On the Positivity of a Class of Cauchy-Like Matrices

Let

where P(s)=\prod_{k=1}^n(s+\lambda_k) and Q_1(s) and Q_2(s) are polynomials of degree at most n-1. Assume that g_1(\lambda_i)=g_2(\lambda_i), i=1,\dots,n. Then

Thus the polynomial Q_1(s)-Q_2(s), whose degree is at most n-1, vanishes at the n distinct points \lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n. Hence Q_1(s)-Q_2(s)\equiv 0 and therefore g_1(s)=g_2(s).

First, K is a Cauchy matrix associated with positive distinct nodes and hence it is positive definite. Thus K is invertible, and z is well-defined.

By definition of z,

and, denoting by z_j the j-th component of z, this is equivalent to

Define

By taking (Proof) into account, we have

We claim that

Indeed, both sides of this equality are strictly proper rational functions having only simple poles at -x_1,\dots,-x_n. In fact, \rho(0)=1 so that the singularity at s=0 of \frac{1-\rho(s)}{2s} is removable.

Moreover, since P(-x_i)=0 for every i=1,\dots,n, we have

Hence (?) follows from Lemma 2.1.

Now define

and let

and, for i=1,\dots,n,

To prove our result, we derive some relations linking E(\tau) with R(s) and \rho(s) (remember that s=1/\tau).

To prove (?), we have

Now observe that

By plugging (?) into (?) and taking the expansion (?) into account, we get

By comparing the coefficients of \tau^r, we now get (?).

We now prove (?). Fix i\in\{1,\dots,n\}. Using the generating function U_i(\tau), we have

Comparing the coefficients of \tau^r gives

which is equivalent to (?).

Finally, taking into account (?), the definitions of h of z and of w and (?), we get

so that

Assume without loss of generality that p\le q. Then

We expand this signed sum combinatorially. A monomial in (-1)^{p-a}e_a(x)e_{p+q+1-a}(x) is obtained by choosing two subsets

Its sign is (-1)^{p-a}, and its absolute value is x_Ax_B, where for any subset J of \{1,\dots,n\}, x_J:=\prod_{j\in J} x_j. Of course, there may be many monomials in the sum (Proof) having the same absolute value but possibly different sign. To parametrize all such monomials, consider the disjoint subsets

Then

and x_L^2x_T uniquely determines the disjoint sets L and T. Hence, to parametrize all the monomials in the sum (Proof) having the same absolute value x_Ax_B, we need to parametrize all A and B corresponding to the same L,T.Fix two disjoint subsets L,T\subset\{1,\dots,n\}, and consider the monomial

Let d:=|L| and observe that d\leq p and d\leq q. Since |A|+|B|=p+q+1, we must have

For a fixed pair (L,T), the possible choices of A and B are obtained by choosing a subset D\subset T, and setting

The condition |A|\le p gives

Therefore the total coefficient of x_L^2x_T in s_{p,q}(x) is

where we have used the following elementary alternating-binomial identity holding for 0\leq m<N:

Hence s_{p,q}(x) is a sum of positive terms of the type x_L^2x_T weighted by nonnegative coefficients and therefore is manifestly nonnegative. Indeed, we can explicitly write s_{p,q}(x) as

where the inner sum is zero if the cardinality conditions cannot be satisfied.

First of all notice that A_n^{(p,q)}(x) can be rewritten as

where K is the Cauchy matrix defined in (?) and the diagonal matrices U_p and U_q are defined in (?). Consider the vector w:=Xz= X\frac12K^{-1}h=X \frac12K^{-1}X^{-1}\1 and observe that w\neq 0. By taking (?) into account, we get

where we have defined

We also need the scalar identity

To prove it, we use E(\tau) and U_i(\tau) defined in (?) and (?), respectively. Indeed, we use the following bivariate generating function and we get

where to obtain the last equality we have used twice (for \eta and for \tau) the identity (?). Developing the products we get

Now, we expand the right-hand side of (?) to compare the coefficient of \tau^p\eta^q with the corresponding coefficient of the left-hand side, i.e. v_{p,q}^{\top}w. We assume that p\le q. The case q<p follows by symmetry. From (?) it follows that E(\eta)E(-\tau) = \sum_{a=0}^n\sum_{b=0}^n e_a(x)e_b(x)(-1)^b \eta^a\tau^b and E(\tau)E(-\eta) = \sum_{a=0}^n\sum_{b=0}^n e_a(x)e_b(x)(-1)^b \tau^a\eta^b. Hence,

The terms with a=b vanish. Moreover, if a_0<b_0, the combined contribution of the terms indexed by (a,b)=(a_0,b_0) and by (a,b)=(b_0,a_0) is

