Decompositions and coalescing eigenvalues of symmetric definite pencils depending on parameters (Q2098811)

From MaRDI portal
Revision as of 21:39, 30 July 2024 by ReferenceBot (talk | contribs) (‎Changed an Item)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
scientific article
Language Label Description Also known as
English
Decompositions and coalescing eigenvalues of symmetric definite pencils depending on parameters
scientific article

    Statements

    Decompositions and coalescing eigenvalues of symmetric definite pencils depending on parameters (English)
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    22 November 2022
    0 references
    Let \(\Omega \) be an open connected region in \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\) and let \(A\) and \(B\) be smooth functions from \(\Omega \) into \(\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\) such that \(A(x)\) is symmetric and \(B(x)\) is positive definite for all \(x\in \Omega \). Consider the generalized eigenvalue problem \[(A(x)-\lambda B(x))v=0. \tag{*}\] It can be shown that, with a suitable choice of ordering of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of (*) also depend smoothly on \(x\) except at values of \(x\) where there are equal eigenvalues (referred to as points of conical intersections or coalescences). The aim of this paper is to detect these conical intersections. Since \(B(x)\) is positive definite, its Cholessky decomposiiton can be used to reduce (*) to an equivalent ordinary eigenvalue problem. However, the authors point out that this route has several disadvantages; for example, sparseness or banding in the matrices \(A(x)\) and \(B(x)\) is usually lost. They therefore approach the problem of directly solving (*) using the following algorithm (called ``Algorithm 1.1'' in the paper) to detect coalescences. Step 1. Let \(\Gamma \) be a simple closed loop in \(\Omega \) parametrized by the smooth, \(1\)-periodic function \(\gamma (t)\) (\(0\leq t\leq 1\)) and assume that (*) has distinct eigenvalues \(\lambda _{1}(\gamma (t))>\lambda _{2}(\gamma (t))>\cdots >\lambda _{n}(\gamma (t))\) for all \( t\in \lbrack 0,1]\); Step 2. Obtain the smooth diagonalization of the pencil \( (A(x),B(x))\) along the loop \(\Gamma \): \(A(x)V(x)=V(x)B(x)\Lambda (x)\) with \( x:=\gamma (t)\) (where \(\Lambda (x):=\operatorname{diag}(\lambda _{1}(x),\dots,\lambda _{n}(x)) \) and \(V(\gamma (t))\) is nonsingular for all \(t\in \lbrack 0,1]\)); Step 3. Compare \(V(\gamma (0))\) and \(V(\gamma (1))\); determine if a pair of eigenvalues coalesced inside \(\Gamma \) and, if so, which ones. They use an implementation of their approach to provide a statistical study of the number of conical intersections.
    0 references
    0 references
    coalescing eigenvalues
    0 references
    generalized eigenvalue problem
    0 references
    conical intersections
    0 references
    spectral degeneracies
    0 references

    Identifiers

    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references