A Unique Inverse Decomposition of Positive Definite Matrices under Linear Constraints

Extracted source text · arXiv 2601.18662

% SIAM Article Template
% \documentclass[review,hidelinks,onefignum,onetabnum]{siamart251216}  % add review for siam submission
\documentclass[hidelinks,onefignum,onetabnum]{siamart251216} % Remove review for arxiv version


% Information that is shared between the article and the supplement
% (title and author information, macros, packages, etc.) goes into
% ex_shared.tex. If there is no supplement, this file can be included
% directly.

\input{siam_shared}

% Optional PDF information
\ifpdf
\hypersetup{
  pdftitle={A Unique Inverse Decomposition of Positive Definite Matrices under Linear Constraints},
  pdfauthor={Y. Dolinsky and O. Zuk}
}
\fi

% The next statement enables references to information in the
% supplement. See the xr-hyperref package for details.

%\externaldocument[][nocite]{siam_SI}

% FundRef data to be entered by SIAM
%<funding-group specific-use="FundRef">
%<award-group>
%<funding-source>
%<named-content content-type="funder-name"> 
%</named-content> 
%<named-content content-type="funder-identifier"> 
%</named-content>
%</funding-source>
%<award-id> </award-id>
%</award-group>
%</funding-group>




\begin{document}
%\AtEndDocument{\CopyAuxTo{siam_main}}

\maketitle

% REQUIRED
\begin{abstract}
We study a nonlinear decomposition of a positive definite matrix into two components: 
the inverse of another positive definite matrix and a symmetric matrix constrained to lie 
in a prescribed linear subspace. Equivalently, the inverse component is required to belong 
to the orthogonal complement of that subspace with respect to the trace inner product. 
Under a sharp nondegeneracy condition on the subspace, we show that every positive definite 
matrix admits a \emph{unique} decomposition of this form.

This decomposition admits a variational characterization as the unique minimizer of a 
strictly convex log-determinant optimization problem, which in turn yields a natural dual 
formulation that can be efficiently exploited computationally. We derive several properties, 
including the stability of the decomposition.

We further develop feasibility-preserving Newton-type algorithms with provable convergence 
guarantees and analyze their per-iteration complexity in terms of algebraic properties of 
the decomposed matrix and the underlying subspace. Finally, we show that the proposed 
decomposition arises naturally in exponential utility maximization, a central problem in 
mathematical finance.
\end{abstract}

% REQUIRED
\begin{keywords}
positive definite matrices, inverse-based matrix decomposition, log-determinant optimization, Newton-CG, exponential utility maximization
\end{keywords}

% REQUIRED
\begin{MSCcodes}
15A39, 15B48, 90C25, 91G10
\end{MSCcodes}


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}

We study a nonlinear decomposition of a symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrix $A \in \SPD$ of the form $A = (B^{*})^{-1} + C^{*}$, where the components are constrained such that $C^{*} \in S$ and $B^{*} \in S^{\perp} \cap \SPD$ for a prescribed linear subspace $S \subset \Sym$. Our main contribution is a global existence and uniqueness theorem for this decomposition, valid for any subspace $S$ satisfying the sharp nondegeneracy condition $S \cap \SPSD = \{0\}$. By intertwining matrix inversion with these dual linear constraints, the result provides a canonical algebraic decomposition that serves as a structured, non-Euclidean analogue to the classical orthogonal decomposition of symmetric matrices.

Our proof proceeds by characterizing the decomposition as the unique stationary point of a strictly convex log-determinant functional. Log-determinant objectives are classical and arise throughout convex analysis, matrix theory, information geometry, and statistics (see, e.g., \cite{boyd2004convex, cover2006elements, amari2016information, vandenberghe1998determinant}); furthermore, nonlinear projections under Bregman divergences were studied in \cite{dhillon2008matrix}. Here, however, the optimization problem serves as a \emph{tool} rather than the primary object of study. The resulting theorem is an exact algebraic statement about matrix structure: for every admissible subspace $S$, the decomposition exists globally, is unique, and depends smoothly on $A$. The feasibility condition on $S$ is shown to be both natural and essentially necessary.


Beyond existence and uniqueness, we establish several structural properties of the decomposition.
First, we show that it is compatible with symmetry:
if a finite orthogonal group acts by conjugation on $\Sym$,
and both $A$ and the constraint subspace $S$ are invariant under this action,
then the resulting matrices $B^{*}$ and $C^{*}$ inherit the same invariance.
This yields automatic reductions in dimension and computational complexity
in the presence of symmetry.
Second, we derive algebraic consequences including determinant inequalities
and a precise relationship between the decomposition of $A$
and that of its inverse $A^{-1}$. We also prove that the decomposition is stable.
These properties are not generic features of convex optimization problems,
but instead reflect the specific geometric structure of the decomposition.

Gaussian maximum-likelihood estimation under structural constraints on the
inverse covariance (precision) matrix has been studied extensively in the
statistics literature, beginning with classical covariance selection
\cite{dempster1972covariance} and extending to models with more general linear
constraints on the concentration matrix
\cite{sturmfels2009multivariate,uhler2012geometry,zwiernik2014linear}.
In this setting, the constrained Gaussian maximum-likelihood estimation problem
corresponds to the dual optimization problem associated with our decomposition.
The present paper takes a different perspective, focusing on a deterministic
inverse-based decomposition of an arbitrary positive definite matrix.
We establish global existence, uniqueness, stability, symmetry inheritance, and
develop structure-exploiting Newton-type algorithms for computing the
decomposition, hence the results in the current paper go beyond the scope of the covariance
selection literature.


From an algorithmic perspective, the variational characterization
leads naturally to Newton-type methods with feasibility-preserving line search.
We provide explicit expressions for gradients and Hessians,
prove global convergence with local quadratic rates,
and give detailed per-iteration complexity estimates.
The framework accommodates structured settings such as banded,
Toeplitz, and group-invariant matrices,
where the cost of each iteration can be reduced substantially
using structure-exploiting linear algebra
(see, e.g., \cite{gray2006toeplitz,bhatia2013matrix}).

Finally, we illustrate the theory with applications.
In particular, we show that the decomposition arises naturally
in a Gaussian exponential-utility maximization problems in mathematical finance,
where $B^{*}$ and $C^{*}$ admit clear economic interpretations
related to information constraints and hedging structure.
These applications demonstrate that the decomposition
is not merely an abstract construction,
but a flexible tool that appears across several domains.
Possible directions for future research include applications to structured covariance estimation and precision-matrix modeling.


\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Outline.}
Section~\ref{sec:general_decomposition} presents the main decomposition theorem and its proof. In this section we also derive several useful properties of the decomposition. Section~\ref{sec:optimization} develops algorithms together with complexity guarantees. Section~\ref{sec:finance} presents an application to a utility maximization problem in financial mathematics, using the decomposition for a structured matrix class.
 


\section{Decomposition Theorem}
\label{sec:general_decomposition}

Let $\Sym$ denote the space of symmetric real $n \times n$ matrices. Let
$\SPD \subset \Sym$ be the (open) cone of positive-definite matrices, and let
$\SPSD \subset \Sym$ be the (closed) cone of positive semidefinite matrices.

We arrive at the main result of the paper. 


\begin{theorem}[General structured decomposition]
\label{thm:general_decomposition}
Let $A\in\SPD$. Let $S\subset\Sym$ be a linear subspace, and let
\[
S^\perp := \{\,X\in\Sym:\ \tr(XY)=0\ \ \forall\,Y\in S\,\},
\]
the orthogonal complement with respect to the trace inner product
$\langle X,Y\rangle:=\tr(XY)$.

