Condition Numbers of Random Toeplitz and Circulant Matrices

Abstract: Estimating the condition numbers of random structured matrices is a well known challenge, linked to the design of efficient randomized matrix algorithms. We deduce such estimates for Gaussian random Toeplitz and circulant matrices. The former estimates can be surprising because the condition numbers grow exponentially in n as n grows to infinity for some large and important classes of n-by-n Toeplitz matrices, whereas we prove the opposit for Gaussian random Toeplitz matrices. Our formal estimates are in good accordance with our numerical tests, except that circulant matrices tend to be even better conditioned according to the tests than according to our formal study.

\section{Introduction}\label{sintro}

It is well known that random matrices tend to be well conditioned
 \cite{D88},  \cite{E88},  \cite{ES05},
\cite{CD05}, \cite{SST06}, \cite{B11},
and this property can be exploited for advancing
matrix computations (see e.g.,
\cite{PGMQ},  \cite{PIMR10},  \cite{PQ10},  \cite{PQ12},
\cite{PQa},  \cite{PQZa},
  \cite{PQZb},   \cite{PQZC}
\cite{PY09}).
Exploiting matrix structure in these
applications was supported empirically in the latter papers
and formally in \cite{T11}. An important step
in this direction is the estimation of the condition
numbers of
structured
matrices
 stated as a challenge in  \cite{SST06}.
We reply to this challenge
by  estimating the condition numbers
of Gaussian random Toeplitz and circulant
matrices both formally
 (see Sections \ref{scgrtm} and \ref{scgrcm})
and experimentally
(see Tables \ref{nonsymtoeplitz}--\ref{tabcondcirc}).
Our study shows that
Gaussian random Toeplitz  circulant
matrices do not tend to be ill conditioned
and the condition numbers of
Gaussian random circulant  $n\times n$
matrices tend to grow extremely slow as $n$ grows large.
Our numerical tests
(the contribution of the second author)
 are in good accordance
with our formal estimates,
except that circulant matrices tended to be even
better conditioned in the tests than according to our formal
study.
Our results on Toeplitz matrices are
quite surprising because
the condition numbers
 grow exponentially in $n$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$
for some large and important classes
of  $n\times n$
Toeplitz matrices \cite{BG05},
which is opposit  to the behavior of
Gaussian random Toeplitz $n\times n$ matrices
as we proved and consistently observed in our tests.
Clearly, our study of
Toeplitz matrices can be equally applied to Hankel
 matrices.

We organize our paper as follows.
We recall some definitions and basic results on general matrix computations
in the next
section and on Toeplitz, Hankel and circulant matrices in Section \ref{stplc}.
We define Gaussian random matrices and study their
ranks and extremal singular values in Section \ref{srvrm}.
In Sections \ref{scgrtm} and \ref{scgrcm} we extend this study
to Gaussian random
 Toeplitz and  circulant  matrices, respectively.
 In Section \ref{sexp} we cover numerical tests,
which constitute the contribution of the second author.
In Section \ref{simprel} we recall some applications
of random circulant and  Toeplitz matrices, which
provide some implicit empirical
 support for our estimates for their condition
numbers.
We end with conclusions in Section \ref{srel}.

\section{Some definitions and basic results}\label{sdef}

Except for Theorem \ref{thcpw}
and its application in the proof of Theorem \ref{thcircsing}
we work in the field $\mathbb R$ of real numbers.
Next we recall some customary definitions of matrix computations
\cite{GL96}, \cite{S98}.
$A^T$ is the transpose  of a
matrix $A$.
$||A||_h$ is its $h$-norm for
$h=1,2,\infty$. We write $||A||$ to denote the 2-norm $||A||_2$.
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eqnorm12}
\frac{1}{\sqrt m}||A||_1\le||A||\le \sqrt n ||A||_1,~~||A||_1=||A^T||_{\infty},~~
||A||^2\le||A||_1||A||_{\infty},
\end{equation}
for an $m\times n$ matrix $A$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqnorm12inf}
||AB||_h\le ||A||_h||B||_h~{\rm for}~h=1,2,\infty~{\rm and~any~matrix~product}~AB.
\end{equation}

Define an {\em SVD} or {\em full SVD} of an $m\times n$ matrix $A$ of a rank
 $\rho$ as follows,
\begin{equation}\label{eqsvd}
A=S_A\Sigma_AT_A^T.
\end{equation}
Here
$S_AS_A^T=S_A^TS_A=I_m$, $T_AT_A^T=T_A^TT_A=I_n$,
$\Sigma_A=\diag(\widehat \Sigma_A,O_{m-\rho,n-\rho})$,
$\widehat \Sigma_A=\diag(\sigma_j(A))_{j=1}^{\rho}$,
$\sigma_j=\sigma_j(A)=\sigma_j(A^T)$
is the $j$th largest singular value of a matrix $A$
 for $j=1,\dots,\rho$, and we write
$\sigma_j=0$ for $j>\rho$. These values have
the minimax property
\begin{equation}\label{eqminmax}
\sigma_j=\max_{{\rm dim} (\mathbb S)=j}~~\min_{{\bf x}\in \mathbb S,~||{\bf x}||=1}~~~||A{\bf x}||,~j=1,\dots,\rho,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb S$ denotes linear spaces  \cite[Theorem 8.6.1]{GL96}.

\begin{fact}\label{faccondsub}
If $A_0$ is a
submatrix of a
matrix $A$,
then
$\sigma_{j} (A)\ge \sigma_{j} (A_0)$ for all $j$.
\end{fact}

\begin{proof}
\cite[Corollary 8.6.3]{GL96} implies
the claimed bound
where $A_0$ is any block of columns of
the matrix $A$. Transposition of a matrix and permutations
of its rows and columns do not change singular values,
and thus we can extend the bounds to
all submatrices $A_0$.
\end{proof}

$A^+=T_A\diag(\widehat \Sigma_A^{-1},O_{n-\rho,m-\rho})S_A^T$ is the Moore--Penrose
pseudo-inverse of the matrix $A$ of (\ref{eqsvd}), and
\begin{equation}\label{eqnrm+}
||A^+||=1/\sigma{_\rho}(A)
\end{equation}
 for
a matrix $A$ of a rank $\rho$.

$\kappa (A)=\frac{\sigma_1(A)}{\sigma_{\rho}(A)}=||A||~||A^+||$ is the condition
number of an $m\times n$ matrix $A$ of a rank $\rho$. Such matrix is {\em ill conditioned}
if $\sigma_1(A)\gg\sigma_{\rho}(A)$ and is {\em well conditioned}
otherwise. See \cite{D83}, \cite[Sections 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 3.5.4, 12.5]{GL96},
\cite[Chapter 15]{H02}, \cite{KL94}, and \cite[Section 5.3]{S98}
on the estimation of the norms and condition numbers
of nonsingular matrices.

\section{Toeplitz, Hankel and $f$-circulant
matrices}\label{stplc}

A {\em Toep\-litz} $m\times n$ matrix $T_{m,n}=(t_{i-j})_{i,j=1}^{m,n}$
(resp. Hankel matrices $H=(h_{i+j})_{i,j=1}^{m,n}$)
is defined by its first row and first (resp. last) column, that is by
the vector $(t_h)_{h=1-n}^{m-1}$ (resp. $(h_g)_{g=2}^{m+n}$)
of dimension $m+n-1$. We write $T_n=T_{n,n}=(t_{i-j})_{i,j=1}^{n,n}$
(see equation (\ref{eqtz}) below).

${\bf e}_i$ is the $i$th coordinate vector of dimension $n$ for
$i=1,\dots,n$. The
  reflection matrix
$J=J_n({\bf e}_n~|~\dots~|~{\bf e}_1)$ is the Hankel $n\times n$ matrix
defined by its first column ${\bf e}_n$ and its last column
${\bf e}_1$. We have $J=J^T=J^{-1}$.

A lower {\em triangular Toep\-litz}  $n\times n$ matrix $Z({\bf t})=(t_{i-j})_{i,j=1}^n$
(where $t_k=0$ for $k<0$)
is defined by its first column ${\bf t}=(t_h)_{h=0}^{n-1}$.
We write $Z({\bf t})^T=(Z({\bf t}))^T$.
$Z=Z_0=Z({\bf e}_2)$
is the downshift $n\times n$ matrix
 (see (\ref{eqtz})). We have
$Z{\bf v}=(v_i)_{i=0}^{n-1}$ and
$Z({\bf v})=Z_0({\bf v})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}Z^{i-1}$
for  ${\bf v}=(v_i)_{i=1}^n$ and $v_0=0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqtz}
T_n=\begin{pmatrix}t_0&t_{-1}&\cdots&t_{1-n}\\ t_1&t_0&\smallddots&\vdots\\ \vdots&\smallddots&\smallddots&t_{-1}\\ t_{n-1}&\cdots&t_1&t_0\end{pmatrix},~Z=\begin{pmatrix}
        0   &       &   \dots    &   & 0\\
        1   & \ddots    &       &   & \\
        \vdots     & \ddots    & \ddots    &   & \vdots    \\
            &       & \ddots    & 0 &  \\
        0    &       &  \dots      & 1 & 0
    \end{pmatrix}, ~Z_f=\begin{pmatrix}
        0   &       &   \dots    &   & f\\
        1   & \ddots    &       &   & \\
        \vdots     & \ddots    & \ddots    &   & \vdots    \\
            &       & \ddots    & 0 &  \\
        0    &       &  \dots      & 1 & 0
    \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Combine the equations $||Z({\bf v})||_1=||Z({\bf v})||_{\infty}=||{\bf v}||_1$
 with  (\ref{eqnorm12}) to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eqttn}
||Z({\bf v})||\le ||{\bf v}||_1.
\end{equation}

\begin{theorem}\label{thgs}
Write $T_{k}=(t_{i-j})_{i,j=0}^{k-1}$ for  $k=n,n+1$.

