This chapter is about several algorithms for matrix algebra over the rational numbers and cyclotomic fields. Algorithms for linear algebra over exact fields are necessary in order to implement the modular symbols algorithms that we will describe in Chapter Linear Algebra. This chapter partly overlaps with [Coh93, Sections 2.1–2.4].
Note: We view all matrices as defining linear transformations by acting on row vectors from the right.
A matrix is in (reduced row) echelon form if each row in the matrix has more zeros at the beginning than the row above it, the first nonzero entry of every row is , and the first nonzero entry of any row is the only nonzero entry in its column.
Given a matrix , there is another matrix such that is obtained from by left multiplication by an invertible matrix and is in reduced row echelon form. This matrix is called the echelon form of . It is unique.
A pivot column of is a column of such that the reduced row echelon form of contains a leading .
The following matrix is not in reduced row echelon form:
The reduced row echelon form of the above matrix is
Notice that the entries of the reduced row echelon form can be rationals with large denominators even though the entries of the original matrix are integers. Another example is the simple looking matrix
whose echelon form is
A basic fact is that two matrices and have the same reduced row echelon form if and only if there is an invertible matrix such that . Also, many standard operations in linear algebra, e.g., computation of the kernel of a linear map, intersection of subspaces, membership checking, etc., can be encoded as a question about computing the echelon form of a matrix.
The following standard algorithm computes the echelon form of a matrix.
Given an matrix over a field, the algorithm outputs the reduced row echelon form of . Write for the entry of , where and .
This algorithm takes arithmetic operations in the base field, where is an matrix. If the base field is , the entries can become huge and arithmetic operations are then very expensive. See Section Echelon Forms over for ways to mitigate this problem.
To conclude this section, we mention how to convert a few standard problems into questions about reduced row echelon forms of matrices. Note that one can also phrase some of these answers in terms of the echelon form, which might be easier to compute, or an LUP decomposition (lower triangular times upper triangular times permutation matrix), which the numerical analysts use.
Kernel of : We explain how to compute the kernel of acting on column vectors from the right (first transpose to obtain the kernel of acting on row vectors). Since passing to the reduced row echelon form of is the same as multiplying on the left by an invertible matrix, the kernel of the reduce row echelon form of is the same as the kernel of . There is a basis vector of that corresponds to each nonpivot column of . That vector has a at the nonpivot column, ‘s at all other nonpivot columns, and for each pivot column, the negative of the entry of at the nonpivot column in the row with that pivot element.
Intersection of Subspaces: Suppose and are subspace of a finite-dimensional vector space . Let and be matrices whose columns form a basis for and , respectively. Let be the augmented matrix formed from and . Let be the kernel of the linear transformation defined by . Then is isomorphic to the desired intersection. To write down the intersection explicitly, suppose that and do the following: For each in a basis for , write down the linear combination of a basis for obtained by taking the first entries of the vector . The fact that is in implies that the vector we just wrote down is also in . This is because a linear relation
i.e., an element of that kernel, is the same as
For more details, see [Coh93, Alg. 2.3.9].
Rational reconstruction is a process that allows one to sometimes lift an integer modulo uniquely to a bounded rational number.
Given an integer and an integer , this algorithm computes the numerator and denominator of the unique rational number , if it exists, with
or it reports that there is no such number.
Algorithm 7.4 for rational reconstruction is described (with proof) in [Knu, pgs. 656–657] as the solution to Exercise 51 on page 379 in that book. See, in particular, the paragraph right in the middle of page 657, which describes the algorithm. Knuth attributes this rational reconstruction algorithm to Wang, Kornerup, and Gregory from around 1983.
We now give an indication of why Algorithm 7.4 computes the rational reconstruction of , leaving the precise details and uniqueness to [Knu, pgs. 656–657]. At each step in Algorithm 7.4, the -tuple satisfies
and similarly for . When computing the usual extended , at the end and , give a representation of the as a -linear combination of and . In Algorithm 7.4, we are instead interested in finding a rational number such that . If we set and in (2) and rearrange, we obtain
Thus at every step of the algorithm we find a rational number such that . The problem at intermediate steps is that, e.g., could be , or or could be too large.