Assume that $S$ contains no nonzero positive semidefinite matrix, that is,
\be
S \cap \SPSD = \{0\}.
\label{eq:nopsddirections}
\ee

Then there exists a \emph{unique} pair $(B^\ast \in \SPD \cap S^{\perp}, C^\ast \in S)$ such that
\be\label{eq:maindecomposition} 
A = {B^\ast}^{-1} + C^\ast.
\ee
\end{theorem}


The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:general_decomposition} will follow two major stages. First, in Lemma \ref{lem:bounded_intersection} we show that the set of matrices $C$ yielding a positive definite matrix $A-C$ is bounded. 

Then, we frame the decomposition problem as a log determinant maximization convex problem, guaranteeing a unique solution. 


\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:bounded_intersection}
Let $A \in \mathbb{S}_{++}^n$ and let $S \subset \mathbb{S}^n$ be a linear subspace satisfying \eqref{eq:nopsddirections}. 
Define the feasible set
\be
\Omega_C := \{\, C \in S : A - C \succ 0 \,\}.
\label{eq:feasible_matrices}
\ee
Then $\Omega_C$ is a bounded subset of $S$. In particular, its closure $\overline{\Omega_C}$ is compact.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Assume by contradiction that $\Omega_C$ is unbounded. Then there exists a
sequence $\{C^{(k)}\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \subset \Omega_C$ with $\|C^{(k)}\|_F \underset{k \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \infty$, where $|| \cdot ||_F$ is the Frobenius norm. Define the normalized matrices
\be
H^{(k)} := \frac{C^{(k)}}{\|C^{(k)}\|_F} \in S.
\ee
Since $\|H^{(k)}\|_F = 1$, the sequence $\{H^{(k)}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ lies in a compact set, and therefore it has a converging subsequence $\{H^{(k_j)}\}_{j=1}^{\infty}$ with 
$H^{(k_j)} \underset{j \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} H$ for some $H \in S$ with $\|H\|_F = 1$.
Take the corresponding subsequence $\{C^{(k_j)}\}_{j=1}^{\infty}$ of $\{C^{(k)}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$. The condition $A - C^{(k_j)} \succ 0$ yields for every fixed nonzero vector $v \in \mathbb{R}^n$,
\be
\frac{v^{\top} C^{(k_j)} v}{\|C^{(k_j)}\|_F}
< 
\frac{v^{\top} A v}{\|C^{(k_j)}\|_F} \underset{j \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} 0,
\label{eq:quad_form_condition}
\ee

where the limit on the right-hand side follows from the assumption
$\|C^{(k)}\|_F \underset{k \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \infty$. But continuity of quadratic forms yields
\be
\frac{v^{\top} C^{(k_j)} v}{\|C^{(k_j)}\|_F}
\; \underset{j \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \;
v^{\top} H v .
\ee
Hence $v^{\top} H v \le 0$ for all $v \in \mathbb{R}^n$. Thus, $H \preceq 0$. But $H\neq 0$ and $H \in S$, and so $-H \in S$ satisfies $-H \succeq 0$, in 
contradiction to $S \cap \SPSD = \{0\}$.
Therefore $\Omega_C$ must be bounded.
\end{proof} % lemma bounded


We next prove the main theorem by casting a log-det optimization problem and showing that the trace conditions for $B$ are optimality conditions for the problem. 


\begin{proof}
\label{proof:main_decomposition}

\textbf{Step 1: Reduction of the decomposition problem to a stationarity condition.}

Let $D_1,...,D_m\in S$ be a basis for $S$.
Define the linear bijection
\be
C(x) := \sum_{k=1}^m x_k D_k , \qquad x \in \mathbb{R}^m,
\ee
and the corresponding feasible parameter set
\be
\Omega_x := \{\, x \in \mathbb{R}^m : A - C(x) \succ 0 \,\}.
\label{eq:x_feasible_set}
\ee
Hence the feasible set of matrices $\Omega_C$ defined in eq. \eqref{eq:feasible_matrices} satisfies
$\Omega_C = C(\Omega_x)$.

For $x \in \Omega_x$ let
\be
M(x) := A - C(x),
\qquad
B(x) := M(x)^{-1},
\qquad
\Phi(x) := -\log |M(x)|.
\label{eq:phi_x}
\ee
Using the chain rule for $M$ and $ - log | \cdot |$ we obtain
\be
\label{eq:grad_phi}
\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x_k}(x)
= \tr \big( B(x) D_k \big), 
\qquad k = 1,\dots,m.
\ee

Thus a pair $(B,C)\in \SPD \times S$ with $A=B^{-1}+C$ and $\tr(BD_k)=0$ for all $k$ corresponds 
precisely to a parameter $x$ such that $C=C(x)$ and 
\be
\nabla\Phi(x)=0.
\ee

\textbf{Step 2: Existence and uniqueness of a minimizer.}

The map $M(x)$ is affine and injective, and $-\log|\cdot|$ is strictly convex on 
$\SPD$, hence $\Phi$ is strictly convex on the convex set $\Omega_x$.
If a sequence $\{x^{(k)}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ approaches $\partial\Omega_x$, then $|M(x^{(k)})| \to 0$ and $\Phi(x^{(k)}) \to +\infty$ as $k \to \infty$.

Since $A \succ 0$ and $C(0)=0$, we have $0 \in \Omega_x$ and $\Omega_x$ is nonempty.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:bounded_intersection}, the set $\Omega_C$ is bounded. 
Thus $\Omega_x = C^{-1}(\Omega_C)$ is bounded as well, and $\overline{\Omega_x}$ 
is compact.

Extend $\Phi$ to $\overline{\Omega_x}$ by setting $\Phi = +\infty$ on 
$\partial\Omega_x$.
Lower semicontinuity of $\Phi$ and compactness of $\overline{\Omega_x}$ yield 
a minimizer $x^\ast \in \Omega_x$, and strict convexity implies that 
$x^\ast$ is unique. Since $\Phi$ is differentiable and strictly convex on the open set $\Omega_x$, any stationary point is the global minimizer. Thus the unique 
minimizer $x^\ast$ is also the unique point in $\Omega_x$ satisfying 
$\nabla\Phi(x^\ast)=0$.

\medskip
Define $C^\ast := C(x^\ast)$ and $B^\ast := (A - C^\ast)^{-1}$.
Then the pair $(B^\ast,C^\ast) \in \SPD \times S$ satisfies \eqref{eq:maindecomposition}.
Uniqueness of $x^\ast$ and the equivalence in Step~1 imply the uniqueness of the decomposition 
\eqref{eq:maindecomposition}.
\end{proof}


\begin{remark}\label{remark1}
A sufficient condition for \eqref{eq:nopsddirections} is the existence of a
matrix $\hat B \in \SPD$ such that
\[
\tr(\hat B D) = 0, \ \forall D\in S.
\]

Conversely, the condition \eqref{eq:nopsddirections} is necessary for the existence of a minimizer of \eqref{eq:primal_logdet}. Suppose there exists a matrix $H \neq 0$ satisfying $H \in \SPSD \cap S$. Define $C_t = -tH$. Then $A-C_t = A + tH \in \Omega_C$ for all $t \geq 0$, hence the feasible set $\Omega_C$ is unbounded. Therefore, $|A-C_t| \underset{t \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \infty$ hence the objective $-\log|A-C_t|$ is unbounded below.
\end{remark}


\subsection{A dual variational formulation}
\label{subsec:duality_general}

The decomposition of Theorem~\ref{thm:general_decomposition} admits a natural
primal-dual interpretation. This viewpoint clarifies the variational structure
of the problem and suggests alternative algorithmic approaches. The dual formulation below coincides formally with the Gaussian maximum-likelihood objective under linear constraints on the precision matrix, but is used here in the context of a deterministic decomposition.

