TOP

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 66–87 | Cite as

Critical angles between two convex cones II. Special cases

Original Paper

Abstract

The concept of critical angle between two linear subspaces has applications in statistics, numerical linear algebra and other areas. Such concept has been abundantly studied in the literature. Part I of this work is an attempt to build up a theory of critical angles for a pair of closed convex cones. The need of such theory is motivated, among other reasons, by some specific problems arising in regression analysis of cone-constrained data, see Tenenhaus in (Psychometrika 53:503–524, 1988). Angle maximization and/or angle minimization problems involving a pair of convex cones are at the core of our discussion. Such optimization problems are nonconvex in general and their numerical resolution offers a number of challenges. Part II of this work focusses on the practical computation of the maximal angle between specially structured cones.

Keywords

Nonconvex optimization Maximal angle Critical angle  Convex cones Topheavy cones Ellipsoidal cones  Cones of matrices 

Mathematics Subject Classification

15A18 15A48 52A40 90C26 90C33 

References

  1. De Cock K, De Moor B (2002) Subspace angles between ARMA models. Syst Control Lett 46:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De Cock K, De Moor B (2000) Subspace angles between linear stochastic models. In: Proceedings 39th IEEE conference on decision and control, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  3. Fiedler M, Haynsworth E (1973) Cones which are topheavy with respect to a norm. Linear Multilinear Algebra 1:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goldberg F, Shaked-Monderer N (2014) On the maximal angle between copositive matrices. Elec J Linear Algebra 27:837–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hotelling H (1936) Relations between two sets of variates. Biometrika 28:321–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Iusem A, Seeger A (2007) Angular analysis of two classes of non-polyhedral convex cones: the point of view of optimization theory. Comput Applied Math 26:191–214Google Scholar
  7. Jordan C (1875) Essai sur la géométrie à \(n\) dimensions. Bull Soc Math France 3:103–174Google Scholar
  8. Lyubich Y (1995) Perron-Frobenius theory for finite-dimensional spaces with a hyperbolic cone. Linear Algebra Appl 220:283–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mohammadi B (2014) Principal angles between subspaces and reduced order modelling accuracy in optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 50:237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Obert DG (1991) The angle between two cones. Linear Algebra Appl 144:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Seeger A (1999) Eigenvalue analysis of equilibrium processes defined by linear complementarity conditions. Linear Algebra Appl 292:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Seeger A (2011) Epigraphical cones I. J Convex Anal 18:1171–1196Google Scholar
  13. Seeger A, Sossa D (2015) Critical angles bewteen two convex cones. Part I: general theory. TOP, online since. doi:10.1007/s11750-015-0375-y
  14. Shashua A, Wolf L (2003) Learning over sets using kernel principal angles. J Mach Learn Res 4:913–931Google Scholar
  15. Tenenhaus M (1988) Canonical analysis of two convex polyhedral cones and applications. Psychometrika 53:503–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de MathématiquesUniversité d’AvignonAvignonFrance
  2. 2.Departamento de Ingeniería Matemática, Centro de Modelamiento Matemático (CNRS UMI 2807), FCFMUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations