Distance of a system from a nearest singular descriptor system
having impulsive initial-conditions
Ashish Kothyari, Rachel K. Kalaimani and Madhu N. Belur
Abstract— This paper considers a distance problem: given a
first order system, what is the distance to a nearest singular
descriptor system that has impulsive initial conditions. The link
between impulsive initial conditions and zeros at infinity is well-
known. This paper provides bounds on the minimum perturbation
required for a pair of matrices E and A such that the perturbed
matrix pencil has one or more zeros at infinity. We provide closed
form solutions for the minimum value for rank one perturbations
and also compare this minimum value with what is obtained by
the Structured Low Rank Approximation (SLRA) tool and other
estimating methods.
I. I NTRODUCTION
When dealing with Differential Algebraic Equations (DAE)
of first order, it is known that existence of impulsive solutions
for certain initial conditions are linked to the presence of zeros
at infinity of the corresponding matrix pencil. Just like ‘gener-
ically’ a system is controllable, i.e. the set of uncontrollable
systems form a thin set, it is also easy to see that generically a
matrix pencil has no zeros at infinity. In other words, the set of
matrix pairs (E, A) such that the pencil (sE − A) has a zero
at infinity is a set of measure zero in the space of all constant
square matrices. This gives rise to the question, given a pair
of matrices E, A, what is the minimum amount of perturbation
required for the perturbed pair to have one or more zeros at
infinity. This paper deals with this question and provides closed
form solution for the case when the perturbation matrices ∆E
and ∆A are each of rank one. In this paper, we use the 2-norm
of the perturbation matrices to quantify the distance of a first
order DAE to having impulsive initial conditions.
The paper is organized as follows. The following section
contains preliminaries essential for this paper. Section II-E,
in particular, elaborates on the link between zeros at infinity
and impulsive solutions to DAEs. Section III contains the
problem formulation while the main results of this paper are
in Section IV. A few examples are investigated in Section V.
The well-known techniques involving Structured Low Rank
Approximation (SLRA) is reviewed in Section VI and this
section also contains a comparison of the values obtained using
the SLRA tool ([?]) with our closed form perturbation values
(for rank one). Some concluding remarks are in Section VII.
*This work was supported in part by SERB, DST and BRNS, India.
A. Kothyari, R. K. Kalaimani and M. N. Belur are in the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India. Email:
{ashkothyari, rachel, belur}@ee.iitb.ac.in
II. P RELIMINARIES
In this section we briefly explain about the concept of zeros
at infinity and its relation with the impulsive solutions in a
dynamical system. We then explain about SLRA.
A. Zeros at infinity
Zeros at infinity play a central role in this paper: we review
this from [?]. A polynomial matrix R(s) ∈ Rn×n [s] is said
to have a zero at a finite number λ ∈ C if rank R(λ) < n.
The number of finite zeros for R(s) is given by the degree of
determinant of R(s). Assume
R(s) = Rd sd + · · · + R1 s + R0 ,
where each Ri ∈ Rn×n and Rd 6= 0. For any λ ∈ C and
R ∈ Rn×n (s) there exist square rational matrices U and V
such that none of U and V have any poles or zeros at λ, and
U RV = diag ((s − λ)µi (λ) ), the integers µi (λ) nondecreasing
in i which takes the values from 1 to n. It turns out that the
integers µi (λ) depend only on R and not on the U and V
matrices. If µ1 < 0 we say that R has (one or more) poles
at λ, the negative µi (λ)’s are called the structural pole indices
at λ. If µq > 0 we say that R has (one or more) zeros at λ,
and the positive µi (λ)’s are called the structural zero indices at
λ. The zeros/poles and their structural indices of R at infinity
are defined as those of Q(s) at s = 0 with Q(s) := R(λ) and
λ = 1/s.
The total number of poles and zeros (counted with multiplic-