\paragraph{Primal formulation.}
Recall the feasible set
\be
\Omega_C := \{\, C \in S : A - C \succ 0 \,\},
\ee
and the strictly convex objective
\be
\Phi_A(C) := -\log |A - C| , \qquad C\in\Omega_C.
\ee
The matrix $C^\ast$ in the decomposition is the unique minimizer of
\be
\min_{C \in S,\; A - C \succ 0} \; -\log |A - C|.
\label{eq:primal_logdet}
\ee

\paragraph{Dual formulation.}
The primal problem \eqref{eq:primal_logdet} can be written as minimizing $-\log|M|$ over $M\succ0$ subject to the linear constraint $A-M\in S$, where $M=A-C$ is an auxiliary variable.
The associated Lagrangian involves a dual variable $B\in S^\perp$.
Eliminating $M$ via the first-order optimality condition $M^{-1}=B$ yields the
dual problem stated below:

Let $(B^\ast \in \SPD \cap S^{\perp},\, C^\ast \in S)$ be the unique pair satisfying
\eqref{eq:maindecomposition}. For any $B \in S^{\perp}$ and $C \in S$ we have $\tr(B C) = 0$ hence $\tr \big( (A-C)B \big)=\tr(BA)$. 
The function
\[
\Psi_A(B):= \log |B|-\tr(BA), \qquad B\in \SPD \cap S^{\perp},
\]
is strictly concave and satisfies the first-order optimality condition
\[
\nabla\Psi_A(B^\ast) = {B^\ast}^{-1}-A \quad ; \quad \tr\!\big(( {B^\ast}^{-1}-A )H\big)=0 \:,\: \forall H\in S^\perp .
\]
Moreover, using the decomposition $A={B^\ast}^{-1}+C^\ast$ with $C^\ast\in S$, we have for every $H\in S^\perp$, 
\[
\tr\big( ({B^\ast}^{-1}-A) H \big) = -\tr(C^\ast H)=0 . 
\]

Hence $B^\ast$ satisfies the first-order optimality conditions for $\Psi_A$.
Since $\log |B|$ is strictly concave on $\SPD \cap S^\perp$, we conclude that $B^\ast$ is the unique maximizer of the dual problem
\be
\label{eq:dual_logdet}
\max_{B\succ 0,\; B\in S^{\perp}} \log |B|-\tr(BA).
\ee

Since the primal problem \eqref{eq:primal_logdet} is convex and strictly feasible,
strong duality holds, and the primal and dual optimal values coincide. Accordingly, the dual problem \eqref{eq:dual_logdet} provides an alternative computational
route to the decomposition.
One may optimize directly over $B \in S^\perp \cap \SPD$ using standard iterative methods, including Newton-type schemes with feasibility-preserving backtracking, in complete
analogy with the primal algorithms of Section~\ref{sec:optimization}.
The primal formulation is preferable when $m=\dim S$ is small, while the dual
formulation may be advantageous when $\dim(S^\perp)$ is comparatively small or when the
constraint structure is naturally expressed in terms of $B$.



\subsection{Properties of the decomposition}\label{sec:properties}

In this subsection we collect several properties of the
variational characterization of the decomposition
\eqref{eq:maindecomposition}.
\begin{enumerate}

\item \textbf{Action by conjugation.}
Let $O(n)$ denote the set of all $n \times n$ orthogonal matrices.
For $P \in O(n)$, consider the action on $\Sym$ by conjugation,
$D \mapsto P D P^\top$ ($P^\top$ denotes transposition). 
From the equality
\[
\tr\!\left(P B^\ast P^\top \, P D P^\top\right)
= \tr(B^\ast D) = 0 \:,
\qquad \forall D \in S,
\]
we conclude that
\[
P A P^\top = (P B^\ast P^\top)^{-1} + P C^\ast P^\top
\]
is the unique decomposition \eqref{eq:maindecomposition} of $P A P^\top$
associated with the subspace
$
\tilde S := P S P^\top .
$
 
 
Next, we describe the following inheritance of group symmetry.
Let $G \subset O(n)$ act on $\Sym$ by conjugation,
$
D \mapsto P D P^\top .
$
Assume that $A$ is $G$-fixed, i.e.,
$
PA P^\top = A \quad \forall P \in G,
$
and that $S$ is $G$-invariant, i.e.,
$
P S P^\top = S \quad \forall P \in G.
$
Then the decomposition is $G$-fixed:
\be
\label{eq:G_fixed}
P B^\ast P^\top = B^\ast,
\qquad
P C^\ast P^\top = C^\ast,
\quad \forall P \in G.
\ee
This follows from the above analysis and the uniqueness of the
decomposition \eqref{eq:maindecomposition}.

\item \textbf{Determinant inequality.}
From the primal representation,
\[
-\log|A| = -\log|A-0| \;\ge\; -\log|A-C^\ast|,
\]
where the inequality follows from optimality of $C^\ast$.
Hence
\[
-\log|A| \ge -\log|{B^\ast}^{-1}|,
\]
which implies
\be
\label{eq:det_ineq}
|{B^\ast}^{-1}| \;\ge\; |A|,
\qquad\text{equivalently}\qquad
|B^\ast| \le |A^{-1}|.
\ee

\item \textbf{Decomposition of the inverse.}
Define the transformed subspace
\[
\hat S := A^{-1} S A^{-1}
= \{\, A^{-1} D A^{-1} : D \in S \,\} \subset \Sym,
\]
and set
\be\label{deco}
\hat B := A B^\ast A,
\qquad
\hat C := A^{-1} C^\ast A^{-1}.
\ee
Then, for all \(D \in S\),
\[
\tr(\hat B\, A^{-1} D A^{-1}) = \tr(B^\ast D) = 0.
\]
Consequently,
\[
\hat B \in \hat S^\perp, \quad
\hat B \succ 0, \quad
\hat C \in \hat S, \quad
A^{-1} = \hat B^{-1} + \hat C.
\]
By uniqueness of the decomposition \eqref{eq:maindecomposition}
(and since \(\hat S\) satisfies \eqref{eq:nopsddirections}),
\((\hat B,\hat C) \in \SPD \times \hat S\)
is the unique decomposition of \(A^{-1}\) associated with \(\hat S\).