(a) Let the matrix $T_n$ be nonsingular and write
${\bf p}=T_n^{-1}{\bf e}_1$ and ${\bf q}=T_n^{-1}{\bf e}_{n}$.
If
$p_{1}={\bf e}_1^T{\bf p}\neq 0$,
then
$p_{1}T_n^{-1}=Z({\bf p})Z(J{\bf q})^T-Z(Z{\bf q})Z(ZJ{\bf p})^T.$

In parts (b) and (c) below let the matrix $T_{n+1}$ be nonsingular and write
$\widehat {\bf v}=(v_i)_{i=0}^n=T_{n+1}^{-1}{\bf e}_1$,
${\bf v}=(v_i)_{i=0}^{n-1}$, ${\bf v}'=(v_i)_{i=1}^{n}$,
$\widehat {\bf w}=(w_i)_{i=0}^n=T_{n+1}^{-1}{\bf e}_{n+1}$,
${\bf w}=(w_i)_{i=0}^{n-1}$, and ${\bf w}'=(w_i)_{i=1}^{n}$.

(b) If $v_0\neq 0$, then the matrix $T_n$ is nonsingular and
$v_0T_n^{-1}=Z({\bf v})Z(J{\bf w'})^T-Z({\bf w})Z(J{\bf v}')^T$.

(c) If $v_n\neq 0$, then the matrix $T_{1,0}=(t_{i-j})_{i=1,j=0}^{n,n-1}$ is nonsingular and
$v_nT_{1,0}^{-1}=Z({\bf w})Z(J{\bf v'})^T-Z({\bf v})Z(J{\bf w}')^T$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
 See \cite{GS72} on parts (a) and (b);  see \cite{GK72} on part (c).
\end{proof}

$Z_f=Z+f{\bf e}_1^T{\bf e}_n$ for a scalar $f\neq 0$
denotes the
$n\times n$ matrix of
 $f$-{\em circular shift} (see (\ref{eqtz})).
An $f$-{\em circulant matrix} $Z_f({\bf v})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}v_iZ_f^{i-1}$
is a special Toep\-litz $n\times n$ matrix defined by its first column vector
${\bf v}=(v_i)_{i=1}^{n}$ and a scalar $f$.
$f$-circulant matrix is called {\em circulant} if $f=1$ and {\em skew circulant} if $f=-1$.
By replacing $f$ with $0$ we arrive at a lower triangular
Toep\-litz matrix $Z({\bf v})$.
The following theorem implies that the inverses
 (wherever they are defined) and pairwise  products of
$f$-circulant  $n\times n$ matrices are $f$-circulant  and can be computed
in $O(n\log n)$ flops.

\begin{theorem}\label{thcpw} (See \cite{CPW74}.)
We have
$Z_1({\bf v})=\Omega^{-1}D(\Omega{\bf v})\Omega.$
More generally, for any $f\ne 0$, we have
$Z_{f^n}({\bf v})=U_f^{-1}D(U_f{\bf v})U_f$
where
$U_f=\Omega D({\bf f}),~~{\bf f}=(f^i)_{i=0}^{n-1}$,
$D({\bf u})=\diag(u_i)_{i=0}^{n-1}$ for a vector ${\bf u}=(u_i)_{i=0}^{n-1}$,
$\Omega=(\omega_n^{ij})_{i,j=0}^{n-1}$ is the $n\times n$ matrix of the
discrete Fourier transform at $n$ points,
$\omega_n={\rm exp}(\frac{2\pi}{n}\sqrt{-1})$ being
a primitive $n$-th root of $1$, and $\Omega^{-1}=\frac{1}{n}(\omega_n^{-ij})_{i,j=0}^{n-1}=\frac{1}{n}\Omega^H$.
\end{theorem}

 {\em Hankel} $m\times n$ matrices $H=(h_{i+j})_{i,j=1}^{m,n}$ can be
 defined equivalently
as the products $H=TJ_n$ or $H=J_mT$ of
$m\times n$ Toep\-litz
matrices $T$ and the Hankel reflection matrices $J=J_m$ or $J_n$.
Note that $J=J^{-1}=J^T$ and obtain the following simple fact.
\begin{fact}\label{fath}
For $m=n$ we have
 $T=HJ$, $H^{-1}=JT^{-1}$ and $T^{-1}=JH^{-1}$ if $H=TJ$,
whereas $T=JH$, $H^{-1}=JT^{-1}$ and $T^{-1}=H^{-1}J$ if $H=JT$.
Furthermore in both cases $\kappa (H)=\kappa (T)$.
\end{fact}
By using the equations above we can
readily extend any Toep\-litz  matrix inversion algorithm
 to Hankel
 matrix inversion
and vice versa,
preserving the flop count and condition numbers.
E.g. $(JT)^{-1}=T^{-1}J$, $(TJ)^{-1}=JT^{-1}$,
$(JH)^{-1}=H^{-1}J$ and $(HJ)^{-1}=JH^{-1}$.

\section{Gaussian random matrices and their
ranks}\label{srvrm}

\begin{definition}\label{defcdf}
$F_{\gamma}(y)=$ Probability$\{\gamma\le y\}$ (for a real random variable $\gamma$)
is the {\em cumulative
distribution function (cdf)} of $\gamma$ evaluated at $y$.
$F_{g(\mu,\sigma)}(y)=\frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt {2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^y \exp (-\frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}) dx$
for a Gaussian random variable $g(\mu,\sigma)$ with a mean $\mu$ and a positive variance $\sigma^2$,
and so
\begin{equation}\label{eqnormal}
\mu-4\sigma\le y \le \mu+4\sigma~{\rm with ~a ~probability ~near ~1}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}\label{defrndm}
A matrix (or a vector) is a {\em Gaussian random matrix (or vector)} with a mean
$\mu$ and a positive variance $\sigma^2$ if it is filled with
independent identically distributed Gaussian random
variables, all having the mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$.
$\mathcal G_{\mu,\sigma}^{m\times n}$ is the set of such
Gaussian  random  $m\times n$ matrices
(which are {\em standard} for $\mu=0$
and $\sigma^2=1$). By restricting this set
to Toeplitz or $f$-circulant matrices we obtain the sets
$\mathcal T_{\mu,\sigma}^{m\times n}$ and
$\mathcal Z_{f,\mu,\sigma}^{n\times n}$ of
{\em Gaussian random Toep\-litz}
and {\em Gaussian random $f$-circulant matrices},
respectively.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}\label{defchi}
$\chi_{\mu,\sigma,n}(y)$ is the cdf of the norm
$||{\bf v}||=(\sum_{i=1}^n v_i^2)^{1/2}$ of a Gaussian random vector
${\bf v}=(v_i)_{i=1}^n\in \mathcal G_{\mu,\sigma}^{n\times 1}$. For
 $y\ge 0$ we have
$\chi_{0,1,n}(y)= \frac {2}{2^{n/2}\Gamma(n/2)}\int_{0}^yx^{n-1}\exp(-x^2/2) dx$
where $\Gamma(h)=\int_0^{\infty}x^{h-1}\exp(-x) dx$, $\Gamma (n+1)=n!$ for nonnegative integers $n$.
\end{definition}

The total degree of a multivariate monomial is the sum of its degrees
in all its variables. The total degree of a polynomial is the maximal total degree of
its monomials.

\begin{lemma}\label{ledl} \cite{DL78}, \cite{S80}, \cite{Z79}.
For a set $\Delta$ of a cardinality $|\Delta|$ in any fixed ring
let a polynomial in $m$ variables have a total degree $d$ and let it not vanish
identically on this set. Then the polynomial vanishes in at most
$d|\Delta|^{m-1}$ points.
\end{lemma}

We assume that Gaussian random variables range
over infinite sets $\Delta$,
usually over the real line or its interval. Then
the lemma implies that a nonzero polynomial vanishes with probability 0.
Consequently a square Gaussian random general, Toeplitz or circulant
matrix is nonsingular
with probability 1
because its determinant is a polynomials
in the entries.
Likewise rectangular
 Gaussian random general, Toeplitz and circulant
matrices have full rank with probability 1.
Hereafter,
wherever this causes no confusion,
we assume by default that
{\em Gaussian random
 general, Toeplitz and circulant
matrices  have full rank}.

\section{Extremal singular values of Gaussian random matrices}\label{ssvrm}

Besides  having full rank with probability 1,
Gaussian random matrices in Definition \ref{defrndm} are  likely to be well conditioned
\cite{D88}, \cite{E88}, \cite{ES05}, \cite{CD05}, \cite{B11}, and
even the sum $M+A$ for  $M\in \mathbb R^{m\times n}$ and
 $A\in \mathcal G_{\mu,\sigma}^{m\times n}$ is  likely to
be well conditioned unless the ratio  $\sigma/||M||$ is small
or large
\cite{SST06}.