ity) of P at any λ ∈ C ∪ ∞ are respectively denoted by zR (λ)
and pR (λ) and defined by
X X
zR (λ) := µi (λ) and pR (λ) = − µi (λ) .
µi >0 µi <0
A more direct count of the zeros and poles at infinity can
be obtained by counting the ‘valuations’ at ∞ for a rational
matrix as elaborated in [?] and as explained briefly below. For
a rational p(s) ∈ R(s), with p = a/b where a and b are
polynomials, b 6= 0, define ν(p) the valuation at ∞ of p by
ν(p) := degree b − degree a and ν(0) := ∞. For a polynomial
matrix R ∈ Rn×m [s], define σi (R) as the minimum of the
valuations of all i × i minors of R for each 1 6 i 6 n.
The structural indices at infinity of the rational matrix R are
defined as ν1 (R) := σ1 (R), νj (R) := σj (R) − σj−1 (R) for
j = 2, . . . , n. This procedure gives some νi as positive integers,
some negative and others zero. The absolute values of the
negative ones are summed to give the poles at infinity of R
with multiplicity, while the positive ones are summed to give
the zeros at ∞ of R counted with multiplicity:
X X
z∞ (R) := νi and δM (R) := − νi .
νi >0 νi <0
The matrix R is said to have no zeros at infinity if all νi 6 0.
Note that δM (R) is also called the McMillan degree of the
polynomial matrix R: see [?].
We are interested in the matrix pencil sE − A which is a
polynomial matrix in first degree. We primarily deal with matrix
pencils which are square and nonsingular as a polynomial
matrix: we define them as ‘regular pencil’. A matrix pencil
sE − A, with E, A ∈ Rn×n is called a regular pencil if
det(sE − A) 6 ≡0. Note that assuming regularity of a pencil
implies that E and A are square. A pencil that is not regular
is called singular. A necessary and sufficient condition for the
pencil to not have zeros at infinity is given by the following
proposition.
Proposition 2.1: [?, Page 138] Suppose E, A ∈ Rn×n . The
matrix pencil sE − A has no zeros at infinity if and only if
deg det(sE − A) = rank E.
B. Generalized eigenvalues
Closely related to (and often confused with) the notion of
to zeros at infinity is that of generalized eigenvalues at infinity
of the pair (E, A). For a regular pencil sE − A, a complex
λ ∈ C such that rank (λE − A) < n is called a generalized
eigenvalue of the pair (E, A). The point λ = ∞ is said to be a
generalized eigenvalue if E is a singular matrix. Multiplicities
of the generalized eigenvalues are more easily defined using
the so-called generalized Schur form of a pencil (E, A). See
[?] and [?, Page 377].
Proposition 2.2: Suppose E, A ∈ Rn×n . Then there exist
unitary matrices U and V such that both U EV and U AV are
upper triangular. The generalized eigenvalues of the pair (E, A),
with (algebraic) multiplicity, are equal to aii /eii when eii is
nonzero for i = 1, . . . , n. If eii = 0 for some i, but aii 6= 0,
then these correspond to generalized eigenvalues at ∞ with that
(algebraic) multiplicity. For some i, both aii and eii are zero if
and only if the pencil is singular.
Unlike generalized eigenvalues at infinity for the pair sE −A,
which exist if and only if rank E < n, existence of zeros at
infinity requires conditions on both E and A. Further, general-
ized eigenvalues at infinity is a necessary condition for zero at
infinity. It is easy to see that deg det(sE − A) 6 rank E, and
the above proposition disallows fall of the degree of determinant
of sE − A (with respect to the rank of E) for the absence of
zeros at infinity of the pencil.
C. Singular values and the induced 2-norm
Singular values and orthogonal matrices play a key role
and hence we summarize the essential background in this
subsection. The 2-norm of a vector x ∈ Rn is the one we will
use throughout this paper: this is the usual Euclidean norm, and
same as the square root of the sum of all the entries’ squares.
Of course, for any orthogonal matrix U , the 2-norms of U x
and x are the same for each vector x ∈ Rn . Given a matrix
A ∈ Rn×n , there exist orthogonal matrices U and V such
that U AV = Σ, with Σ ∈ Rn×n such that Σ is a diagonal
matrix with its diagonal entries σ1 , . . . , σn ∈ R ordered such
that σ1 > σ2 > · · · > σn > 0. These diagonal entries are called
the singular values and the number of nonzero singular values
is also the rank of the matrix A. The maximum singular value
σ1 is also the induced 2-norm, defined as
kAxk2
kAk2 := sup .
x∈Rn \0 kxk2
Since there can be no ambiguity, we will use k · k2 to mean
either the vector 2-norm or the matrix (induced) 2-norm. For a
given matrix A, the Frobenius norm is defined as
v
u n X n
uX
kAkF := t a2ij .
i=1 j=1
Pn
Note that kAk2F = i=1 σi2 and, further, for any orthogonal
matrices U1 and U2 , the Frobenius norms kU1 AU2 kF = kAkF
and also the induced 2-norms kU1 AU2 k2 = kAk2 . Rank one
matrices have the same 2-norm and the Frobenius norm, and
so does the zero matrix.
D. Eigenvalue sensitivity: condition number
Since we deal with distance problems, and the generalized
eigenvalue at infinity plays a key role in this paper, we review
the notion of the condition number of an eigenvalue for a
matrix. It is known that the condition number of a simple
eigenvalue λ helps in an upper bound on the minimum per-
turbation required for the perturbed matrix to have a repeated
eigenvalue at λ: see [?] and [?]. More precisely, for a matrix
A ∈ Rn×n , with λ ∈ C a simple eigenvalue of A, define
s(λ) := |ylT yr |, where yl and yr ∈ Cn are unit 2-norm
left and right eigenvectors respectively. Then there exists an
∆A ∈ Rn×n such that A + ∆A has a repeated eigenvalue at λ
and
s(λ)
k∆A k2 6 p
1 − s(λ)2
The situation for the generalized eigenvalue problem has been
less investigated. We review the definition of the chordal
While the condition number of a generalized eigenvalue is
defined more reasonably through the ‘chordal metric’, this does
not give a very tight upper bound on the minimum perturbation
for a zero at infinity.
E. Impulsive solutions in dynamical systems
The zeros at infinity is more significant in systems theory as
it is closely related to the presence of impulsive solutions in
a dynamical system. Impulsive solutions are system responses Of course, the above definition applies for generalized eigen-
which involve the dirac delta distributions and/or its derivatives. values with multiplicity too. We first note that if (E, A) has a
The following proposition makes this precise. repeated generalized eigenvalue at ∞, then (E, A) is already
Proposition 2.3: [?] Consider an autonomous singular sys- arbitrarily close to having one or more zeros at infinity, if it
tem with state space representation E ẋ = Ax, where E, A ∈ already does not have one. This can be seen as follows.
Rn×n and E singular. The free response of the system has no ??
impulsive solutions for any initial condition x(0) ∈ Rn if and IV. M AIN RESULTS
only if deg det(sE − A) = rank E.
This section contains our main results. We first state the
The following result from [?, page 1076] helps in revealing
following result that states that if rank of E is at least two
the fast subsystem more directly and is very helpful for con-
less than n, then a regular pencil sE − A either already has
ceptual purposes. See also [?, page 28].
one or more zeros at infinity or requires an arbitrarily small
Proposition 2.4: Consider E, A ∈ Rn×n and suppose r =
perturbation to have such zeros at infinity.
deg det sE − A. Then there exist nonsingular matrices M1 and
Theorem 4.1: A regular matrix pencil (E, A) with E, A ∈
M2 such that
" # " # Rn×n and rank (E) 6 n − 2 is arbitrarily close to a regular
Ir 0 As 0 matrix pencil pair (E 0 , A0 ) having a zero at infinity. More
M1 EM2 = and M1 AM2 = , (1)
0 N 0 In−r precisely, for every  > 0, there exist perturbation matrices
where N is a nilpotent matrix. ∆E and ∆A such that
The significance of this result is that existence of zeros at •k∆E k22 + k∆A k22 6 , and
• s(E + ∆E ) − (A + ∆A ) has a zero at infinity.
infinity of the pair (E, A) is equivalent to the nilpotent matrix
N not being identically zero. Proof: Let the matrix E has rank n − 2. Perturbing E in the
following manner:
III. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
 