\item\textbf{Stability of the decomposition.}
Assume that $\Theta \subset \SPD$ is an open set and that
$
\min_{D \in \Theta,\; C \in S} \|D - C\|_{F} > 0 .
$
Consider the map
$F : \Theta \times \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}^m$
defined by
\[
F\big(D, (x_1,\ldots,x_m) \big) :=
\Bigl(
\tr\bigl((D-\sum_{k=1}^m x_k D_k)^{-1}D_1\bigr),
\ldots,
\tr\bigl((D-\sum_{k=1}^m x_k D_k)^{-1}D_m\bigr)
\Bigr).
\]

Observe that the Jacobian of $F$ with respect to $x$ is the Gram matrix
\[
\left[\frac{\partial F(D,x)}{\partial x}\right]_{ij}
=
\tr\bigl(
(D-\sum_{k=1}^m x_k D_k)^{-1}D_i
(D-\sum_{k=1}^m x_k D_k)^{-1}D_j
\bigr) .
\]
Moreover, the Fréchet derivative of
$F(D,x)=(F_1(D,x),\ldots,F_m(D,x))$
with respect to $D$ is given by
\[
\frac{\partial F_i(D,x)}{\partial D}(\Upsilon)
=
-\tr\bigl(
(D-\sum_{k=1}^m x_k D_k)^{-1}\Upsilon (D-\sum_{k=1}^m x_k D_k)^{-1}D_i
\bigr).
\]

Next, let $x = x(D)$, $D\in\Theta$ denote the unique solution of the equation
$
F(D,x) = 0 .
$
From the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:general_decomposition}, it follows that
$
C^{*} := C^{*}(A) = \sum_{k=1}^m {x}_k(A) D_k.
$ 
By the implicit function theorem,
\[
\frac{\partial x}{\partial D}(\Upsilon)
=
-
\left(\frac{\partial F(D,x)}{\partial x}\right)^{-1}_{x=x(D)}
\frac{\partial F(D,x(D))}{\partial D}(\Upsilon).
\]
Consequently, the map
$
A \mapsto C^{*}(A)
$
is Lipschitz continuous on $\Theta$, with a Lipschitz constant depending on $\min_{D \in \Theta,\; C \in S} \|D - C\|_{F}$ and on the base $D_1,...,D_m$. Since
$B^{*} = (A - C^{*})^{-1}$, the same stability property holds for $B^{*}$.
Equivalently, the Lipschitz constant is governed by the conditioning of the
Jacobian $U \mapsto \proj_S(B^{*} U B^{*})$ on $S$ and may deteriorate near
degenerate instances.



\end{enumerate}





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Algorithms for Computing the Decomposition}
\label{sec:optimization}

In this section we discuss numerical methods for computing the unique pair
$(B^\ast,C^\ast)\in\SPD\times S$ from
Theorem~\ref{thm:general_decomposition}.
Writing
$C(x)=\sum_{k=1}^m x_k D_k$
and
$\Phi(x):=-\log|A-C(x)|$,
the decomposition is obtained by solving the convex optimization problem
\be
x^\ast \;\in\; \argmin_{x\in\Omega_x}\;\Phi(x),
\ee
and then setting $C^\ast=C(x^\ast)$ and $B^\ast=M(x^\ast)^{-1}$.

This formulation yields a smooth, strictly convex optimization problem over an
open convex domain.
Our focus here is not on advocating a particular optimization algorithm, but on
understanding how \emph{algebraic structure} in the data matrix $A$ and in the
constraint subspace $S$ affects the computational complexity of solving this
problem.

Throughout, we use a \emph{Newton-CG} method as the default algorithm.
This choice avoids explicit formation of the Hessian and replaces the Newton
system solve by a matrix-free conjugate-gradient iteration.
Exact Newton methods, based on forming and factorizing the full Hessian, are
used only when $m=\dim S$ is sufficiently small that the associated $m^3$ cost
is negligible.
Newton-CG is particularly convenient in this setting because all derivatives
of $\Phi$ admit closed-form expressions in terms of linear solves with
$M(x)=A-C(x)$, allowing the impact of algebraic structure (such as sparsity,
bandedness, Toeplitz structure, or symmetry) to be tracked explicitly.

A reference Python implementation of all algorithms described in this section,
including structure-exploiting variants, is freely available at \\
\href{https://github.com/orzuk/ConstrainedDecomposition} {\textbf{github.com/orzuk/ConstrainedDecomposition}}. \\
A detailed demonstration of our implementations on illustrative structural examples is available in Appendix \ref{subsec:algebraic_examples}.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Derivatives}
\label{subsec:derivatives}

Recall the parametrization $M(x)=A-C(x)$ and $B(x)=M(x)^{-1}$, and the gradient
elements $\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial x_k}(x)=\tr\big(B(x)D_k\big)$ given in
\eqref{eq:grad_phi}. Differentiating once more yields the Hessian
\be\label{eq:hess_section2}
\frac{\partial^2\Phi}{\partial x_k\partial x_\ell}(x)
=
\tr\big(B(x)D_kB(x)D_\ell\big),
\qquad k,\ell=1,\dots,m.
\ee

Under the standing assumption $S\cap\SPSD=\{0\}$, the function $\Phi$ is strictly
convex on $\Omega_x$, and hence $H(x)\succ0$ for all $x\in\Omega_x$.

All derivatives of $\Phi$ are computed using explicit analytic expressions and
require only applications of $M(x)^{-1}$, implemented through a factorization
or structure-exploiting solver for $M(x)$. The inverse $B(x)$ is never formed
explicitly, and no numerical differentiation is used.

Newton-CG requires only Hessian-vector products. Given $v\in\R^m$, define
\be
D(v):=\sum_{\ell=1}^m v_\ell D_\ell.
\ee
Then
\be\label{eq:Hv_formula}
\big(H(x)v\big)_k
=
\tr\big(B(x)D_kB(x)D(v)\big),
\qquad k=1,\dots,m,
\ee
which can be evaluated using the same linear solves with $M(x)$. This matrix-free
access to second-order information is analogous in spirit to reverse-mode
automatic differentiation, but here all derivatives are available in closed
form.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Newton-CG with feasibility-preserving backtracking}
\label{subsec:newton_algorithm}

We compute the minimizer of $\Phi$ using a Newton-CG method combined with
feasibility-preserving Armijo backtracking.

At a current iterate $x\in\Omega_x$, let $g=\nabla\Phi(x)$ and $H=\nabla^2\Phi(x)$.
The Newton direction $d$ is defined implicitly as the solution of
\be
H(x)d=-g(x),
\ee
which is computed using conjugate gradients with Hessian-vector products
$p\mapsto H(x)p$ given by \eqref{eq:Hv_formula}.
Step sizes are chosen by backtracking to ensure $M(x+td)\succ0$ and sufficient decrease of $\Phi$.

Algorithmic details, including evaluation of $\Phi$, its gradient, and
Hessian-vector products, are given in Appendix~\ref{app:newtoncg_pseudocode}.

\paragraph{Convergence.}
The objective $\Phi(x)=-\log|A-C(x)|$ is strictly convex and self-concordant on
$\Omega_x$, as it is the composition of the self-concordant log-determinant barrier with an affine map.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:general_decomposition} and Lemma~\ref{lem:bounded_intersection},
the sublevel set $\{x:\Phi(x)\le\Phi(0)\}$ is nonempty, compact, and bounded away from $\partial\Omega_x$.
Consequently, Newton-CG with feasibility-preserving backtracking is globally convergent (provided the CG residual is driven below a standard relative tolerance) from any feasible initialization.
Once the iterates enter a neighborhood of the unique minimizer $x^\ast$, full Newton steps are accepted and the method exhibits a local quadratic convergence rate; see, e.g.,
\cite{nesterov1994interior,nocedal2006numerical}.



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Per-iteration cost and algorithmic considerations}
\label{subsec:complexity_brief}

We summarize the per-iteration computational cost of Newton-type methods for the
decomposition problem, focusing on the dependence on the ambient matrix dimension
$n$ and the constraint dimension $m=\dim S$.
All costs are stated per outer iteration and refer to asymptotic worst-case
scaling, ignoring constant factors and lower-order terms.