We compute an example using Sage.
sage: p = 389 sage: k = GF(p) sage: a = k(7/13); a 210 sage: a.rational_reconstruction() 7/13
A difficulty with computation of the echelon form of a matrix over the rational numbers is that arithmetic with large rational numbers is time-consuming; each addition potentially requires a and numerous additions and multiplications of integers. Moreover, the entries of during intermediate steps of Algorithm 7.3 can be huge even though the entries of and the answer are small. For example, suppose is an invertible square matrix. Then the echelon form of is the identity matrix, but during intermediate steps the numbers involved could be quite large. One technique for mitigating this is to compute the echelon form using a multimodular method.
If is a matrix with rational entries, let be the height of , which is the maximum of the absolute values of the numerators and denominators of all entries of . If are rational numbers and is a prime, we write to mean that the denominators of and are not divisible by but the numerator of the rational number (in reduced form) is divisible by . For example, if and , then , so .
Given an matrix with entries in , this algorithm computes the reduced row echelon form of .
Rescale the input matrix to have integer entries. This does not change the echelon form and makes reduction modulo many primes easier. We may thus assume has integer entries.
Let be a guess for the height of the echelon form.
List successive primes such that the product of the is greater than , where is the number of columns of .
Compute the echelon forms of the reduction using, e.g., Algorithm 7.3 or any other echelon algorithm. % (This is where most of the work takes place.)
Discard any whose pivot column list is not maximal among pivot lists of all found so far. (The pivot list associated to is the ordered list of integers such that the column of is a pivot column. We mean maximal with respect to the following ordering on integer sequences: shorter integer sequences are smaller, and if two sequences have the same length, then order in reverse lexicographic order. Thus is smaller than , and is smaller than . Think of maximal as “optimal”, i.e., best possible pivot columns.)
Use the Chinese Remainder Theorem to find a matrix with integer entries such that for all .
Use Algorithm 7.4 to try to find a matrix whose coefficients are rational numbers such that , where , and for each prime . If rational reconstruction fails, compute a few more echelon forms mod the next few primes (using the above steps) and attempt rational reconstruction again. Let be the matrix over so obtained. (A trick here is to keep track of denominators found so far to avoid doing very many rational reconstructions.)
Compute the denominator of , i.e., the smallest positive integer such that has integer entries. If
then is the reduced row echelon form of . If not, repeat the above steps with a few more primes.
We prove that if (3) is satisfied, then the matrix computed by the algorithm really is the reduced row echelon form of . First note that is in reduced row echelon form since the set of pivot columns of all matrices used to construct are the same, so the pivot columns of are the same as those of any and all other entries in the pivot columns are , so the other entries of in the pivot columns are also .
Recall from the end of Section Echelon Forms of Matrices that a matrix whose columns are a basis for the kernel of can be obtained from the reduced row echelon form . Let be the matrix whose columns are the vectors in the kernel algorithm applied to , so . Since the reduced row echelon form is obtained by left multiplying by an invertible matrix, for each , there is an invertible matrix mod such that so
Since and are integer matrices, the Chinese remainder theorem implies that
The integer entries of all satisfy , where is the number of columns of . Since , the bound (3) implies that . Thus , so . On the other hand, the rank of equals the rank of each (since the pivot columns are the same), so
Thus , and combining this with the bound obtained above, we see that . This implies that is the reduced row echelon form of , since two matrices have the same kernel if and only if they have the same reduced row echelon form (the echelon form is an invariant of the row space, and the kernel is the orthogonal complement of the row space).
The reason for step (5) is that the matrices need not be the reduction of modulo , and indeed this reduction might not even be defined, e.g., if divides the denominator of some element of , then this reduction makes no sense. For example, set and suppose . Then , which has no reduction modulo ; also, the reduction of modulo is , which is already in reduced row echelon form. However if we were to combine with the echelon form of modulo another prime, the result could never be lifted using rational reconstruction. Thus the reason we exclude all with nonmaximal pivot column sequence is so that a rational reconstruction will exist. There are only finitely many primes that divide denominators of entries of , so eventually all will have maximal pivot column sequences, i.e., they are the reduction of the true reduced row echelon form , so the algorithm terminates.
