Proceedings of the 2003 International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation 2003
DOI: 10.1145/860854.860889
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the complexity of polynomial matrix computations

Abstract: We study the link between the complexity of polynomial matrix multiplication and the complexity of solving other basic linear algebra problems on polynomial matrices. By polynomial matrices we mean n × n matrices in K[x] of degree bounded by d, with K a commutative field. Under the straight-line program model we show that multiplication is reducible to the problem of computing the coefficient of degree d of the determinant. Conversely, we propose algorithms for minimal approximant computation and column reduct… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
234
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 113 publications
(235 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
234
0
Order By: Relevance
“…), where, for chosen block size b, U, V are uniformly random matrices of shape b × n and n × b, respectively. A block Berlekamp/Massey algorithm is then used to compute the matrix minimal generating polynomial of B (Kaltofen and Yuhasz, 2013;Giorgi et al, 2003), and from it the minimal scalar generating polynomial. All of the algorithms based on these random projections rely on preservation of some properties, including at least the minimal generating polynomial.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…), where, for chosen block size b, U, V are uniformly random matrices of shape b × n and n × b, respectively. A block Berlekamp/Massey algorithm is then used to compute the matrix minimal generating polynomial of B (Kaltofen and Yuhasz, 2013;Giorgi et al, 2003), and from it the minimal scalar generating polynomial. All of the algorithms based on these random projections rely on preservation of some properties, including at least the minimal generating polynomial.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This can be achieve within a complexity of O(n 3 k 2 ) binary operations with Algorithm WeakPopovForm of (Mulders and Storjohann, 2003) or with an asymptotic complexity of O(n 3 k log k) binary operations with Algorithm ColumnReduction of (Giorgi et al, 2003).…”
Section: Construction Of the Polynomial Mmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One is a sophisticated generalization of the Berlekamp/Massey algorithm (Coppersmith 1994;Dickinson et al 1974;Rissanen 1972). Another generalizes the theory of Padé approximation (Beckermann & Labahn 1994;Forney, Jr. 1975;Giorgi et al 2003;Van Barel & Bultheel 1992). The interpretation of the Berlekamp/Massey algorithm as a specialization of the extended Euclidean algorithm (Dornstetter 1987;Sugiyama et al 1975) can be carried over to matrix polynomials (Coppersmith 1994;Thomé 2002) (see also Section 3 below).…”
Section: As In the Unblockedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Remark 4.1. As we have seen in Section 2.1 there are several alternatives for carrying out Step 3 (Beckermann & Labahn 1994;Coppersmith 1994;Dickinson et al 1974;Forney, Jr. 1975;Giorgi et al 2003;Kaltofen 1995;Rissanen 1972;Thomé 2002;Van Barel & Bultheel 1992). In Step 4 we require that det F A,Y X (λ) = det(λI − A).…”
Section: The Block Baby Steps/giant Steps Determinant Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%