The dominant operations in each iteration are:
(i) construction of a solver for $M(x)=A-C(x)$,
(ii) evaluation of gradient traces $\tr\big(M(x)^{-1}D_k\big)$,
and (iii) computation of a second-order search direction via CG.

Table~\ref{tab:per_iteration_complexity} summarizes the resulting costs in several
representative structural settings.
Exact Newton methods are included only as a baseline for very small $m$.

The dense bounds assume unstructured basis matrices $D_k$, so each trace
evaluation costs $\Theta(n^2)$.
In the banded setting, both $A$ and the constraint subspace $S$ are chosen so that
$M(x)$ remains banded along the optimization path, allowing linear solves and
trace evaluations to be carried out in $\Theta(nb^2)$ and $\Theta(b^2)$ time,
respectively. Although $M(x)^{-1}$ is dense in general, the trace terms involve only entries of $M(x)^{-1}$ within the sparsity pattern of the banded matrices $D_k$, which can be
computed efficiently using sparse inverse subset methods (e.g., Takahashi-type
recursions, see \cite{rue2005gaussian}).
In the Toeplitz setting, the bounds assume that $A$ and the basis matrices
$\{D_k\}$ admit Toeplitz or short-support structure, so that $M(x)$ remains
Toeplitz along the optimization path. Linear solves can then be carried out
using Levinson/Schur-type recursions in $\Theta(n^2)$ time, or via
FFT-based methods under additional structural assumptions. In this setting,
trace evaluations reduce to $\Theta(n)$ when the $D_k$ have short support;
see, e.g., \cite{gray2006toeplitz,gohberg1994fast}.

More generally, scalability is governed by whether algebraic structure in $A$
and the constraint subspace $S$ is preserved along the optimization path, as this
directly reduces the cost of linear solves with $M(x)$ and of trace evaluations.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\footnotesize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.05}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}

\caption{Per-iteration complexity of Newton-type methods.
Here $m=\dim S$, $m^\perp=\dim(S^\perp)$, and $m_G=\dim(S^G)$ denote the effective
optimization dimensions in the primal, dual, and group-invariant formulations,
respectively; these quantities are defined and discussed in
Sections~\ref{subsec:dual_newton} and~\ref{subsec:group_invariant_opt}.
The parameter $b$ denotes bandwidth, and $N_{\mathrm{cg}}$ is the number of CG
iterations.}
\label{tab:per_iteration_complexity}

\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Structure & Method & Per-iteration cost & Notes \\
\midrule
Dense & Newton-CG &
$\Theta(n^3 + N_{\mathrm{cg}}\, m n^2)$ &
default \\

Dense & Exact Newton &
$\Theta(n^3 + m^2 n^2 + m^3)$ &
small $m$ \\

Dense & Dual Newton-CG &
$\Theta(n^3 + N_{\mathrm{cg}}\, m^\perp n^2)$ &
$m^\perp<m$ \\

Banded ($b$) & Newton-CG &
$\Theta(n b^2 + N_{\mathrm{cg}}\, m b^2)$ &
bandwidth preserved \\

Toeplitz & Newton-CG &
$\Theta(n^2 + N_{\mathrm{cg}}\, m n)$ &
fast solves; structured traces \\

$G$-invariant & Newton-CG &
same with $m\to m_G$ &
symmetry reduction \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Newton-CG for the dual problem}
\label{subsec:dual_newton}

As shown in Section~\ref{subsec:duality_general}, the decomposition
\eqref{eq:maindecomposition} can equivalently be obtained by solving the dual problem
\be
\max_{B\succ0,\; B\in S^\perp}\;\; \log|B|-\tr(AB).
\label{eq:dual_problem_section2}
\ee
This problem is smooth and strictly concave on the open convex set
$S^\perp\cap\SPD$, and admits a unique maximizer $B^\ast$.

As in the primal case, we use a Newton-CG method as the default algorithm.
Exact Newton methods are used only when $\dim(S^\perp)$ is sufficiently small.

\paragraph{Parameterization and derivatives.}
Let $\{E_1,\dots,E_{m^\perp}\}$ be a basis of $S^\perp$, where
\be
m^\perp := \dim(S^\perp)=\tfrac{n(n+1)}2-m.
\ee
Fix any $B_0\in S^\perp\cap\SPD$ and write
\be
B(y) := B_0 + \sum_{j=1}^{m^\perp} y_j E_j,
\qquad y\in\R^{m^\perp}.
\ee
Define
\be
\Psi(y) := \log|B(y)|-\tr(AB(y)).
\ee
Then
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial y_j}(y)
&=
\tr\big(B(y)^{-1}E_j\big)-\tr(AE_j), \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial y_j\partial y_k}(y)
&=
-\tr\big(B(y)^{-1}E_jB(y)^{-1}E_k\big).
\end{align}

Newton-CG proceeds exactly as in the primal formulation, with Hessian-vector
products replacing explicit Hessian formation.
The comparison between primal and dual formulations mirrors that of
Table~\ref{tab:per_iteration_complexity}.



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Group-invariant optimization}
\label{subsec:group_invariant_opt}

Assume that a finite group $G\subset O(n)$ acts on $\Sym$ by conjugation
$X\mapsto P X P^\top$, and that both $A$ and $S$ are $G$-invariant.
Define
\be
S^G := \{X\in S:\;P X P^\top=X\ \forall P\in G\},
\qquad
m_G := \dim S^G \le m.
\ee
By \eqref{eq:G_fixed}, the unique minimizer
$C^\ast$ lies in $S^G$.

Writing
\be
C(x)=\sum_{k=1}^{m_G} x_k \widetilde D_k,
\ee
where $\{\widetilde D_k\}$ is a basis of $S^G$, the optimization problem reduces
to dimension $m_G$.
Newton-CG applies verbatim with the reduced derivatives.

\paragraph{Complexity.}
The per-iteration cost is identical to
Table~\ref{tab:per_iteration_complexity} with $m$ replaced by $m_G$, plus the cost
of a symmetry-adapted change of basis.
We denote this cost by $T_{\mathrm{fact}}(G)$.
Thus the symmetry-reduced Newton-CG iteration costs
\be
T_{\mathrm{Newton}}^G
=
T_{\mathrm{fact}}(G)
+
O(m_G^3)
+
\text{lower-order terms}.
\ee

\begin{remark}
For general finite groups, $T_{\mathrm{fact}}(G)$ may be comparable to dense
linear algebra.
For certain groups, special algebraic structure yields fast transforms (e.g.
FFTs for cyclic groups), dramatically reducing $T_{\mathrm{fact}}(G)$.
\end{remark}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%







%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%



 \section{Exponential Utility Maximization}
 \label{sec:finance}
The utility maximization problem is a central theme in mathematical finance, providing a rigorous framework for optimal decision-making under uncertainty and for linking investors’ preferences to market dynamics. A particularly important specification is exponential utility, which exhibits constant absolute risk aversion.
For background and details see \cite{merton1969lifetime}, Chapter~3 of \cite{karatzas1998methods}, \cite{schachermayer2004utility}, Chapter~2 of \cite{follmer2016stochastic}
and Chapter~10 in \cite{eberlein2019mathematical}.