The following theorem
states an upper bound
proportional to $y$ on
 the cdf $F_{1/||A^+||}(y)$, that is
on the probability that  the
smallest positive singular value $1/||A^+||=\sigma_l(A)$ of a  Gaussian random matrix $A$
is less than a nonnegative scalar $y$ (cf. (\ref{eqnrm+}))
and consequently on the probability that the norm $||A^+||$
exceeds a positive scalar $x$.
The stated bound still holds if we replace the matrix $A$ by
$A-B$ for any fixed matrix $B$, and
for $B=O_{m,n}$
the  bounds
can  be strengthened
by a factor $y^{|m-n|}$ \cite{ES05}, \cite{CD05}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thsiguna}
Suppose
$A\in \mathcal G_{\mu,\sigma}^{m\times n}$,
 $B\in \mathbb R^{m\times n}$,
$l=\min\{m,n\}$,  $x>0$, and $y\ge 0$.
Then
$F_{\sigma_l(A-B)}(y)\le 2.35~\sqrt l y/\sigma$,
that is
$Probability \{||(A-B)^+||\ge 2.35x\sqrt {l}/\sigma\}\le 1/x$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For $m=n$ this is \cite[Theorem 3.3]{SST06}. Apply
 Fact \ref{faccondsub} to extend it to any pair $\{m,n\}$.
\end{proof}

The following two theorems supply lower bounds
$F_{||A||}(z)$ and
$F_{\kappa (A)}(y)$
 on the probabilities
that $||A||\le z$
and $\kappa(A)\le y$ for two scalars $y$ and $z$,
respectively,
and a Gaussian random matrix $A$.
We do not use the second theorem, but state it for the sake of completeness
and only for square $n\times n$ matrices $A$.
The theorems
imply that
the functions
$1-F_{||A||}(z)$
and
$1-F_{\kappa (A)}(y)$
decay as
$z\rightarrow \infty$ and
$y\rightarrow \infty$, respectively,
and that the two decays are exponential in $-z^2$ and  proportional
to $\sqrt{\log y}/y$, respectively.
 For small values $y\sigma$ and a fixed $n$
the lower bound of Theorem \ref{thmsiguna}
becomes negative, in which case
the theorem becomes trivial.
Unlike Theorem \ref{thsiguna}, in both theorems we assume that $\mu=0$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thsignorm} \cite[Theorem II.7]{DS01}.
Suppose $A\in \mathcal G_{0,\sigma}^{m\times n}$,
$h=\max\{m,n\}$  and
$z\ge 2\sigma\sqrt h$.
Then $F_{||A||}(z)\ge 1- \exp(-(z-2\sigma\sqrt h)^2/(2\sigma^2))$, and so
the norm $||A||$ is  likely to have order $\sigma\sqrt h$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}\label{thmsiguna}  \cite[Theorem 3.1]{SST06}.
Suppose
$0<\sigma\le 1$,
$y\ge 1$,
 $A\in \mathcal G_{0,\sigma}^{n\times n}$. Then the matrix $A$
 has full rank with
probability $1$ and
$F_{\kappa (A)}(y)\ge 1-(14.1+4.7\sqrt{(2\ln y)/n})n/ (y\sigma)$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
See \cite[the proof of Lemma 3.2]{SST06}.
\end{proof}

\section{Extremal singular values of Gaussian random Toeplitz matrices}\label{scgrtm}

A  matrix
$T_n=(t_{i-j})_{i,j=1}^n$
is the sum of two triangular
Toeplitz matrices

\begin{equation}\label{eqt2tt}
T_n= Z({\bf t})+Z({\bf t_-})^T,~{\bf t}=(t_{i})_{i=0}^{n-1},~{\bf t}_-=(t'_{-i})_{i=0}^{n-1},~
t'_0=0.
\end{equation}
If $T_n\in  \mathcal T_{\mu,\sigma}^{n\times n}$, then
$T_n$ has $2n-1$ pairwise independent entries in $\mathcal G_{\mu,\sigma}$. Thus
(\ref{eqttn}) implies that

$$ ||T_n||\le ||Z({\bf t})||+||Z({\bf t_-})^T||\le
||{\bf t}||_1+||{\bf t_-}||_1= ||(t_{i})_{i=1-n}^{n-1}||_1\le \sqrt {2n-1}~||(t_{i})_{i=1-n}^{n-1}||.$$

\noindent Recall Definition \ref{defrndm} and obtain

\begin{equation}\label{eqtn}
F_{||T_n||}(y)\ge \chi_{\mu,\sigma,2n-1}(y/\sqrt {2n-1}).
\end{equation}

Next we estimate
 the norm $||T_n^{-1}||$
for
$T_{n}\in \mathcal T_{\mu,\sigma}^{n\times n}$.

\begin{lemma}\label{leinp} \cite[Lemma A.2]{SST06}.
For a nonnegative scalar $y$, a unit vector ${\bf t}\in \mathbb R^{n\times 1}$, and a vector
 ${\bf b}\in \mathcal G_{\mu,\sigma}^{n\times 1}$,
 we have
$F_{|{\bf t}^T{\bf b}|}(y)\le \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{y}{\sigma}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{remark}\label{reinp}
The latter bound is independent of $\mu$ and $n$;
it holds for any $\mu$ even if
all coordinates of the vector ${\bf b}$ are fixed except for a
single coordinate in $\mathcal G_{\mu,\sigma}$.
\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}\label{thsigunat1}
Given a matrix
$T_{n}=(t_{i-j})_{i,j=1}^n\in \mathcal T_{\mu,\sigma}^{n\times n}$,
assumed to be nonsingular (cf. Section \ref{srvrm}),
write
$p_{1}={\bf e}_1^TT_n^{-1}{\bf e}_1$.
Then $F_{1/||p_{1}T_n^{-1}||}(y)\le 2n\alpha \beta$
 for two random variables  $\alpha$ and $\beta$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqprtinv}
F_{\alpha}(y)\le \sqrt{\frac{2n}{\pi}}\frac{y}{\sigma}~{\rm and}~
F_{\beta}(y)\le \sqrt{\frac{2n}{\pi}}\frac{y}{\sigma}~{\rm for}~y\ge 0.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Recall from part (a) of Theorem  \ref{thgs} that
$p_{1}T_n^{-1}=Z({\bf p})Z(J{\bf q})^T-Z(Z{\bf q})Z(ZJ{\bf p})^T$.
Therefore
$||p_{1}T_n^{-1}||\le ||Z({\bf p})||~||Z(J{\bf q})^T||+||Z(Z{\bf q})||~||Z(ZJ{\bf p})^T||$
for ${\bf p}=T_n^{-1}{\bf e}_1$,  ${\bf q}=T_n^{-1}{\bf e}_n$, and $p_1={\bf p}^T{\bf e}_1$.
It follows that
$||p_{1}T_n^{-1}||\le ||Z({\bf p})||~||Z(J{\bf q})||+||Z(Z{\bf q})||~||Z(ZJ{\bf p})||$
since $||A||=||A^T||$ for all matrices $A$.
Furthermore
$||p_{1}T_n^{-1}||\le||{\bf p}||_1~||J{\bf q}||_1+||Z{\bf q}||_1~||ZJ{\bf p}||_1$
due to (\ref{eqttn}).
Clearly $||J{\bf v}||_1=||{\bf v}||_1$ and $||Z{\bf v}||_1\le ||{\bf v}||_1$
for every vector ${\bf v}$, and so (cf. (\ref{eqnorm12}))
\begin{equation}\label{eqtpq}
||p_{1}T_n^{-1}||\le 2 ||{\bf p}||_1~||{\bf q}||_1\le 2n ||{\bf p}||~||{\bf q}||.
\end{equation}

By definition the vector ${\bf p}$ is orthogonal
to the vectors $T_n{\bf e}_2,\dots,T_n{\bf e}_n$,
whereas ${\bf p}^TT_n{\bf e}_1=1$ (cf. \cite{SST06}).
Consequenty the vectors $T_n{\bf e}_2,\dots,T_n{\bf e}_n$
uniquely define the vector
 ${\bf u}={\bf p}/||{\bf p}||$,
whereas
$|{\bf u}^TT_n{\bf e}_1|=1/||{\bf p}||$.
The last coordinate $t_{n-1}$ of the vector $T_n{\bf e}_1$
is independent of the vectors $T_n{\bf e}_2,\dots,T_n{\bf e}_n$
and consequently of the vector ${\bf u}$.
Apply
 Remark \ref{reinp} to estimate the cdf of the random
variable $\alpha=1/||{\bf p}||=|{\bf u}^TT_n{\bf e}_1|$
 and obtain that
$F_{\alpha}(y)\le  \sqrt{\frac{2n}{\pi}}\frac{y}{\sigma}$ for $y\ge 0$.

Likewise the $n-1$ column vectors $T{\bf e}_1,\dots,T_{n-1}$
 define the vector ${\bf v}=\beta{\bf q}$ for
$\beta=1/||{\bf q}||=|{\bf v}^TT_n{\bf e}_n|$.
The first coordinate $t_{1-n}$ of the vector $T_n{\bf e}_n$
is independent of the vectors $T{\bf e}_1,\dots,T_{n-1}$
and consequently of the vector ${\bf v}$.
Apply
 Remark \ref{reinp} to
estimate the cdf of the random
variable $\beta$ and obtain that
$F_{\beta}(y)\le  \sqrt{\frac{2n}{\pi}}\frac{y}{\sigma}$ for $y\ge 0$.
Finally combine these bounds on the cdfs $F_{\alpha}(y)$ and
$F_{\beta}(y)$ with (\ref{eqtpq}).
\end{proof}

By applying parts (b) and (c)
of Theorem  \ref{thgs} instead of its part (a),
we similarly
deduce the
bounds $||v_0T_{n+1}^{-1}||\le 2\alpha\beta$ and
 $||v_nT_{n+1}^{-1}||\le 2\alpha\beta$
for two pairs of random variables $\alpha$ and $\beta$
that
satisfy (\ref{eqprtinv}) for $n+1$ replacing $n$.
We have  $p_{1}=\frac{\det T_{n-1}}{\det T_{n}}$,
$v_0=\frac{\det T_n}{\det T_{n+1}}$, and
$v_n=\frac{\det T_{0,1}}{\det T_{n+1}}$
for $T_{0,1}=(t_{i-j})_{i=0,j=1}^{n-1,n}$.
Next we bound the
geometric means
of the
ratios
$|\frac{\det T_{h+1}}{\det T_{h}}|$
for
$h=1,\dots,k-1$.
 $1/|p_1|$ and  $1/|v_0|$
are such  ratios for $k=n-1$ and $k=n$,
respectively,
whereas the  ratio  $1/|v_n|$ is similar to
$1/|v_0|$, under slightly distinct notation.

\begin{theorem}\label{thhdmr}
 Let $T_h\neq O$ denote $h\times h$ matrices
for $h=1,\dots,k$
whose entries have absolute values at most $t$
for a fixed scalar or random variable $t$, e.g. for $t=||T||$.
Furthermore let $T_1=(t)$.
Then the geometric mean $(\prod_{h=1}^{k-1}|\frac{\det T_{h+1}}{\det T_{h}}|)^{1/(k-1)}=\frac{1}{t}|\det T_{k}|^{1/(k-1)}$
is at most $k^{\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{1}{k-1})}t$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The theorem follows from
Hadamard's upper bound
$|\det M|\le k^{k/2}t^k$, which holds
for any $k\times k$ matrix $M=(m_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^k$
with $\max_{i,j=1}^k|m_{i,j}|\le t$.
\end{proof}

The theorem says that
the geometric mean of the ratios $|\det T_{h+1}/\det T_{h}|$
for
$h=1,\dots,k-1$
 is not greater than $k^{0.5+\epsilon(k)}t$
where $\epsilon(k)\rightarrow 0$ as $k\rightarrow \infty$.
Furthermore if
$T_n\in \mathcal T_{\mu,\sigma}^{n\times n}$
we can write
$t=||T||$
 and
 apply (\ref{eqtn}) to bound the cdf of $t$.

\section{Extremal singular values of Gaussian random circulant matrices}\label{scgrcm}

Next we estimate the norms of a random Gaussian $f$-circulant matrix
and its inverse.

\begin{theorem}\label{thcircsing}
Assume $y\ge 0$ and a circulant $n\times n$ matrix $T=Z_1({\bf v})$
for ${\bf v}\in \mathcal G_{\mu,\sigma}^{n\times 1}$. Then

(a) $F_{||T||}(y)\ge \chi_{\mu,\sigma,n} (\sqrt {\frac{2}{n}}y)$
for  $\chi_{\mu,\sigma,n}(y)$ in Definition \ref{defchi} and
(b) $F_{1/||T^{-1}||}(y)\le \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \frac{ny}{\sigma}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
For the matrix $T=Z_1({\bf v})$
we have both equation (\ref{eqt2tt}) and the bound
$||{\bf t_-}||_1\le||{\bf t}||_1$,
and so $||T||_1\le 2||{\bf t}||_1$. Now
part (a) of the theorem follows similarly to (\ref{eqtn}).
To prove part (b)
recall
 Theorem \ref{thcpw} and write
$B=\Omega T\Omega^{-1}=D({\bf u})$,
${\bf u}=(u_i)_{i=0}^{n-1}=\Omega {\bf v}$. We have
$\sigma_j(T)=\sigma_j(B)$ for all $j$ because
$\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\Omega$
and $\sqrt n\Omega^{-1}$ are unitary matrices.
By combining the equations $u_i={\bf e}_i^T\Omega{\bf v}$, the bounds
$||\Re ({\bf e}_i^T\Omega)||\ge 1$ for all $i$,
and Lemma \ref{leinp}, deduce that
$F_{|\Re (u_i)|}(y)\le  \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \frac{y}{\sigma}$
for $i=1,\dots,n$.
We have  $F_{\sigma_n(B)}(y)=F_{\min_i|u_i|}(y)$ because
$B=\diag(u_i)_{i=0}^{n-1}$, and
clearly $|u_i|\ge |\Re (u_i)|$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{retcond}
Our extensive experiments suggest that
the estimates of Theorem \ref{thcircsing} are  overly pessimistic
 (cf. Table \ref{tabcondcirc}).
\end{remark}

Combining Theorem  \ref{thcpw} with minimax property (\ref{eqminmax}) implies that
$$\frac{1}{g(f)}\sigma_j(Z_1({\bf v}))\le \sigma_j(Z_f({\bf v}))\le g(f) \sigma_j(Z_1({\bf v}))$$
for all vectors ${\bf v}$, scalars $f\neq 0$,
$g(f)=\max\{|f|^2,{1/|f|^2}\}$, and $j=1,\dots,n$. Thus we can readily extend
the estimates of Theorem \ref{thcircsing} to $f$-circulant matrices for $f\neq 0$.
In particular Gaussian random $f$-circulant matrices
 tend to be
well conditioned unless  $f\approx 0$ or $1/f\approx 0$.

\section{Numerical Experiments}\label{sexp}

Our numerical experiments with random general, Hankel, Toeplitz and circulant matrices
have been performed in the Graduate Center of the City University of New York
on a Dell server with a dual core 1.86 GHz
Xeon processor and 2G memory running Windows Server 2003 R2. The test
Fortran code was compiled with the GNU gfortran compiler within the Cygwin
environment.  Random numbers were generated with the random\_number
intrinsic Fortran function, assuming the uniform probability distribution
over the range $\{x:-1 \leq x < 1\}$.  The tests have been designed by the first author
and performed by his coauthors.

We have computed the condition numbers of random general $n\times n$ matrices for
$n=2^k$, $k=5,6,\dots,$ with entries sampled in the range $[-1,1)$ as well as
complex general, Toeplitz, and circulant matrices
whose entries had real and imaginary parts sampled at random in the same range $[-1,1)$.
We performed 100 tests for each class of inputs, each dimension $n$,  and each nullity $r$.
 Tables \ref{tab01}--\ref{tabcondcirc} display
 the test results. The last four columns of each table
display the average (mean), minimum, maximum, and standard deviation
of the computed condition numbers of the input matrices, respectively. Namely we
computed
the values $\kappa (A)=||A||~||A^{-1}||$ for general, Toeplitz, and circulant matrices $A$ and
the values $\kappa_1 (A)=||A||_1~||A^{-1}||_1$ for Toeplitz matrices $A$.
We computed and displayed in Table \ref{tabcondtoep} the 1-norms of
Toeplitz matrices and their inverses rather than their 2-norms
to facilitate the computations in the case of inputs of large sizes.
Relationships (\ref{eqnorm12}) link
 the 1-norms and 2-norms to one another, but
the empirical data in
Table \ref{nonsymtoeplitz} consistently show
even  closer links,
in all cases of
general, Toeplitz, and circulant  $n\times n$ matrices $A$ where
$n=32,64,\dots, 1024$.