σ1 0 . . . . . . . . . 0
 
Having noted the significance of zeros at infinity in dynami-  0 σ2 . . . . . . . . . 0 
 .. .. .. .. 
 
cal systems theory, we formulate the problem that we study in ..
. . . ... . .
this paper.
 
.
 .. . . . . . . σ

n−2 0 0
Problem 3.1: Consider E and A ∈ Rn×n . Find the mini- 
.


 .. . . . . . . . . .
mum value of k∆E k2 +k∆E k2 such that s(E+∆E )−(A+∆A )   
 1 2
has one or more zeros at infinity. 0 ... ... ... ... 0
We also deal with the situations when only E or only A Here, 
are perturbed. Another important measure of the amount of 0
 . 
perturbation is the Frobenius norm. However, for a rank one h i  .. 
mtl = 0 ... 1 , mr =  
matrix, the Frobenius and 2-norms are the same: rank one −2 
 
matrices play a key role in our results. We provide explicit 1
closed form solutions for the case when ∆A and ∆E are each
hence,
of rank one. Of course, for the case when these need not be of
rank one, our values are upper bounds. h i
mtl Amr = an,1 . . . an,n−1 an,n mr
It is easy to see that
.
k∆E k22 + k∆A k22 6 k[∆E ∆A ]k22 . ⇒ ann 1 = an,n−1 2
1 an,n−1
As reviewed in Section II-E, it is often convenient to bring ⇒ =
2 an,n
the pair (E, A) to the standard form (1). However, nonsingular
Thus,
matrices M and N in general do change the 2-norm and the
1 = K × an,n−1 , 2 = K × an,n
Frobenius norms of E and A, and hence of the perturbation
matrices too. In this context, orthogonal/unitary matrices play a . So we can make as small as possible. Hence with a very small
more helpful role to bring the pair (E, A) to a convenient form value of K, we can have a zero at in finity in the perturbed
without loss of generality. We review two particular forms. The (E 0 , A) pair. If an,n−1 = 0, then 1 = 0 and 2 can be any
first one is of course the case where orthogonal matrices are arbitrary small value.
used to ensure E is diagonal, and in face, has its singular values If the matrix E has rank less than n − 2 hence with arbitrary
along the diagonal (sorted according to decreasing magnitude.) small perturbation the rank can be increased to n − 2 and the
The second one is the generalized Schur form: see [?]. same procedure can be adopted to get a zero at infinity.
 If these perturbations make the perturbed pair (E 0 , A) sin- E to be r. Consider M ∈ R(n−r)×n , full row rank such that
gular, then mr is in the null space of matrix A. Hence we can M E = 0. Then the following are equivalent:
perturbe A by some small  in the last column or the n − 1 1) dim(M A ker E) = n − rank E.
column such that mr is no longer in the nullspace of perturbed 2) There are no inadmissible initial conditions for this system.
A0 . Proof: Consider a singular value decomposition of any
Theorem 4.2: A singular matrix pencil (E, A) with E, A ∈ matrix, say P ∈ Rn×n , with rank r < n.
Rn×n is arbitrarily close to a regular matrix pencil having a " #
D 0
zero at infinity. In other words, for every  > 0, there exist UPV = Σ = (2)
0 0n−r
∆E , ∆A ∈ Rn×n such that
where U, V ∈ Rn×n are orthogonal matrices and D is a
• s(E + ∆E ) − (A + ∆A ) is regular,
nonsingular diagonal matrix of size r. Let U be partitioned
• k∆E k22 + k∆A k22 6 , and " #
U1
• s(E + ∆E ) − (A + ∆A ) has a zero at infinity. as , where U1 ∈ Rr×n and U2 ∈ R(n−r)×n . Let V be
U2
Proof: Let the nullspaces of matrix A and matrix E be NA and h i
partitioned as V1 V2 , where V1 ∈ Rn×r and V2 ∈
NE respectively. Hence for the matrix pencil to be singular:
Rn×(n−r) . We use this decomposition, in particular that the rows
NA ∩ NE 6= {0}. of U2 are a basis of ker P T and the columns of V2 are a basis
of ker P .
First assuming the rank of E = n − 1 and intersection is (1 ⇒ 2) : We assume dim(M A ker E) = n − r and
nonempty for the right null spaces of both E and A. show that sE − A has no zeros at infinity. Without loss of
 