Hence

We now divide by \tau-\eta. For a<b,

Thus

Thus the monomial \tau^p\eta^q appears in the contribution of the pair (a,b) precisely when there exists an integer m\in\{0,\dots, b-a-1\} such that p=b-1-m, and q=a+m. Adding the two equations gives p+q=a+b-1. Equivalently, b=p+q+1-a. Since we are assuming p\le q, 0\leq a<b, and 0\le m\le b-a-1, the possible values of a are exactly

Indeed, q=a+m\leq a+b-a-1=b-1 so that a+b-1=p+q\leq p+b-1 and hence a\leq p. On the other hand, if a satisfies (?) and we set b=p+q+1-a, then a<b, and the corresponding value m=q-a satisfies 0\le m\le b-a-1.

Therefore the coefficient of \tau^p\eta^q is

We now distinguish two parity cases. First suppose that p+q is odd. Then p+q+1 is even. Hence p+q+1-a has the same parity as a, and therefore (-1)^{p+q+1-a}=(-1)^a. Thus every summand in the preceding formula vanishes, and so when p+q is odd v_{p,q}^{\top}w=0. On the other hand, when p+q is odd \gamma_{p,q} = \frac{(-1)^{n+p+1}+(-1)^{n+q+1}}{2}=0. Consequently, when p+q is odd v_{p,q}^{\top}w = 0 = \gamma_{p,q}s_{p,q}(x) and hence the desired scalar identity (?) holds.

Now suppose that p+q is even. Then p+q+1 is odd. Hence p+q+1-a has parity opposite to that of a, and therefore

It follows that

Substituting this into the coefficient formula gives

Since p+q is even, the integers p and q have the same parity. Thus (-1)^{n+p+1} = (-1)^{n+q+1}, and consequently

Moreover, since p\le q, the definition of s_{p,q} gives

Therefore

This concludes the proof of the scalar identity (?) for p\le q. Since the definitions of v_{p,q}, A_n^{(p,q)}, \gamma_{p,q}, and s_{p,q} are symmetric in p and q, the same identity follows for q<p.

Combining (Proof) and (?) we immediately get

and, since w\neq 0, this implies

We prove the proposition by induction on n. For n=1, the only possible pair is p=q=0. We have

and hence

Assume the proposition has been proved in all dimensions strictly smaller than n. Fix 0\le p,q\le n-1. In the induction argument we use the following convention. For a vector y of length m, the quantities u_r(y), v_{r,s}(y), and A_m^{(r,s)}(y) are defined using e_r^{(i)}(y)=0 whenever r<0 or r>m-1. The scalar s_{r,s}(y) is defined by the same formula as above, with e_j(y)=0 for j>m. Thus, if either r>m-1 or s>m-1, then v_{r,s}(y)=0 and A_m^{(r,s)}(y)=0, while s_{r,s}(y)\ge0 by the scalar positivity lemma.

We prove that (3.2) holds by resorting to the principal-minor criterion. Since, by Lemma 3.2

it remains to show that every proper principal minor is nonnegative. To this end, we index the first row and column of \mathcal H_n^{(p,q)} by 0.

First consider the principal submatrices of \mathcal H_n^{(p,q)} containing the index 0. Consider one such a submatrix indexed by

If I=\varnothing, the corresponding principal submatrix is the 1\times1 matrix s_{p,q}(x), which is positive semidefinite by Lemma 3.1. Hence we may assume I\ne\varnothing.

Let

Using the decompositions

we get

and

where v_{p,q}(x)[I] and A_n^{(p,q)}(x)[I] denote, respectively, the restriction of v_{p,q}(x) and A_n^{(p,q)}(x) to the set if indexes I. Consequently,

where

is the difference between s_{p,q}(x) and the corresponding sum of the top-left entries. Let \mu:=\min\{p,q\}. We now show that

Equivalently, R_{p,q} consists precisely of those monomials, in the positive expansion (?) of s_{p,q}(x), for which every variable appearing to the first power belongs to J. This clearly implies R_{p,q}(x_I,x_J)\geq 0. From now on, we assume p\le q so that \mu=p. By symmetry, this assumption can be done without loss of generality. To prove (?), consider a monomial x_L^2x_T in the positive expansion (?) of s_{p,q}(x), so that

Its coefficient in s_{p,q}(x) is

We compare this with its coefficient in the term

First suppose that T\cap I\ne\varnothing. Let

In a contribution from the term indexed by (a,b), the two factors e_a(x_J) and e_b(x_J) must contain every variable in L\cap J, and they must split the variables in T\cap J. If h variables of T\cap J are placed in e_a(x_J), then

and there are \binom{t_J}{h} such choices.