\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The norms of random general, Toeplitz and circulant $n\times n$ matrices and of their inverses}
\label{nonsymtoeplitz}
 \begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{matrix $A$}&\textbf{$n$}&\textbf{$||A||_1$}&\textbf{$||A||_2$}&\textbf{$\frac{||A||_1}{||A||_2}$}&\textbf{$||A^{-1}||_1$}&\textbf{$||A^{-1}||_2$}&\textbf{$\frac{||A^{-1}||_1}{||A^{-1}||_2}$}\\\hline
General & $32$ & $1.9\times 10^{1}$ & $1.8\times 10^{1}$ & $1.0\times 10^{0}$ & $4.0\times 10^{2}$ & $2.1\times 10^{2}$ & $1.9\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
General & $64$ & $3.7\times 10^{1}$ & $3.7\times 10^{1}$ & $1.0\times 10^{0}$ & $1.2\times 10^{2}$ & $6.2\times 10^{1}$ & $2.0\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
General & $128$ & $7.2\times 10^{1}$ & $7.4\times 10^{1}$ & $9.8\times 10^{-1}$ & $3.7\times 10^{2}$ & $1.8\times 10^{2}$ & $2.1\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
General & $256$ & $1.4\times 10^{2}$ & $1.5\times 10^{2}$ & $9.5\times 10^{-1}$ & $5.4\times 10^{2}$ & $2.5\times 10^{2}$ & $2.2\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
General & $512$ & $2.8\times 10^{2}$ & $3.0\times 10^{2}$ & $9.3\times 10^{-1}$ & $1.0\times 10^{3}$ & $4.1\times 10^{2}$ & $2.5\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
General & $1024$ & $5.4\times 10^{2}$ & $5.9\times 10^{2}$ & $9.2\times 10^{-1}$ & $1.1\times 10^{3}$ & $4.0\times 10^{2}$ & $2.7\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
Toeplitz & $32$ & $1.8\times 10^{1}$ & $1.9\times 10^{1}$ & $9.5\times 10^{-1}$ & $2.2\times 10^{1}$ & $1.3\times 10^{1}$ & $1.7\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
Toeplitz & $64$ & $3.4\times 10^{1}$ & $3.7\times 10^{1}$ & $9.3\times 10^{-1}$ & $4.6\times 10^{1}$ & $2.4\times 10^{1}$ & $2.0\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
Toeplitz & $128$ & $6.8\times 10^{1}$ & $7.4\times 10^{1}$ & $9.1\times 10^{-1}$ & $1.0\times 10^{2}$ & $4.6\times 10^{1}$ & $2.2\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
Toeplitz & $256$ & $1.3\times 10^{2}$ & $1.5\times 10^{2}$ & $9.0\times 10^{-1}$ & $5.7\times 10^{2}$ & $2.5\times 10^{2}$ & $2.3\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
Toeplitz & $512$ & $2.6\times 10^{2}$ & $3.0\times 10^{2}$ & $8.9\times 10^{-1}$ & $6.9\times 10^{2}$ & $2.6\times 10^{2}$ & $2.6\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
Toeplitz & $1024$ & $5.2\times 10^{2}$ & $5.9\times 10^{2}$ & $8.8\times 10^{-1}$ & $3.4\times 10^{2}$ & $1.4\times 10^{2}$ & $2.4\times 10^{0}$ \\ \hline
Circulant & $32$ & $1.6\times 10^{1}$ & $1.8\times 10^{1}$ & $8.7\times 10^{-1}$ & $9.3\times 10^{0}$ & $1.0\times 10^{1}$ & $9.2\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
Circulant & $64$ & $3.2\times 10^{1}$ & $3.7\times 10^{1}$ & $8.7\times 10^{-1}$ & $5.8\times 10^{0}$ & $6.8\times 10^{0}$ & $8.6\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
Circulant & $128$ & $6.4\times 10^{1}$ & $7.4\times 10^{1}$ & $8.6\times 10^{-1}$ & $4.9\times 10^{0}$ & $5.7\times 10^{0}$ & $8.5\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
Circulant & $256$ & $1.3\times 10^{2}$ & $1.5\times 10^{2}$ & $8.7\times 10^{-1}$ & $4.7\times 10^{0}$ & $5.6\times 10^{0}$ & $8.4\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
Circulant & $512$ & $2.6\times 10^{2}$ & $3.0\times 10^{2}$ & $8.7\times 10^{-1}$ & $4.5\times 10^{0}$ & $5.4\times 10^{0}$ & $8.3\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
Circulant & $1024$ & $5.1\times 10^{2}$ & $5.9\times 10^{2}$ & $8.7\times 10^{-1}$ & $5.5\times 10^{0}$ & $6.6\times 10^{0}$ & $8.3\times 10^{-1}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
  \caption{The condition numbers $\kappa (A)$ of random $n\times n$ matrices $A$}
  \label{tab01}
  \begin{center}
    \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c | c |}
    \hline
\bf{$n$}&\bf{input} & \bf{min}  &\bf{max} &\bf{mean} &\bf{std} \\ \hline

$ 32   $ & $ {\rm real} $ & $2.4\times 10^{1}$ & $1.8\times 10^{3}$ & $2.4\times 10^{2}$ & $3.3\times 10^{2}$ \\ \hline
$ 64   $ & $ {\rm real} $ & $4.6\times 10^{1}$ & $1.1\times 10^{4}$ & $5.0\times 10^{2}$ & $1.1\times 10^{3}$ \\ \hline
$ 128  $ & $ {\rm real} $ & $1.0\times 10^{2}$ & $2.7\times 10^{4}$ & $1.1\times 10^{3}$ & $3.0\times 10^{3}$ \\ \hline
$ 256  $ & $ {\rm real} $ & $2.4\times 10^{2}$ & $8.4\times 10^{4}$ & $3.7\times 10^{3}$ & $9.7\times 10^{3}$ \\ \hline
$ 512  $ & $ {\rm real} $ & $3.9\times 10^{2}$ & $7.4\times 10^{5}$ & $1.8\times 10^{4}$ & $8.5\times 10^{4}$ \\ \hline
$ 1024 $ & $ {\rm real} $ & $8.8\times 10^{2}$ & $2.3\times 10^{5}$ & $8.8\times 10^{3}$ & $2.4\times 10^{4}$ \\ \hline
$ 2048 $ & $ {\rm real} $ & $2.1\times 10^{3}$ & $2.0\times 10^{5}$ & $1.8\times 10^{4}$ & $3.2\times 10^{4}$ \\ \hline
    \end{tabular}
  \end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The condition numbers $\kappa_1 (A)=\frac{||A||_1}{||A^{-1}||_1}$ of random Toeplitz
 $n\times n$ matrices $A$}
\label{tabcondtoep}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{$n$}&\textbf{min}&\textbf{mean}&\textbf{max}&\textbf{std}\\\hline
$256$ & $9.1\times 10^{2}$ & $9.2\times 10^{3}$ & $1.3\times 10^{5}$ & $1.8\times 10^{4}$  \\ \hline
$512$ & $2.3\times 10^{3}$ & $3.0\times 10^{4}$ & $2.4\times 10^{5}$ & $4.9\times 10^{4}$  \\ \hline
$1024$ & $5.6\times 10^{3}$ & $7.0\times 10^{4}$ & $1.8\times 10^{6}$ & $2.0\times 10^{5}$ \\ \hline
$2048$ & $1.7\times 10^{4}$ & $1.8\times 10^{5}$ & $4.2\times 10^{6}$ & $5.4\times 10^{5}$ \\ \hline
$4096$ & $4.3\times 10^{4}$ & $2.7\times 10^{5}$ & $1.9\times 10^{6}$ & $3.4\times 10^{5}$ \\ \hline
$8192$ & $8.8\times 10^{4}$ & $1.2\times 10^{6}$ & $1.3\times 10^{7}$ & $2.2\times 10^{6}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The condition numbers $\kappa (A)$ of random circulant  $n\times n$ matrices $A$}
\label{tabcondcirc}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{$n$}&\textbf{min}&\textbf{mean}&\textbf{max}&\textbf{std}\\\hline
$256$ & $9.6\times 10^{0}$ & $1.1\times 10^{2}$ & $3.5\times 10^{3}$ & $4.0\times 10^{2}$ \\ \hline
$512$ & $1.4\times 10^{1}$ & $8.5\times 10^{1}$ & $1.1\times 10^{3}$ & $1.3\times 10^{2}$ \\ \hline
$1024$ & $1.9\times 10^{1}$ & $1.0\times 10^{2}$ & $5.9\times 10^{2}$ & $8.6\times 10^{1}$ \\ \hline
$2048$ & $4.2\times 10^{1}$ & $1.4\times 10^{2}$ & $5.7\times 10^{2}$ & $1.0\times 10^{2}$ \\ \hline
$4096$ & $6.0\times 10^{1}$ & $2.6\times 10^{2}$ & $3.5\times 10^{3}$ & $4.2\times 10^{2}$ \\ \hline
$8192$ & $9.5\times 10^{1}$ & $3.0\times 10^{2}$ & $1.5\times 10^{3}$ & $2.5\times 10^{2}$ \\ \hline
$16384$ & $1.2\times 10^{2}$ & $4.2\times 10^{2}$ & $3.6\times 10^{3}$ & $4.5\times 10^{2}$ \\ \hline
$32768$ & $2.3\times 10^{2}$ & $7.5\times 10^{2}$ & $5.6\times 10^{3}$ & $7.1\times 10^{2}$ \\ \hline
$65536$ & $2.4\times 10^{2}$ & $1.0\times 10^{3}$ & $1.2\times 10^{4}$ & $1.3\times 10^{3}$ \\ \hline
$131072$ & $3.9\times 10^{2}$ & $1.4\times 10^{3}$ & $5.5\times 10^{3}$ & $9.0\times 10^{2}$ \\ \hline
$262144$ & $6.3\times 10^{2}$ & $3.7\times 10^{3}$ & $1.1\times 10^{5}$ & $1.1\times 10^{4}$ \\ \hline
$524288$ & $8.0\times 10^{2}$ & $3.2\times 10^{3}$ & $3.1\times 10^{4}$ & $3.7\times 10^{3}$ \\ \hline
$1048576$ & $1.2\times 10^{3}$ & $4.8\times 10^{3}$ & $3.1\times 10^{4}$ & $5.1\times 10^{3}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\section{Implicit empirical support of the estimates of
Sections \ref{scgrtm} and  \ref{scgrcm}}\label{simprel}

The papers \cite{PQa} and \cite{PQZa} describe successful
 applications of randomized
circulant and Toeplitz multipliers to some fundamental matrix computations.
These applications were bound to fail if the multipliers were ill conditioned,
and so the success
gives some implicit empirical support to our probabilistic estimates of
Sections \ref{scgrtm} and  \ref{scgrcm} and motivates the effort
for proving these estimates.

Namely it is well known that Gaussian elimination with no pivoting fails numerically
where the input matrix has an ill conditioned leading block,
even if the matrix itself is nonsingular and well conditioned.
In our extensive tests in \cite{PQa} and \cite{PQZa}
we consistently fixed this problem by means of multiplication
by random circulant matrices. This implies
that the random circulant matrices tend to be nonsingular and well conditioned
for otherwise the products  would be singular or ill conditioned.

Likewise in other tests in \cite{PQZa} the column sets of
the products $A^TG$ of an $n\times m$ matrix $A^T$ having a numerical
rank $\rho$ by
random Toeplitz $m\times \rho$ multipliers consisently
approximated some bases for the singular spaces
associated with the $\rho$ largest singular vaues of the matrix $A$,
and this was readily extended to computing a rank-$\rho$  approximation
of the matrix $A$,
which is a fundamental task of matrix computations
\cite{HMT11}. Then again one can immediately observe that
 these tests would have failed numerically
if the multipliers and consequently the products were ill conditioned.

\section{Conclusions}\label{srel}

Estimating the condition numbers of random structured matrices
is a well known challenge (cf.  \cite{SST06}).
We deduce such estimates for Gaussian random Toeplitz and circulant
matrices.
The former estimates can be surprising because
the condition numbers
 grow exponentially in $n$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$
for some large and important classes
of  $n\times n$
Toeplitz matrices \cite{BG05},
whereas we prove the opposit for
Gaussian random Toeplitz matrices.
Our formal estimates are in good accordance
with our numerical tests,
except that circulant matrices tended to be even
better conditioned in the tests than according to our formal
study.
The study of the condition number of Hankel matrices
is immediately reduced to the study for Toeplitz matrices
and vice versa. Can
our progress be extended to other important classes
of structured matrices?

$~$

{\bf Acknowledgements:}
Our research has been supported by NSF Grant CCF--1116736 and
PSC CUNY Awards 64512--0042 and 65792--0043.

Numerical Analysis (math.NA); Probability (math.PR)


Revisiting a sharpened version of Hadamard's determinant inequality

Abstract: Hadamard's determinant inequality was refined and generalized by Zhang and Yang in [Acta Math. Appl. Sinica 20 (1997) 269-274]. Some special cases of the result were rediscovered recently by Rozanski, Witula and Hetmaniok in [Linear Algebra Appl. 532 (2017) 500-511]. We revisit the result in the case of positive semidefinite matrices, giving a new proof in terms of majorization and a complete description of the conditions for equality in the positive definite case. We also mention a block extension, which makes use of a result of Thompson in the 1960s.

\section{Introduction}

 Perhaps the best known determinantal inequality in mathematical sciences is the Hadamard inequality  (e.g., \cite[p. 505]{HJ13}) which says that
 if $A=(a_{ij})$ is an $n\times n$ (Hermitian) positive definite matrix, then
 \begin{eqnarray}\label{h1} \det A\le a_{11}\cdots a_{nn},\end{eqnarray}
 and equality holds if and only if $A$ is diagonal.

Two decades ago, Zhang and Yang obtained an elegant sharpening of the Hadamard inequality.  They proved it for a more general class of matrices and included a term involving off-diagonal entries of the matrix.

Let $A$ be an $n\times n$ complex matrix. For   a non-empty proper subset $G$ of $\{1,\dots,n\}$, let $A[G]$ denote the principal submatrix of $A$ formed by discarding the $i$th row and column of $A$, for each $i\notin G$. We say $A$ is an $F$-matrix if for all such $G$, $\det(A[G])\ge0$ and $\det(A)\le\det(A[G])\det(A[G^C])$ That is, all principal minors of $A$ are non-negative and they satisfy a Fischer-type inequality. Standard results show that the Hermitian $F$-matrices are exactly the positive semi-definite matrices.

 \begin{thm}\label{ZYmain} (Zhang-Yang \cite{ZY97}) If $A=(a_{ij})$ is an $F$-matrix, then $a_{ij}a_{ji}\ge0$ for all $i,j$ and, if $\sigma$ is a non-trivial permutation of $\{1,\dots,n\}$, then
\begin{equation}\label{maxZY}
\det(A)+\Big(\prod_{i=1}^na_{i,\sigma(i)}a_{\sigma(i),i}\Big)^{1/2}\le \prod_{i=1}^na_{ii}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}

Without noticing the work of  Zhang and Yang  in \cite{ZY97}, which was written in Chinese, Rozanski, Witula and Hetmaniok recently rediscovered some special cases of (\ref{maxZY}) in \cite{RWH2017}. For this reason, we think it worthwhile to bring the nice result of Theorem \ref{ZYmain} to the attention of the linear algebra community.

Besides Theorem \ref{ZYmain}, \cite{ZY97} also contains necessary and sufficient conditions for an $F$-matrix $A$ to satisfy the equation $\det(A)=a_{11}\dots a_{nn}$. The same was done for the equation $\operatorname{permanent}(A)=a_{11}\dots a_{nn}$. However, Zhang and Yang did not give conditions for equality to hold in (\ref{maxZY}). Conditions for equality were included by Rozanski, et al. for the special cases considered in \cite{RWH2017}.

There are  multiple known ways to prove  the Hadamard inequality (\ref{h1}) in the literature (see, e.g.,  \cite{Hol07, HJ13, MO82}). We recall that one insightful way of seeing the Hadamard  inequality is via Schur's majorization inequality (see Lemma \ref{lem1}). For a quick summary of the intimate connection between majorization and determinant inequalities, we refer to \cite{Lin17}.

Our initial motivation was that since the original Hadamard inequality (\ref{h1}) is immediate from   majorization (see, e.g.  \cite[p. 44]{And94}, \cite[p. 67]{Zha13}), it would be nice if Theorem \ref{ZYmain}  could also be seen from that perspective.  In this note, we give a new proof of Theorem \ref{ZYmain} for positive semi-definite matrices using majorization techniques. Our results include necessary and sufficient conditions for equality to hold when the matrix $A$ is positive definite.

Before proceeding, let us fix some notation. For a vector $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$, we denote by $x^{\downarrow}=(x_1^{\downarrow}, \ldots, x_n^{\downarrow})\in\mathbb{R}^n$ the vector with the same components as $x$, but sorted in nonincreasing order. Given $x, y\in \mathbb{R}^n$, we say that $x$  majorizes $y$ (or $y$ is majorized by $x$),  written as $x\succ y$, if
 $$
\sum_{i=1}^k x_i^{\downarrow} \geq \sum_{i=1}^k y_i^{\downarrow} \quad \text{for } k=1,\dots, n-1
$$
and equality holds at $k=n$.

Three basic facts about majorization are given below. The first is a matrix characterization, the next is Schur's majorization inequality, and the last is a consequence for the elementary symmetric functions. A {\it doubly stochastic matrix} is square matrix with non-negative entries and all row and column  sums equal to 1.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem0} \cite[p. 253]{HJ13} If $x$ and $y$ are real row vectors then $x$ majorizes $y$ if and only if there exists a doubly stochastic matrix $S$ such that $y=xS$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem1} \cite[p. 249]{HJ13}  The eigenvalues  of a Hermitian matrix majorize its diagonal entries. \end{lemma}

Fix a positive integer $n$ and let $e_k(x)$, $k=1, 2, \ldots, n$, denote the $k$th elementary symmetric function in the $n$ variables $x_1, \ldots, x_n$. See \cite[p.114]{MOA11}. By convention, $e_0(x)=1$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem2} \cite[p.115]{MOA11}  Let $x, y\in [0,\infty)^n$. If $n\ge2$ and $x\succ y$, then $e_k(x)\le e_k(y)$ for $k=0, 1, \ldots, n$. If $k>1$ and $x, y\in (0,\infty)^n$ then equality holds if and only if $x^\downarrow=y^\downarrow$.  \end{lemma}

 \section{A new proof of  Theorem \ref{ZYmain} and more}

In this section, $\Lambda$, $V$ and $B$ will be as follows: Let $\Lambda$ be a diagonal matrix with non-negative diagonal entries $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda _n$. Let $V=(v_{ij})$ be an $n\times n$ matrix whose rows and columns are all unit vectors, that is, all diagonal entries of $V^*V$ and $VV^*$ are equal to $1$. Set $B=(b_{ij})=V^*\Lambda V$.
It is important to point out that, in general, $\prod_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\ne \det(B)$, although they are equal when $V$ is unitary.