0 generality, assume E is diagonal. Since the rank of E is r. Let
. A be partitioned in accordance with nonzero and zero diagonal
NE =  .. 

. entries in E into: " #
1 A1 A2
A3 A4
Hence the last column of matrix A is zero. Thus by perturbing
the last column of anywhere except at the last entry i.e an,n , where A1 ∈ Rr×r and A4 ∈ R(n−r)×(n−r) . From the partitions
the perturbed pair (E, A0 ) becomes regular which has a zero at of U and V we have A4 = U2 AV2 . The rows of U2 form a basis
infinity. Similar procedure can be adopted if left null spaces are for ker E T , i.e U2 = M . Similarly columns of V2 form a basis
involved. If both left and right null space of E are contained in for ker E. Therefore dim(M A ker E) = rank A4 . It is given
the nullspace of A, then the last row and column of A are both dim(M A ker E) = n − r. This implies A4 is nonsingular.
zero. Hence perturbing simultanously the last row and column Since A4 is nonsingular and because of the structure of E it is
of A and leaving an,n = 0 the perturbed pair (E, A0 ) becomes clear that deg det (sE −A) = r. Since U and V are orthogonal
regular and having a zero at infinity. matrices the deg det (sE − A) = deg det (sE − A). Hence
Let the rank of E has rank less than n − 1 and right nullspace we have deg det (sE − A) = r = rank E. Therefore from
of E and A has a nonzero intersection. Corresponding to any proposition (4.3) there are no inadmissible initial conditions.
one column of the right nullspace of E which also corresponds (2 ⇒ 1) : We assume that there are no inadmissible initial
to a certain column in A perturb E such that rank(E) = n − 1 conditions for the singular system. Hence from proposition (4.3)
and right nullspace of E 0 contains the same column. Pertubing we have deg det (sE − A) = rank E = r. Using arguments
that particular column of A by a small amount except at the exactly like the previous part we have that if deg det (sE − A)
position corresponding to the position of one in the transpose has to be r then A4 has to be nonsingular. This implies that
of left null space of E 0 we get a perturbed pair (E 0 , A0 ) which dim(M A ker E) = n − r.
is regular and having a zero at infinity. Same procedure can be Theorem 4.4: For a regular matrix pencil (E, A) with
adopted if intersection occurs for left nullspaces of E and A or E, A ∈ Rn×n and rank (E) = n−1, the values of the minimum
if the intersection is nonzero for both left and right nullspaces norm for rank 1 perturbations on either A or E such that
E and A. In the latter case the common element on the row (E, A + ∆A ) or (E + ∆E , A) has a zero at infinity are:
and column corresponding to selected right and left nullspace Case 1:Rank 1 perturbation only on A:
of E should not be perturbed.  
The following proposition characterize the condition for no σ1 0 ... 0
0 σ2 ... 0
zeros at infinity for the pencil in terms of the left and right null 
.

.. .. .. 
spaces of E acting on A.  ..
E :=  . . .