Algorithm 7.6, with sparse matrices seems to work very well in practice. A simple but helpful modification to Algorithm 7.3 in the sparse case is to clear each column using a row with a minimal number of nonzero entries, so as to reduce the amount of “fill in” (denseness) of the matrix. There are much more sophisticated methods along these lines called “intelligent Gauss elimination”. (Cryptographers are interested in linear algebra mod with huge sparse matrices, since they come up in attacks on the discrete log problem and integer factorization.)
One can adapt Algorithm 7.6 to computation of echelon forms of matrices over cyclotomic fields . Assume has denominator . Let be a prime that splits completely in . Compute the homomorphisms by finding the elements of order in . Then compute the mod matrix for each , and find its reduced row echelon form. Taken together, the maps together induce an isomorphism , where is the cyclotomic polynomial and is its degree. It is easy to compute by evaluating at each element of order in . To compute , simply use linear algebra over to invert a matrix that represents . Use to compute the reduced row echelon form of , where is the nonprime ideal in generated by . Do this for several primes , and use rational reconstruction on each coefficient of each power of , to recover the echelon form of .
In this section we explain how to compute echelon forms using matrix multiplication. This is valuable because there are asymptotically fast, i.e., better than field operations, algorithms for matrix multiplication, and implementations of linear algebra libraries often include highly optimized matrix multiplication algorithms. We only sketch the basic ideas behind these asymptotically fast algorithms (following [Ste]), since more detail would take us too far from modular forms.
The naive algorithm for multiplying two matrices requires arithmetic operations in the base ring. In [Str69], Strassen described a clever algorithm that computes the product of two matrices in arithmetic operations in the base ring. Because of numerical stability issues, Strassen’s algorithm is rarely used in numerical analysis. But for matrix arithmetic over exact base rings (e.g., the rational numbers, finite fields, etc.) it is of extreme importance.
In [Str69], Strassen also sketched a new algorithm for computing the inverse of a square matrix using matrix multiplication. Using this algorithm, the number of operations to invert an matrix is (roughly) the same as the number needed to multiply two matrices. Suppose the input matrix is and we write it in block form as where are all matrices. Assume that any intermediate matrices below that we invert are invertible. Consider the augmented matrix
Multiply the top row by to obtain
and write . Subtract times the first row from the second row to get
Set and multiply the bottom row by on the left to obtain
Set , and subtract times the second from the first row to arrive at
The idea listed above can, with significant work, be extended to a general algorithm (as is done in [Ste06]).
Next we very briefly sketch how to compute echelon forms of matrices using matrix multiplication and inversion. Its complexity is comparable to the complexity of matrix multiplication.
As motivation, recall the standard algorithm from undergraduate linear algebra for inverting an invertible square matrix : form the augmented matrix , and then compute the echelon form of this matrix, which is . If is the transformation matrix to echelon form, then , so . In particular, we could find the echelon form of by multiplying on the left by . Likewise, for any matrix with the same number of rows as , we could find the echelon form of by multiplying on the left by . Next we extend this idea to give an algorithm to compute echelon forms using only matrix multiplication (and echelon form modulo one prime).
Given a matrix over the rational numbers (or a number field), this algorithm computes the echelon form of .
1. [Find Pivots] Choose a random prime (coprime to the denominator of any entry of ) and compute the echelon form of , e.g., using Algorithm 7.3. Let be the pivot columns of . When computing the echelon form, save the positions of the rows used to clear each column.
We prove both that the algorithm terminates and that when it terminates, the matrix is the echelon form of .
First we prove that the algorithm terminates. Let be the echelon form of . By Exercise 7.3, for all but finitely many primes (i.e., any prime where has the same rank as ) the echelon form of equals . For any such prime the pivot columns of are the pivot columns of , so the algorithm will terminate for that choice of .
We next prove that when the algorithm terminates, is the echelon form of . By assumption, is in echelon form and is obtained by multiplying on the left by an invertible matrix, so must be the echelon form of . The rows of are a subset of those of , so the rows of are a subset of the rows of the echelon form of . Thus . To show that equals the echelon form of , we just need to verify that , i.e., that , where is as in step (5). Since is the echelon form of , we know that . By step (5) we also know that . Thus , since the rows of are the union of the rows of and .