\begin{lemma}\label{2.L} Let $P(t)=\prod_{i=1}^n(\lambda_{i}-t)$ and $Q(t)=\prod_{i=1}^n(b_{ii}-t)$. Fix $s<t\le\min(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$. Then $P(t)\le Q(t)$ and $P(s)-P(t)\le Q(s)-Q(t)$. If $n\ge3$ and $P(s)-P(t)= Q(s)-Q(t)$ then $(b_{11},\dots,b_{nn})$ is a permutation of $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The conditions on $V$ show that the matrix $S=(|v_{ij}|^2)$ is doubly stochastic and a calculation shows that $(b_{11}-t,\dots,b_{nn}-t)=(\lambda_1-t,\dots,\lambda _n-t)S$.
By Lemma \ref{lem0} and Lemma \ref{lem2},
$$
e_k(\lambda_1-t,\dots,\lambda _n-t)\le e_k(b_{11}-t,\dots,b_{nn}-t)
$$
for $k=0,\dots,n$. In particular,
$$
P(t)=e_n(\lambda_1-t,\dots,\lambda _n-t)\le e_n(b_{11}-t,\dots,b_{nn}-t)=Q(t).
$$
Also,
\begin{align*}
P(s)-P(t)&=\prod_{i=1}^n(\lambda_i-t+t-s)-\prod_{i=1}^n(\lambda_i-t)\\
&=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}e_k(\lambda_1-t,\dots,\lambda _n-t)(t-s)^{n-k}\\
&\le\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}e_k(b_{11}-t,\dots,b_{nn}-t)(t-s)^{n-k} \\
&=\prod_{i=1}^n(b_{ii}-t+t-s)- \prod_{i=1}^n(b_{ii}-t)
=Q(s)-Q(t).
\end{align*}
If $n\ge3$ and $P(s)-P(t)= Q(s)-Q(t)$, then the above estimate reduces to equality throughout, which implies $e_2(\lambda_1-t,\dots,\lambda _n-t)=e_2(b_{11}-t,\dots,b_{nn}-t)$. But $e_2$ is strictly Schur concave on all of $\Bbb R^n$. (See \cite[A.4]{MOA11} to prove concavity and then \cite[A.3.a]{MOA11} to prove strict concavity.) Thus $(b_{11}-t,\dots,b_{nn}-t)$ is a permutation of $(\lambda_1-t,\dots,\lambda_n-t)$ and therefore $(b_{11},\dots,b_{nn})$ is a permutation of $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm} If $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$ are non-negative, then
\begin{equation}\label{H+}
\prod_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\le\prod_{i=1}^n b_{ii}.
\end{equation}
If $n\ge3$ and $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$ are strictly positive and distinct then equality holds if and only if $V$ has exactly one non-zero entry in each row and column.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Lemma \ref{2.L} shows that $P(0)\le Q(0)$, which is (\ref{H+}).  Note that $V$ has exactly one non-zero entry in each row and column if and only if $S=(|v_{ij}|^2)$ is a permutation matrix. In that case, since $(b_{11},\dots,b_{nn})=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda _n)S$, (\ref{H+}) holds with equality.

Now suppose $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$ are strictly positive and distinct. If equality holds in (\ref{H+}), that is, if $e_n(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda _n)=e_n(b_{11},\dots,b_{nn})$, then $b_{11},\dots,b_{nn}$ are also strictly positive. Therefore Lemma \ref{lem2} shows $(b_{11},\dots,b_{nn})$ is a permutation of $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda _n)$. It follows that there are permutation matrices $R$ and $R'$ such that $(\lambda_1^\downarrow,\dots,\lambda _n^\downarrow)=(\lambda_1^\downarrow,\dots,\lambda _n^\downarrow)R'SR$. Clearly, $R'SR=(t_{ij})$ is also a doubly stochastic matrix.

Assume that for some $i$, there exists an $m<i$ such that $t_{im}\ne0$. For this $i$ choose the largest such $m$. Then
$t_{ij}(\lambda_j^\downarrow-\lambda_i^\downarrow)=0$ for $j>m$, $t_{ij}(\lambda_j^\downarrow-\lambda_i^\downarrow)\ge0$ for $j<m$, and $t_{im}(\lambda_m^\downarrow-\lambda_i^\downarrow)>0$. This shows that
$\sum_{j=1}^nt_{ij}(\lambda_j^\downarrow-\lambda_i^\downarrow)>0$, which contradicts $(\lambda_1^\downarrow,\dots,\lambda _n^\downarrow)=(\lambda_1^\downarrow,\dots,\lambda _n^\downarrow)R'SR$. We conclude that $R'PR$ is upper triangular. It is easy to see that the only upper triangular, doubly stochastic matrix is $I$. Thus, $S$ is a permutation matrix.
\end{proof}

The following examples show that the conditions for equality may change in the non-generic cases where the $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$ are not distinct or include one or more zeros.

\begin{eg} Let $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=1$ and $V=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}i\cos\theta&i\sin\theta&0\\\sin\theta&\cos\theta&0\\0&0&-1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ for some $\theta$. Then $B=V^*V=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1&\sin2\theta&0\\\sin2\theta&1&0\\0&0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, but $VV^*=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1&i\sin2\theta&0\\-i\sin2\theta&1&0\\0&0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. So we have equality in (\ref{H+}) but $V$ does not have only one non-zero entry in each row and column. Significantly, the doubly stochastic matrix $S=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\cos^2\theta&\sin^2\theta&0\\\sin^2\theta&\cos^2\theta&0\\0&0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ is not uniquely determined; it varies with $\theta$.
\end{eg}

\begin{eg} With $\Lambda$ and $V$ as defined above, let $\Lambda'=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\Lambda&0\\0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $V'=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}V&0\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. Then we have equality in (\ref{H+}) because both sides are zero, but $V'$ does not have one non-zero entry in each row and column unless $V$ does.
\end{eg}

The conditions imposed on $V$, above, are satisfied by any unitary matrix but the unitaries are only a small subclass of the possible matrices $V$. The next example gives large class of matrices $V$ that are not unitary.

\begin{eg}
Suppose $T=(t_{ij})$  is an $n\times n$ Hermitian matrix with spectral norm $\|T\|\le 1$ satisfying $t_{ii}=0$ for all $i$. Since $\|T\|\le1$, $I+T$ is positive semi-definite and therefore has a positive semi-definite square root $V=(I+T)^{1/2}$. Note that $V^*V=VV^*=I+T$, a matrix with ones on the diagonal. If $T$ is not zero the matrix $V$ is not unitary.
\end{eg}

On the other hand, if $V$ is unitary, the conditions on $V$ are satisfied automatically, the product $\lambda_1\cdots\lambda_n$ is the determinant of $B$, and $B$ could be any positive semi-definite matrix.

Let $S_n$ be the group of permutations of $\{1,\dots,n\}$ and let $D_n$ denote the
collection of permutations that have no fixed point. These are the so-called
derangements of $\{1,\dots,n\}$. We also let $e_i$ be the $i$th column of the $n\times n$ identity matrix so that $Ae_i$ extracts the $i$th column of $A$. We remind the reader not to confuse $e_i$ with $e_i(x)$.

 \begin{thm}\label{refined} Let $n\ge 3$. If $A=(a_{ij})$ is positive semi-definite and $\tau\in D_n$, then
 	\begin{equation}\label{maxtau}
 	\det(A)+\prod_{i=1}^n|a_{i,\tau(i)}|\le \prod_{i=1}^na_{ii}.
 	\end{equation}
 	Equality holds if and only if $A$ is diagonal or the two vectors $Ae_i$ and $Ae_{\tau(i)}$ are collinear for each $i$.
 \end{thm}
\begin{proof} Choose a unitary $V$ such that $A=V^*\Lambda V$,  where $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$ are the (necessarily non-negative) eigenvalues of $A$. This makes $B=A$. Then set $t=\min(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$. Lemma \ref{2.L} shows that $P(0)-P(t)\le Q(0)-Q(t)$. The choice of $t$ ensures that $P(t)=0$. Also $P(0)=\det(A)$ and $Q(0)=\prod_{i=1}^na_{ii}$. To prove (\ref{maxtau}) we use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to show that $Q(t)\ge\prod_{i=1}^n|a_{i,\tau(i)}|$ for each $\tau\in D_n$. Fix $\tau\in D_n$ and observe that
\begin{equation}\label{CS}\begin{aligned}
|a_{i,\tau(i)}|^2&=\bigg|\sum_{j=1}^n\bar v_{ji}\lambda_jv_{j,\tau(i)}\bigg|^2\\
&=\bigg|\sum_{j=1}^n\bar v_{ji}(\lambda_j-t)v_{j,\tau(i)}\bigg|^2\\
&\le\sum_{j=1}^n|v_{ji}|^2(\lambda_j-t)\sum_{j=1}^n|v_{j,\tau(i)}|^2(\lambda_j-t)\\
&=(a_{ii}-t)(a_{\tau(i),\tau(i)}-t).
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{aCS}
\prod_{i=1}^n|a_{i,\tau(i)}|
\le\bigg(\prod_{i=1}^n(a_{ii}-t)\prod_{i=1}^n(a_{\tau(i),\tau(i)}-t)\bigg)^{1/2}=\prod_{i=1}^n(a_{ii}-t)=Q(t).
\end{equation}
Next we consider conditions for equality. If $A$ is diagonal it is clear that (\ref{maxtau}) holds with equality. Suppose   the two vectors $Ae_i$ and $Ae_{\tau(i)}$ are collinear for each $i$. Then $A$ is singular, $\det(A)=0$, and $t=0$. Fix $i$ and choose $a$ and $b$, not both zero, such that $aAe_i=bAe_{\tau(i)}$. Then for each $j$, $e_j^*VA(ae_i-be_{\tau(i)})=0$. But $AV^*e_j=V^*\Lambda e_j=\lambda_jV^*e_j$ so $\lambda_je_j^*V(ae_i-be_{\tau(i)})=0$. Therefore $av_{ji}=bv_{j,\tau(i)}$ for all $j$ such that $\lambda_j\ne0$. This gives equality in (\ref{CS}). Since this holds for all $i$, we have equality in (\ref{aCS}) as well. Since $\det(A)=0$ we also have equality in (\ref{maxtau}).