We consider a discrete-time market model with normally distributed asset increments and a general information and hedging structure. Let \(N\in\mathbb{N}\) denote the time horizon. At each time \(i=1,\dots,N\), suppose that \(p_i\in\mathbb{N}\) risky assets are available for trading, with increments
$
X^i_1,\dots,X^i_{p_i}.
$
In addition, we allow for further random variables
$
X^i_{p_i+1},\dots,X^i_{q_i}$,
$q_i\ge p_i,$
which represent increments of other risky factors or assets that may influence the market but are not tradable at time \(i\).

The information available for trading at time \(i\) is generated by the random vector
\[
Y^i=(Y^i_1,\dots,Y^i_{m_i})
=
\bigl(
X^1_1,\dots,X^1_{q_1},\;
\dots,\;
X^{i-1}_1,\dots,X^{i-1}_{q_{i-1}}
\bigr) A^i,
\]
where \(m_i \le \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} q_j\) and \(A^i\) is a deterministic matrix. Thus, the investor’s information at time \(i\) consists of linear combinations of past market increments.

Let \(n=\sum_{i=1}^N q_i\), and assume that the random vector
\[
Z=(Z_1,...,Z_n):=\bigl(X^1_1,\dots,X^1_{q_1},\;\dots,\;X^N_1,\dots,X^N_{q_N}\bigr)
\]
has a non-degenerate multivariate normal distribution with mean zero (for simplicity) and covariance matrix \(\Sigma\in M_n(\mathbb{R})\). Denote by \(\pre=\Sigma^{-1}\) the corresponding precision matrix. 

A trading strategy is a random vector
$
\gamma=\bigl(
\gamma^1_1,\dots,\gamma^1_{p_1},\;
\dots,\;
\gamma^N_1,\dots,\gamma^N_{p_N}
\bigr),
$
where \(\gamma^i_j\) denotes the number of shares held in the risky asset with increment \(X^i_j\). The position \(\gamma^i_j\) is required to be \(Y^i\)-measurable, that is,
\be\label{strategy}
\gamma^i_j = g^i_j(Y^i) \ \text{for some measurable function} \ g^i_j:\mathbb{R}^{m_i}\to\mathbb{R}, \ \ i=1,...,N, \ \ j=1,...,p_i.
\ee
The corresponding terminal portfolio value is given by
\be\label{portfolio}
V^\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^{p_i} \gamma^i_j X^i_j.
\ee
Denote by $\mathcal A$ the set of all trading strategies. 

The investor’s preferences are described by the exponential utility function
\[
u(x)=-\exp(-\alpha x), \qquad x\in\mathbb{R},
\]
with absolute risk aversion parameter \(\alpha>0\). The optimization problem is therefore
\be\label{eq:exp_util}
\max_{\gamma\in\mathcal{A}}
\ \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\!\left[-\exp\!\left(-\alpha V^\gamma\right)\right],
\ee
where \(\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\) denotes expectation under the physical probability measure \(\mathbb{P}\).
Note that for any $\gamma\in\mathcal A$ and \(\lambda\in\mathbb{R}\) we have 
$\lambda\gamma\in\mathcal A$ and 
\(V^{\lambda\gamma}=\lambda V^\gamma\). Hence, without loss of generality, we set \(\alpha:=1\).

Next, we introduce some notation. 
Let \(\mathcal A_l \subset \mathcal A\) be the set of trading strategies corresponding to linear functions $g^i_j$ in~\eqref{strategy} ($g^i_j(0)=0$).
For any \(i=1,\ldots,N\), \(j=1,\ldots,p_i\), and \(k=1,\ldots,m_i\), the product \(Y^i_k X^i_j\) can be represented as,
\be\label{representation}
Y^i_k X^i_j = -\frac{1}{2}\, Z D^{i,j,k} Z^\top,
\ee
where \(D^{i,j,k} \in M_n(\mathbb R)\) is the unique symmetric matrix representing this quadratic form. Since the random vector $Y^i$ is 
determined by 
$X^r_j$, $r<i$, $j=1,...,p_r$ we obtain that $D^{i,j,k}$ 
is zero-diagonal matrix.
Let \(\band \subset M_n(\mathbb R)\) denote the linear span of all matrices of the form \(D^{i,j,k}\).

Notice that \(\gamma \in \mathcal A_l\) if and only if there exists 
$D\in \band$ such that
\be\label{eq:v_gamma_bilinear}
V^{\gamma} = -\frac{1}{2} Z D Z^\top .
\ee


The following solves the exponential utility maximization problem \eqref{eq:exp_util}.
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:finance_value}
There exists a unique decomposition 
\be\label{eq:finance_decomposition}
\pre=\hat Q^{-1}+\hat\Gamma, \ \ \hat Q\succ 0, \ \ \hat Q\in \band^{\perp}, \ \ \hat\Gamma\in\band.
\ee
The maximizer $\hat\gamma=(\hat\gamma_1,...,\hat\gamma_{n})$ for the optimization problem \eqref{eq:exp_util} is unique (and lies in $\mathcal A_l$) with terminal wealth given by 
\be\label{eq:optimal_v_gamma_bilinear}
V^{\hat\gamma}=-\frac{1}{2} Z \hat\Gamma Z^{\top}. 
\ee
The corresponding value is given by 
\be\label{eq:expected_value}
\mathbb E_{\mathbb P}\left[-\exp\left(- V^{\hat\gamma}\right)\right]=-\sqrt{\frac{|\hat Q|}{|\Sigma|}}.
\ee
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}
The framework of Proposition \ref{thm:finance_value} shows that, in the Gaussian setting with exponential utility, 
the optimal portfolio is linear and can be characterized through a specific matrix decomposition.
Our model is deliberately general and accommodates several realistic market features, including partial information, the presence of non-traded assets, and the ability to trade indices rather than individual securities. The latter corresponds to situations in which an investor can trade a portfolio (index) formed as a linear combination of underlying risky assets that are not individually tradable.
Furthermore, the information structure we consider is not necessarily a filtration: information may be lost over time, reflecting practical limitations such as delayed observations, aggregation of data, or reporting constraints.
\end{remark}


\textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{thm:finance_value}.}
\begin{proof}
Recall that the elements in $S$ are zero-diagonal matrices, and so
\eqref{eq:nopsddirections} holds true. Hence, from Theorem \ref{thm:general_decomposition} we obtain the uniqueness and the existence of \eqref{eq:finance_decomposition}. 
 