Let be the matrix
from Example 7.2.
sage: M = MatrixSpace(QQ,4,8) sage: A = M([[-9,6,7,3,1,0,0,0],[-10,3,8,2,0,1,0,0], [3,-6,2,8,0,0,1,0],[-8,-6,-8,6,0,0,0,1]])
First choose the “random” prime , which does not divide any of the entries of , and compute the echelon form of the reduction of modulo .
sage: A41 = MatrixSpace(GF(41),4,8)(A) sage: E41 = A41.echelon_form()
The echelon form of is
Thus we take , , , and . Also for . Next extract the submatrix .
sage: B = A.matrix_from_columns([0,1,2,4])
The submatrix is
The inverse of is
Multiplying by yields
sage: E = B^(-1)*A
This is not the echelon form of . Indeed, it is not even in echelon form, since the last row is not normalized so the leftmost nonzero entry is . We thus choose another random prime, say . The echelon form mod has columns as pivot columns. We thus extract the matrix
sage: B = A.matrix_from_columns([0,1,2,3])
This matrix has inverse
Finally, the echelon form of is No further checking is needed since the product so obtained is in echelon form, and the matrix of the last step of the algorithm has rows.
Above we have given only the barest sketch of asymptotically fast “block” algorithms for linear algebra. For optimized algorithms that work in the general case, please see the source code of [Ste06].
Efficiently solving the following problem is a crucial step in computing a basis of eigenforms for a space of modular forms (see Sections Computing Using Eigenvectors and Newforms: Systems of Eigenvalues).
Suppose is an matrix with entries in a field (typically a number field or finite field) and that the minimal polynomial of is square-free and has degree . View as acting on . Find a simple module decomposition of as a direct sum of simple -modules. Equivalently, find an invertible matrix such that is a block direct sum of matrices such that the minimal polynomial of each is irreducible.
A generalization of Problem 7.11 to arbitrary matrices with entries in is finding the rational Jordan form (or rational canonical form, or Frobenius form) of . This is like the usual Jordan form, but the resulting matrix is over and the summands of the matrix corresponding to eigenvalues are replaced by matrices whose minimal polynomials are the minimal polynomials (over ) of the eigenvalues. The rational Jordan form was extensively studied by Giesbrecht in his Ph.D. thesis and many successive papers, where he analyzes the complexity of his algorithms and observes that the limiting step is factoring polynomials over . The reason is that given a polynomial , one can easily write down a matrix such that one can read off the factorization of from the rational Jordan form of (see also [Ste97]).
The computation of characteristic polynomials of matrices is crucial to modular forms computations. There are many approaches to this problems: compute symbolically (bad), compute the traces of the powers of (bad), or compute the Hessenberg form modulo many primes and use CRT (bad; see for [Coh93, Section 2.2.4] the definition of Hessenberg form and the algorithm). A more sophisticated method is to compute the rational canonical form of using Giesbrecht’s algorithm  (see [GS02]), which involves computing Krylov subspaces (see Remark Remark 7.13 below), and building up the whole space on which acts. This latter method is a generalization of Wiedemann’s algorithm for computing minimal polynomials (see Section Wiedemann’s Minimal Polynomial Algorithm), but with more structure to handle the case when the characteristic polynomial is not equal to the minimal polynomial.
Factorization of polynomials in (or over number fields) is an important step in computing an explicit basis of Hecke eigenforms for spaces of modular forms. The best algorithm is the van Hoeij method [BHKS06], which uses the LLL lattice basis reduction algorithm [LLL82] in a novel way to solve the optimization problems that come up in trying to lift factorizations mod to . It has been generalized by Belebas, van Hoeij, Kl”uners, and Steel to number fields.
In this section we describe an algorithm due to Wiedemann for computing the minimal polynomial of an matrix over a field.
