left( \frac{ n \lambda_1}{\kappa} \right) \left( \frac{n}{\kappa \lambda_n} \right) = \frac{n^2}{\kappa}, \\ \mathrm{tr}(A) \mathrm{tr}(A^{-1}) & \le \left(n \lambda_n \kappa \right) \left( \frac{n \kappa}{ \lambda_1} \right) = n^2 \kappa. \end{align} In summary we have the inequalities $$ \boxed{\frac{n^2}{\kappa} \le \mathrm{tr}(A) \mathrm{tr}(A^{-1}) \le n^2 \kappa} $$ which can be converted into lower and upper bounds on the trace of $A$, in terms of the trace of $A^{-1}$, the condition number $\kappa$, and $n$.

6

Unless $n=1$, there is no such upper bound. For example, let $\epsilon>0$ and $$ A=\pmatrix{1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}\\ &1+\epsilon}. $$ Then $\operatorname{tr}(A^{-1})=1$ but $\operatorname{tr}(A)\to\infty$ as $\epsilon$ approaches $0$ or infinity.

user1551
  • 149,263