Define a probability measure $\hat{\mathbb Q}$ such that
the distribution of $(Z_1,...,Z_n)$ is multivariate normal with mean zero and covariance matrix $\hat Q$. From \eqref{representation} 
it follows that for any \(i=1,\ldots,N\), \(j=1,\ldots,p_i\), and \(k=1,\ldots,m_i\)
\[
\mathbb E_{\hat{\mathbb Q}}\left[Y^i_k X^i_j\right] = \frac{1}{2}\mathbb E_{\hat{\mathbb Q}}\left[Z D^{i,j,k} Z^\top\right]=\frac{1}{2}\tr\left(D^{i,j,k} \hat Q\right)=0.
\]
Hence, since $(X^i,Y^i)$ is jointly Gaussian and the above cross-covariances vanish, the random vectors $X^i$ and $Y^i$ are independent under $\hat{\mathbb Q}$  for any $i\leq N$.
Thus, from the tower property of conditional expectation we conclude 
\be\label{nuetral}
\mathbb E_{\hat{\mathbb Q}}\left[V^{\gamma}\right]=0, \ \ \forall \gamma\in\mathcal A.
\ee
Next, choose $\gamma\in\mathcal A$. 
For any $z\in\mathbb R$
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E_{\mathbb P}\left[\exp\left(-V^{ \gamma}\right)\right]
&=\mathbb E_{\mathbb P}\left[\exp\left(-V^{ \gamma}\right)+z \frac{d{\hat{\mathbb Q}}}{d\mathbb P}V^{\gamma}\right]\\
&\geq \mathbb E_{\mathbb P}\left[z\frac{d{\hat{\mathbb Q}}}{d\mathbb P}\left(1-\log
\left(z\frac{d{\hat{\mathbb Q}}}{d\mathbb P}\right)\right)\right]\\
&=z-z\log z-z\mathbb E_{\hat{\mathbb Q}}\left[\log
\left(\frac{d{\hat{\mathbb Q}}}{d\mathbb P}\right)\right].
\end{align*}
The first equality is due to \eqref{nuetral}.
The inequality follows from the Legendre-Fenchel duality inequality $xy \leq e^x+y(\log y-1)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}, y>0$ by setting $x=-V^{\gamma}$ and 
$y=z\frac{d\hat{\mathbb Q}}{d\mathbb P}$, and rearranging terms.
The last equality is straightforward. 
From simple calculus it follows that the concave function 
$z\rightarrow z-z\log z-z\mathbb E_{\hat{\mathbb Q}}\left[\log
\left(\frac{d{\hat{\mathbb Q}}}{d\mathbb P}\right)\right]$, $z>0$ attains its maximum at $z^{*}:=\exp\left(-\mathbb E_{\hat{\mathbb Q}}\left[\log
\left(\frac{d{\hat{\mathbb Q}}}{d\mathbb P}\right)\right]\right)$ and the corresponding maximal value 
is also $z^{*}$. Thus,
\be\label{lowerbound}
\mathbb E_{\mathbb P}\left[\exp\left(-V^{ \gamma}\right)\right]\geq \exp\left(-\mathbb E_{\hat{\mathbb Q}}\left[\log
\left(\frac{d{\hat{\mathbb Q}}}{d\mathbb P}\right)\right]\right), \ \ \forall \gamma\in\mathcal A.
\ee
Finally, let $\hat\gamma\in\mathcal A_l$ be the (unique) maximizer of \eqref{eq:exp_util}, such that \eqref{eq:optimal_v_gamma_bilinear} holds true.
It is well known that for multivariate normal distributions the corresponding Radon-Nykodim derivative is given by 
\be
\frac{d{{\hat{\mathbb Q}}}}{d\mathbb P}=\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}Z\hat Q^{-1}Z^\top \right)/|\hat Q|^{1/2}}{\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}Z \pre Z^\top\right)/|\Sigma|^{1/2}}.
\label{eq:radon_nykodim}
\ee 
Thus, from \eqref{eq:finance_decomposition},\eqref{eq:optimal_v_gamma_bilinear} and \eqref{eq:radon_nykodim} we obtain 
\[
V^{\hat\gamma}+\log\left(\frac{d{{\hat{\mathbb Q}}}}{d\mathbb P}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\log |\Sigma|-\log |\hat Q|\right).
\]
Hence, from \eqref{nuetral}
\be\label{equality}
\mathbb E_{\mathbb P}\left[\exp\left(-V^{\hat \gamma}\right)\right]=\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\left(\log |\Sigma|-\log |\hat Q|\right)\right)=
\exp\left(-\mathbb E_{{\hat{\mathbb Q}}}\left[\log
\left(\frac{d{\hat{\mathbb Q}}}{d\mathbb P}\right)\right]\right).
\ee
From \eqref{lowerbound} and \eqref{equality} it follows that $\hat \gamma$ is optimal portfolio and the value is given by the right hand side of \eqref{eq:expected_value}.
The uniqueness of the optimal portfolio is due to the strict concavity of the exponential utility. 
\end{proof}


\subsection{Numerical Computations for Mixed Fractional Brownian Motion}

A fractional Brownian motion (fBm) \cite{mandelbrot1968fractional} with Hurst parameter 
$\hurst\in(0,1)$ is a centered Gaussian process 
$\{B^{\hurst}_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ with covariance function
\be
\Cov\!\left(B^\hurst_s,B^\hurst_t\right)
=\frac{1}{2}\left(t^{2\hurst}+s^{2\hurst}-|t-s|^{2\hurst}\right).
\label{eq:fbm}
\ee
The process $(B^{\hurst}(t))_{t \ge 0}$ is \emph{self-similar} with index $\hurst$, meaning that for any $a>0$,
$B^{\hurst}(at) \;\stackrel{d}{=}\; a^{H} B^{\hurst}(t),
$
and it has \emph{stationary increments}. Moreover, the successive increments of $B^{\hurst}$ are
\emph{positively correlated} for $\hurst > \tfrac12$, \emph{negatively correlated} for
$\hurst < \tfrac12$, and \emph{uncorrelated} for $\hurst = \tfrac12$, in this case
the process reduces to standard Brownian motion,
which has independent increments.
Asset price models driven by fBm have long attracted interest due to their
ability to capture long-range dependence; see, for instance,
\cite{lo1991long,willinger1999stock}. 
We focus on the positive correlation case $\hurst>\frac{1}{2}$. 




Consider a financial market with two independent risky assets. The first asset
is driven by a standard Brownian motion $\{W_t\}_{t\in[0,1]}$, while the second
asset is driven by a fractional Brownian motion $\{B_t^{\hurst}\}_{t\ge 0}$. The assets
cannot be traded individually; instead, trading is permitted only in a single
index defined by
\[
S_t = W_t + \alpha B_t^{\hurst}, \qquad t \ge 0,
\]
where $\alpha > 0$ is a fixed constant.

We now introduce a discretized version of this model. Let $\Delta t > 0$ be a
fixed time step and set the terminal time $T = N \Delta t$ for some
$N \in \mathbb{N}$. Trading is allowed only at the discrete times
\[
0,\ \Delta t,\ 2\Delta t,\ \ldots,\ N\Delta t = T.
\]
We analyze two different information structures, which are described below.

\subsubsection*{Full-information strategies}

In the first setup, the investor observes both processes $W$ and
$B^{\hurst}$ at all trading dates. Formally, for all $i=1,\ldots,N$ we set
$p_i=1$, $q_i=2$, and $m_i=2(i-1)$, and define
\begin{align*}
X^i_1 &=
W_{i\Delta t}-W_{(i-1)\Delta t}
+ \alpha\!\left(B^{\hurst}_{i\Delta t}-B^{\hurst}_{(i-1)\Delta t}\right),\\
X^i_2 &=
W_{i\Delta t}-W_{(i-1)\Delta t},\\
Y^i &=
\left(X^1_1,X^1_2,\ldots,X^{i-1}_1,X^{i-1}_2\right).
\end{align*}

The covariance matrix of the vector
\[
(Z_1,\ldots,Z_{2N})
:=
(X^1_1,X^1_2,\ldots,X^{N}_1,X^{N}_2)
\]
is given by
\[
\Sigma_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle
\frac{\alpha^2}{2^{1+2\hurst}}\Delta t^{2\hurst}
\begin{aligned}[t]
\Big(&|i-j+2|^{2\hurst}+|i-j-2|^{2\hurst}\\
&-|i-j|^{2\hurst}\Big),
\end{aligned}
& \text{if $i,j$ are odd},\\[1ex]
\Delta t, & \text{if $j$ is even and ($i=j$ or $i=j-1$)},\\
\Delta t, & \text{if $j$ is odd and $i=j+1$},\\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]



The subspace $\band$ is spanned by matrices
$D^{k,l}\in M_{2N}(\mathbb R)$, $k=1,\ldots,N$, $l\le 2k-2$, of the form
\[
D^{k,l}_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if $i=l$ and $j=2k-1$},\\
1, & \text{if $i=2k-1$ and $j=l$},\\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]

\subsubsection*{Markovian strategies}

In the second setup, the investor determines her strategy using only the
current asset prices at the decision time, rather than the entire price
history. This restriction is motivated by practical considerations, as it
leads to strategies that are easier and faster to implement.