 
Lemma 4.3: Let E ẋ = Ax, with E, A ∈ Rn×n describe an 0 . . . σn−1 0
autonomous singular state space system. Assume the rank of 0 ... ... 0
and   Example
 2: 
a1,1 ... ... ... 9 0 0
 ... ... ... ...  E = 0 6 0
   
 
A := 
 ... ... ... ... 
 0 0 0
 
 ...

... ... ... 
 2.5200 19.3340 23.9000
... ... ... an,n A = 12.5000 22.3400 6.9000 
 

30.1240 22.5000 9.2300

Value is an.n .
Example 3: 
Case 2:Rank 1 perturbation only on E.

6 0 0
E = 0 5 0
   
σ1 0 ... 0
0 σ2 ... 0 0 0 0
   
. .. .. ..  6.9400 45.6200 −23.3000
 ..
E :=  . . .

A = 10.3200 −12.2000 4.0000 
 
 
0 ... σn−1 0
12.8000 30.5000 9.2300
0 ... ... 0
VI. SLRA: F ORMULATION AND C OMPARISON
and  
a1,1 ... ... a1,n In this section we will formulated the problem of SLRA.
 . .. 
 .. ... ... .  The we will relate the problem of SLRA with our problem and
 
 . ..  then compare our result with the solution obtained using the
 ..
A :=  ... ... . 

 . ..  SLRA package provided with [LRAIM] using different initial
 . 
 . ... ... .  conditions.
an,1 ... ... an,n
A. SLRA formulation
Value of the minimum norm of the Rank 1 perturbation on the
last column of E is Structured Low Rank Approximation deals with the construc-
an,n σ1 . . . σn−1 tion of a structured low rank matrix nearest to a given matrix.
p
(an,1 σ2 σ3 . . . σn−1 )2 + . . . + (an,n−1 σ1 σ2 . . . σn−2 )2 Problem Statement: Let ω ⊂ Rn×n be a subset of matrices
having a particular structure. Let X ∈ ω, then
.
Similarly a rank 1 perturbation on the last row of E will give minimize kX − Y kw
Y
us the following value:
subject to rank Y 6 r − l, l = 1 . . . r − 1,
an,n σ1 . . . σn−1
p Y ∈ω
(an,1 σ2 σ3 . . . σn−1 )2 + . . . + (an,n−1 σ1 σ2 . . . σn−2 )2
. where k · kw denotes the weighted 2-norm. We will be using
unweighted 2-norm for solving the problem. For the structure,
V. EXAMPLES we use the following key result to find a nearest matrix pencil
Example 1: having zeros at infinity.
Consider the case when Proposition 6.1: ([?, Theorem 1]) Let P (s) ∈ Rn×n (s) and,
   
6 0 0 6.9400 45.6200 −23.3000 P (s) = P0 + P1 s + ... + Pd sd
E = 0 5 0 , A = 10.3200 −12.2000 4.0000 
   
and
0 0 0 12.8000 30.5000 9.2300  
Pd ... P−i+1 P−i
Then the minimum value of the norm of the Rank 1 perturbation  .. .. 
 . . 
done on the last column of E is 1.4283. If perturbation is done Ti = 


Pd Pd−1 


on the last row of E then the minimum value of the norm of
0 Pd
the Rank 1 perturbation is 2.3279.
Example 1:  is a block Toeplitz matrix constructed from matrix coefficients

6 0 0 of A(s) and let
E = 0 5 0
 
ri = rank Ti − rank Ti−1 ..
0 0 0
 
16.9400 −1.3560 −3.5000 Polynomial matrix A(s) has no zeros at infinity if and only if
A = 20.3900 1.6900 14.0000 
 

40.2300 35.5000 9.2300 r0 = n.