Choose a random vector and compute the iterates
If is the minimal polynomial of , then
where is the identity matrix. For any , by multiplying both sides on the right by the vector , we see that
Wiedemann’s idea is to observe that any single component of the vectors satisfies the linear recurrence with coefficients . The Berlekamp-Massey algorithm (see Algorithm 7.14 below) was introduced in the 1960s in the context of coding theory to find the minimal polynomial of a linear recurrence sequence . The minimal polynomial of this linear recurrence is by definition the unique monic polynomial , such that if satisfies a linear recurrence (for all ), then divides the polynomial . If we apply Berlekamp-Massey to the top coordinates of the , we obtain a polynomial , which divides . We then apply it to the second to the top coordinates and find a polynomial that divides , etc. Taking the least common multiple of the first few , we find a divisor of the minimal polynomial of . One can show that with “high probability” one quickly finds , instead of just a proper divisor of .
In the literature, techniques that involve iterating a vector as in (4) are often called Krylov methods. The subspace generated by the iterates of a vector under a matrix is called a Krylov subspace.
Suppose are the first terms of a sequence that satisfies a linear recurrence of degree at most . This algorithm computes the minimal polynomial of the sequence.
The above description of Berlekamp-Massey is taken from [AD04], which contains some additional ideas for improvements.
Now suppose is an matrix as in Problem Problem 7.11. We find the minimal polynomial of by computing the minimal polynomial of using Wiedemann’s algorithm, for many primes , and using the Chinese Remainder Theorem. (One has to bound the number of primes that must be considered; see, e.g., [Coh93].)
One can also compute the characteristic polynomial of directly from the Hessenberg form of , which can be computed in field operations, as described in [Coh93]. This is simple but slow. Also, the we consider will often be sparse, and Wiedemann is particularly good when is sparse.
We compute the minimal polynomial of
using Wiedemann’s algorithm. Let . Then
The linear recurrence sequence coming from the first entries is
This sequence satisfies the linear recurrence
so its minimal polynomial is . This implies that divides the minimal polynomial of the matrix . Next we use the sequence of second coordinates of the iterates of , which is
The recurrence that this sequence satisfies is slightly less obvious, so we apply the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm to find it, with .
We have , .
Dividing by , we find
The new are
Since , we do the above three steps again.
We repeat the above three steps.
Dividing by , we find
The new are:
We have to repeat the steps yet again:
We have , so .
Multiply through by and output
The minimal polynomial of is , since the minimal polynomial has degree at most and is divisible by .
We will use the following algorithm of Dixon [Dix82] to compute -adic approximations to solutions of linear equations over . Rational reconstruction modulo then allows us to recover the corresponding solutions over .
Given a matrix with integer entries and nonzero kernel, this algorithm computes a nonzero element of using successive -adic approximations.
[Prime] Choose a random prime .
[Echelon] Compute the echelon form of modulo .
[Done?] If has full rank modulo , it has full rank, so we terminate the algorithm.
[Setup] Let .
[Iterate] For each , use the echelon form of modulo to find a vector with integer entries such that , and then set
(If , choose .)
[-adic Solution] Let .
[Lift] Use rational reconstruction (Algorithm 7.4) to find a vector with rational entries such that , if such a vector exists. If the vector does not exist, increase or use a different . Otherwise, output .
We verify the case only. We have and . Thus
We now know enough to give an algorithm to solve Problem Problem 7.11.
Given an matrix over a field as in Problem 7.11, this algorithm computes the decomposition of as a direct sum of simple modules.
As mentioned in Remark Remark 7.12, if one can compute such decompositions , then one can easily factor polynomials ; hence the difficulty of polynomial factorization is a lower bound on the complexity of writing as a direct sum of simples.
Given a subspace of , where is a field and is an integer, give an algorithm to find a matrix such that .
If denotes the row reduced echelon form of and is a prime not dividing any denominator of any entry of or of , is ?
Let be a matrix with entries in . Prove that for all but finitely many primes we have .
The notion of echelon form extends to matrices whose entries come from certain rings other than fields, e.g., Euclidean domains. In the case of matrices over we define a matrix to be in echelon form (or Hermite normal form) if it satisfies
There are algorithms for computing with finitely generated modules over that are analogous to the ones in this chapter for vector spaces, which depend on computation of Hermite forms.
|||Allan Steel also invented a similar algorithm.|