For this fixed h, the remaining part of the monomial must be supplied by s_{p-a,q-b}(x_I). Its coefficient is

Indeed, the upper index is t_I-1, while the two possible lower indices are p-d-h and t_I-1-(p-d-h); the two give the same binomial coefficient. Therefore the coefficient of x_L^2x_T in the convolution term is

where we used the Vandermonde’s identity and the fact that t_I+t_J=|T|=p+q+1-2d. The right-hand side of (?) is exactly the coefficient (?). Hence every monomial with T\cap I\ne\varnothing cancels in the difference (?).

Now suppose that T\subseteq J. Then the convolution term cannot produce x_L^2x_T. Indeed, each nonzero monomial in a positive expansion of some s_{r,s}(x_I) has at least one variable from I appearing to the first power, since its set of variables appearing to the first power has cardinality r+s+1-2\delta with \delta\le \min\{r,s\}. Thus the monomial x_L^2x_T survives in R_{p,q}(x_I,x_J) with its full coefficient (?). Consequently, the only surviving monomials are exactly those with T\subseteq J. This proves (?). Since all the coefficients in (?) are binomial coefficients and all the monomials x_L^2x_T are nonnegative for x_i>0, we conclude that

Therefore, in (?), all coefficients e_a(x_J)e_b(x_J) are nonnegative, the matrices \mathcal H_{|I|}^{(p-a,q-b)}(x_I) are positive semidefinite by the induction hypothesis, and the scalar block containing R_{p,q}(x_I,x_J) is positive semidefinite. Hence

In conclusion, every proper principal minor containing the index 0 is nonnegative.

It remains to prove that every proper principal submatrix of \mathcal H_n^{(p,q)}(x) not containing the index 0 is positive semidefinite. Such a submatrix is a principal submatrix of A_n^{(p,q)}(x), indexed by some

If I\subsetneq\{1,\dots,n\}, put

For i\in I,

and similarly

Therefore

where terms with negative indices or indices larger than |I|-1 are interpreted as zero, and we use the symmetry A_{|I|}^{(r,s)}=A_{|I|}^{(s,r)}. By the induction hypothesis, every nonzero matrix on the right-hand side is positive semidefinite. Since all coefficients are nonnegative, we get

Thus every such principal minor is nonnegative.

It remains to treat the principal submatrix indexed by the full lower set \{1,\dots,n\}, namely A_n^{(p,q)}(x).

If \gamma_{p,q}=0, then A_n^{(p,q)}(x)w=0. Since w\ne0, it follows that

Assume now that \gamma_{p,q}\ne0. If

then all n\times n minors of \mathcal H_n^{(p,q)}(x) vanish, and in particular

Otherwise \operatorname{rank}\mathcal H_n^{(p,q)}(x)=n. Since

the kernel is one-dimensional and the adjugate has the form

for some real number c. Choose j such that w_j\ne0. The principal cofactor obtained by deleting the j-th lower row and column is a proper principal minor containing the distinguished index 0, hence it is nonnegative by the previous part of the proof. Therefore c w_j^2\ge0, so c\ge0. The cofactor corresponding to the distinguished index 0 is \det A_n^{(p,q)}(x), and hence

It remains to treat the submatrix indexed by the full set I=\{1,\dots,n\}, namely A_n^{(p,q)}(x) itself.

If \gamma_{p,q}=0, then (?) yields A_n^{(p,q)}(x)w=0. Since w\ne0, this gives

Moreover, if \operatorname{rank}\mathcal H_n^{(p,q)}(x)\le n-1, then every n\times n minor of \mathcal H_n^{(p,q)}(x) is zero, so that (?) holds.

We now consider the case of \gamma_{p,q}\ne0 and \operatorname{rank}\mathcal H_n^{(p,q)}(x)=n. In this case, the kernel of H_n^{(p,q)}(x) is a 1-dimensional space generated by the vector

Hence the adjugate of \mathcal H_n^{(p,q)}(x) has rank one and is given by

for some real number c.

Choose j such that w_j\ne0. The principal minor obtained by deleting the j-th row and column among the lower n rows and columns is a proper principal minor containing the index 0 and, as shown in the first part of the proof, such principal minors are nonnegative. Therefore c w_j^2\ge0, so that c\ge0. The cofactor corresponding to the index 0 is exactly

Hence

We have shown that every proper principal minor of \mathcal H_n^{(p,q)}(x) is nonnegative, and we already know that (?) holds. Therefore all principal minors of \mathcal H_n^{(p,q)}(x) are nonnegative. By the principal-minor criterion, (3.2) holds. This completes the induction and the proof.