 For our case P (s) = sE−A, and hence P0 := −A and P1 :=
E. This yields the above necessary and sufficient condition for Initial Rank 1 SLRA σn−1 (E) σ2n−1 (T0 )
p
Condi- perturbation 2
k∆A k + k∆E k2
the matrix pair (E, A) to have one or more zeros at infinity as p
" # tion 21 + 22 + ..
E A
rank − rank E 6 n − 1. Rini1 1.4283 5 5 0.2263
E 0
Rini2 1.4283 12.6741 5 0.2263
" #
E A Rini3 1.4283 42.9928 5 0.2263
Further, if rank E is n − 1, then the Toeplitz matrix
E 0 Default 1.4283 5.9389 5 0.2263
has rank at most 2n − 1. Thus if we find the nearest
" low
# rank For Example 3:
E 0 A0
matrix with the same Toeplitz structure, i.e. then σn−1 = 5, an,n = 9.2300, X = 1.4283, Y = 2.3279
E0 0
For Example 1:
E 0 − E =: ∆E and A0 − A =: ∆A .
σn−1 = 5, an,n = 9.2300 , X = 0.9452, Y = 3.2271
We next demonstrate perturbation proposed Using certain
For example 2:
examples, we will demonstrate that our perturbation is better
σn−1 = 5, an,n = 9.2300, X = 1.8363, Y = 3.1895
than answers that we get from SLRA.
VII. C ONCLUSION
B. Comparison
We related the minimum perturbation required to have ze-
In order to compare with the SLRA tool ([?]), we use the
ros at infinity for a pencil to various topics like repeated
following initial conditions in addition to the default. The values
generalized eigenvalues at infinity and Structured Low Rank
obtained with respect to these initial conditions is later below
Approximiation (SLRA). We provided explicit bounds for the
in the table.
" #
0 0 0 0 0 1.0000 case when perturbations are allowed for both E and A but the
Rini1 = perturbation matrices are each of at most rank one. We showed
0 0 0 0.0022 1.0000 0
" #
0 0 0 0 0 1.0000 using examples that the condition number defined through the
Rini2 = chordal metric gives only an upper bound which could be very
0.4472 0.4472 0.4472 0.4472 0.4472 0
conservative.
" #
1 0 0 0 0 0
Rini3 = Of course, when rank 2 or more perturbation matrices are
0 1 0 0 0 0
σ2n−1 (T0 ) σn−1 (E) Theorem 4.4 Initial SLRA allowed, then the minimum we obtained is an upper bound. A
(lower bound) (upper bound) Condition lower bound for this case is what we can get using the special
0.2227 5 0.9452 Default 8.3824
Example 1

case of the results on block Toeplitz structure for a polynomial

0.2227 5 0.9452 Rini1 5
0.2227 5 0.9452 Rini2 7.5471 matrix.
0.2227 5 0.9452 Rini3 8.8892
0.7446 6 1.8363 Default 15.0833
Example 2

0.7446 6 1.8363 Rini1 6

0.7446 6 1.8363 Rini2 17.8630
0.7446 6 1.8363 Rini3 33.6599
0.2263 5 1.4283 Default 5.9389
Example 3

0.2263 5 1.4283 Rini1 5

0.2263 5 1.4283 Rini2 12.6741
0.2263 5 1.4283 Rini3 42.9928

Initial Rank 1 SLRA σn−1 (E) σ2n−1 (T0 )

p
Condi- perturbation 2
k∆A k + k∆E k 2
p
tion 21 + 22 + ..
Rini1 0.9452 5 5 0.2227.
Rini2 0.9452 19C 7.5471 0.2227
Rini3 0.9452 21C 8.8892 0.2227
Default 0.9452 1 8.3824 0.2227

Initial Rank 1 SLRA σn−1 (E) σ2n−1 (T0 )

p
Condi- perturbation 2
k∆A k + k∆E k 2
p
tion 21 + 22 + ..
Rini1 2.4642 6 6 0.7446.
Rini2 2.4642 17.8630 6 0.7446
Rini3 2.4642 33.6599 6 0.7446