Conversely,  suppose equality holds in (\ref{maxtau}). The above proof shows that we must have $P(0)-P(t)= Q(0)-Q(t)$ and equality in (\ref{CS}) for all $i$. If $t>0$, Lemma \ref{2.L} shows that $(a_{11},\dots,a_{nn})$ is a permutation of $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$ giving equality in Hadamard's inequality. Therefore $A$ is diagonal. If $t=0$ then equality in (\ref{CS}) implies that for all $i$ there exist constants $a$ and $b$, not both zero, such that $av_{ji}=bv_{j,\tau(i)}$ for all $j$ such that $\lambda_j\ne 0$. Thus, for all $j$, $\lambda_je_j^*V(ae_i-be_{\tau(i)})=0$ and hence, as above, $e_j^*VA(ae_i-be_{\tau(i)})=0$. This holds for all $j$, and $V$ is invertible, so we conclude that $aAe_i=bAe_{\tau(i)}$, that is, $Ae_i$ and $Ae_{\tau(i)}$ are collinear.
\end{proof}

\begin{rem} The collinearity condition for equality above may be expressed in terms of matrix rank: For $J\subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}$, let $P_J$ be the orthogonal projection onto $\operatorname{span}\{e_j:j\in J\}$. Let $J^\tau_1,\dots,J^\tau_{n_\tau}$ be the orbits of $\tau\in D_n$. Then $I=\sum_{k=1}^{n_\tau}P_{J_k}$ so $A=\sum_{k=1}^{n_\tau}AP_{J_k}$. The condition that the two vectors $Ae_i$ and $Ae_{\tau(i)}$ are collinear for each $i$ is equivalent to saying that the rank of $AP_{J_k}$ is at most 1 for $k=1,\dots,n_\tau$.
\end{rem}

The next result follows from Lemma \ref{2.L} and the Cauchy-Schwarz estimates of Theorem \ref{refined}. We state it without proof.

\begin{thm} Let $\tau\in D_n$. If for all $i$, the $(i,\tau(i))$ entry of $V^*V$ is zero then
$$
\prod_{i=1}^n\lambda_i+\prod_{i=1}^n|b_{i,\tau(i)}|\le\prod_{i=1}^n b_{ii}.
$$
\end{thm}

Next is our proof of the motivating result: Theorem \ref{ZYmain} for positive semi-definite matrices, including conditions for equality.

Observe that if $n=2$, (\ref{maxtau}) reduces to equality for every $A$.

 \begin{cor}\label{refinedcor} \cite{ZY97} Let  $A=(a_{ij})$ be positive semi-definite matrix, and $\sigma\in S_n$. If $\sigma$ is not the identity permutation, then
 	\begin{equation}\label{maxsigma}
 	\det(A)+\prod_{i=1}^n|a_{i,\sigma(i)}|\le \prod_{i=1}^na_{ii}.
 	\end{equation}
Equality holds if $A$ is diagonal, or if for each $i$ either: $\sigma(i)=i$ and $Ae_i$, $e_i$ are collinear; $\sigma(i)\ne i$ and $\sigma$ is a transposition; or $\sigma(i)\ne i$ and $Ae_i$, $Ae_{\sigma(i)}$ are collinear. If $A$ is positive definite, these conditions are also necessary for equality.
 \end{cor}

\begin{proof} Let $F$ be the set of fixed points of $\sigma$, a proper subset of $\{1,\dots,n\}$, and let $G$ be its complement. If $F$ is empty, the result follows from Theorem \ref{refined}. Note that both $A[F]$ and $A[G]$ are positive semi-definite. Fischer's inequality (see \cite[Theorem 7.8.5]{HJ13}), followed by Hadamard's inequality, gives
\begin{equation}\label{F-H}
\det(A)\le\det(A[G])\det(A[F])
\le\det(A[G])\prod_{i\in F}a_{ii}.
\end{equation}
Note that the restriction of $\sigma$ to $G$  is a permutation of $G$ with no fixed point. By Theorem \ref{refined}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{refG}
\det(A[G])+\prod_{i\in G}|a_{i,\sigma(i)}|\le\prod_{i\in G}a_{ii},
\end{equation}
provided $G$ has at least three elements. We can remove that restriction, however, because (\ref{refG}) becomes equality when $G$ has exactly two elements, it is impossible for $G$ to have exactly one element, and we have excluded the case that $G$ is empty.
Combining the last two inequalities gives (\ref{maxsigma}).

If $A$ is diagonal then we clearly have equality in (\ref{maxsigma}). Now suppose that for each $i$ either: $\sigma(i)=i$ and $Ae_i$, $e_i$ are collinear; or $\sigma(i)\ne i$ and, if $\sigma$ is not just a transposition, then $Ae_i$, $Ae_{\sigma(i)}$ are collinear. This implies that $A[F]$ is diagonal, and $A$ has (up to reordering of the standard basis) a block diagonal decomposition with blocks $A[F]$ and $A[G]$. Thus we have equality in (\ref{F-H}). The conditions for equality in Theorem \ref{refined} give equality in (\ref{refG}) when $n\ge3$ and equality is trivial when $n=2$ so we have equality in (\ref{maxsigma}).

Now suppose that $A$ is positive definite and
equality holds in (\ref{maxsigma}).
Since $\det(A)>0$, the Fischer inequality shows that $\det(A[F])>0$ and $\det(A[G])>0$. Therefore we have equality in both  (\ref{F-H}) and (\ref{refG}).

Equality in the Fischer inequality from (\ref{F-H})  implies that $A$ has (up to reordering of the standard basis) a block diagonal decomposition with blocks $A[F]$ and $A[G]$ (see \cite[p. 217]{Zha11}).  Equality in the Hadamard inequality from (\ref{F-H}) implies that $A[F]$ is diagonal. Together, these show that if $\sigma(i)=i$, then $Ae_i$ and $e_i$ are collinear. Equality in (\ref{refG}) implies, via Theorem \ref{refined}, that if $G$ has at least three elements and $\sigma(i)\ne i$, then $Ae_i$, $Ae_{\sigma(i)}$ are collinear. If $G$ has fewer than three elements then $\sigma$ can only be a transposition. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

Recall that the Hadamard product ``$\circ$" is the entrywise product of matrices. So the Hadamard inequality may be written as $\det A\le \det( A \circ I)$ for a positive semi-definite $A$. Theorem \ref{refined} enables us to state the following result.
     \begin{thm} \label{t4} Let $\tau\in D_n$ be a derangement and $P=(p_{ij})$ where $p_{ij}$ is $1$ when $j=\tau(i)$ and zero otherwise.
For a positive semi-definite matrix $A=(a_{ij})$,	\begin{eqnarray}
             \det (A\circ I)\ge \det A+|\det (A\circ P)|.
            	\end{eqnarray}   Equality holds if and only if the matrix $A$ is a diagonal matrix or  the two vectors $Ae_i$ and $Ae_{\tau(i)}$ are collinear for each $i$.\end{thm}

          \begin{rem}
         We expect that Theorem  \ref{t4} will stimulate further investigation of Oppenheim-Schur inequalities (see \cite[p. 509]{HJ13}).   \end{rem}

  In 1961, Thompson \cite{Tho61} published a remarkable  determinant inequality.

  \begin{thm}\label{Th}If $A=(A_{ij})$ is positive definite with each block $A_{ij}$ square, then
  	\begin{eqnarray}\label{tho}
   \det A\le \det (\det A_{ij}).
  	\end{eqnarray} Equality holds if and only if $A$ is block diagonal.
  \end{thm}

 We point out an extension of  Theorem \ref{refined} to the block matrix case.

 \begin{thm}If $A=(A_{ij})$ is an $n\times n$ block positive definite matrix with each block $A_{ij}$ square, then for any derangement $\tau\in D_n$,
   	\begin{eqnarray*}
    \det A+\prod_{i=1}^{n}|\det A_{i,\tau(i)}|\le  \prod_{i=1}^{n}\det A_{ii}.
   	\end{eqnarray*}
Equality holds if and only if $A$ is block diagonal.
   \end{thm}
    \begin{proof} By (\ref{tho}), it suffices to work with the $n\times n$ positive definite matrix $(\det A_{ij})$. The conclusion then follows by  Theorem \ref{t4}.
    \end{proof}

 \section*{Acknowledgments} Both authors are grateful to Professor Xingzhi Zhan for pointing to the early work of Xiao-Dong Zhang and  Shangjun Yang on this topic. The authors also acknowledge some comments from the referee which  help improve the presentation.   The work of M. Lin is supported by the National Natural
 Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11601314). The work of G. Sinnamon is supported by the
 Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.