Formally, for all $i=1,\ldots,N$ we again set $p_i=1$, $q_i=2$, and
$m_i=2(i-1)$, and define
\begin{align*}
X^i_1 &=
W_{i\Delta t}-W_{(i-1)\Delta t}
+ \alpha\!\left(B^{\hurst}_{i\Delta t}-B^{\hurst}_{(i-1)\Delta t}\right),\\
X^i_2 &=
W_{i\Delta t}-W_{(i-1)\Delta t},\\
Y^i &=
\left(\sum_{j=1}^{i-1} X^j_1,\;
 \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} X^j_2\right).
\end{align*}

The distribution of
\[
(Z_1,\ldots,Z_{2N})
:=
(X^1_1,X^1_2,\ldots,X^{N}_1,X^{N}_2)
\]
coincides with that of the first setup. However, the subspace $\band$
is different. 
It is spanned by matrices $D^{k,p}\in M_{2N}(\mathbb{R})$, 
$k=1,\ldots,N$, $p\in\{1,2\}$, defined by
\[
D^{k,p}_{ij}:=
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if } j=2k-1,\ i\neq j,\ \text{and } i\equiv p \pmod 2,\\
1, & \text{if } i=2k-1,\ j\neq i,\ \text{and } j\equiv p \pmod 2,\\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]


\begin{figure}[H]
 \centering
 \includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{value_mixed_fbm_n_1000_H_0.50_1.00_a5.0_all}
 \caption{Optimal investment value $v_N^*$ as a function of the Hurst parameter
 $\mathcal H$ in $[0.5,1)$ for three information structures: full information (red),
 Markovian strategies (blue), and observation of $S$ only (green).}
 \label{fig:investment_value}
\end{figure}

 
Figure \ref{fig:investment_value} shows the optimal investment value $v_N^* = -\log\!\left(\mathbb{E}\!\left[\exp\!\left(-V^{\hat{\gamma}}\right)\right]\right) $ for the process \( S_t := W_t + 5 B_t^{H} \), with \(N=500\) discretization points for $T=1$, as a function of \(\mathcal{H} \in [0.5,1)\). 
In order to make the computations more efficient we applied 
the \textbf{Action by conjugation }property in Section \ref{sec:properties}. Indeed for the permutation matrix $P\in O(n)$ given by
\[
P_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{$i$ is odd, $j=\frac{1+i}{2}$},\\
1, & \text{$i$ is even, $j=N+\frac{i}{2}$},\\
0, &\textit{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
we get 
\[P\Sigma P^{\top}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha^2 \Sigma^1+\Delta t I_N & \Delta t I_N \\
\Delta t I_N & \Delta t I_N
\end{pmatrix},
\]
where
$I_N$ is the identity matrix of order $N$ and $\Sigma^1$ is a Toeplitz matrix of order $N$ given by 
\begin{align}
\Sigma^1_{ij}
&= \mathrm{Cov}(\Delta B_i^{H}, \Delta B_j^{H}) \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\,\Delta t^{2H}
\Bigl( |i-j+1|^{2H} + |i-j-1|^{2H} - 2|i-j|^{2H} \Bigr) \:,
\quad
1 \le i,j \le N .
\end{align}
The transformation \( D \mapsto P D P^{\top} \) leaves the determinant invariant and allows us to compute the decomposition more efficiently.  Exploiting this block structure via Schur complement reduction, combined with the Toeplitz methods described in Section~\ref{subsec:complexity_brief}, reduces the per-iteration cost from $O(N^3)$ to $O(N^2)$.

 
The red line in Figure \ref{fig:investment_value} (full-information strategies) corresponds to the case in which both components \(W\) and \(B^{\hurst}\) are observed on the discrete grid. Since the continuous-time process \( (S_t)_{t\in[0,1]} \) is not a semimartingale with respect to the filtration generated by \(W\) and \(B^{H}\), the fundamental theorem of asset pricing (see \cite{delbaen1994general}) implies the existence of arbitrage in the continuous-time model. Consequently, we expect the value to diverge to \(+\infty\) as the number of discretization points tends to infinity. For finite \(N\), however, the value is well defined. We observe that the value is not monotone in the Hurst parameter \(H\) and attains a maximum near \(\hurst=3/4\). 

The blue line represents the case in which the decision at time \(t\) depends only on the values of \(W_t\) and \(B_t^{\hurst}\) (Markovian strategies). To date, there are no theoretical results for this setup in continuous time and this left for the future. 
In particular, it will be interesting to explore whether the value exhibits an extremum at $\hurst \approx 3/4$.

Finally, the green line represents the case in which the investor observes only the process \(S\) itself on the discrete grid. To compute this curve numerically, we applied our previous result, Theorem~1.1 in \cite{dolinsky2023exponential}. In \cite{cheredito2001mixed}, it was shown that \(S\) is a semimartingale in its own filtration if and only if \(\hurst>3/4\). Thus, we expect that, as \(N\) tends to infinity, the value remains bounded if and only if \(\hurst>3/4\). We observe that for \(\hurst\) close to one, this setup yields a smaller utility than the setup with Markovian strategies, whereas for smaller values of \(\hurst\) the opposite dominance is observed. 

In the absence of the Brownian motion component, i.e. when \(S_t = B_t^{\hurst}\), there exists a simple arbitrage opportunity in continuous time given by the pathwise identity (see \cite{zahle1998integration}) $\int_0^1 B_t^{\hurst}dB_t^{\hurst} = \frac12 \bigl|B_1^{\hurst}\bigr|^2$, which holds for \(\hurst>1/2\).


 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\bibliographystyle{siamplain}
\bibliography{convex_bib}

\clearpage
\appendix
\setcounter{page}{1}

% Supp. info: 

\section{Algebraic examples and numerical illustrations}
\label{subsec:algebraic_examples}

\medskip
We illustrate the framework with four concrete examples, representing different computational structural settings:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Example~I} (small $S$, primal): $A$ is a dense SPD matrix and $S$ is spanned by $m$ symmetric matrices $\{D_1,\ldots,D_m\}$ with $m$ small.
The primal Newton method operates directly on the $m$-dimensional coordinate
 vector, with $\Theta(n^3)$ cost per iteration dominated by Cholesky factorization.

 \item \textbf{Example~II} (dual formulation): $A$ is dense SPD and $S$ is
 high-dimensional but its orthogonal complement $S^\perp$ has small dimension
 $m^\perp$, here taken to be tridiagonal (bandwidth $b=1$).
 The dual Newton method optimizes over the $m^\perp$ coordinates, again with
 $\Theta(n^3)$ per-iteration cost.

 \item \textbf{Example~III} (group-invariant): $A$ is invariant under a group $G$
 of block permutations acting on $r$ blocks, and $S$ is $G$-invariant with
 $C$ constrained to have zero diagonal.
 The problem reduces to the fixed-point subspace $S^G$ of dimension
 $m_G \le r(r+1)/2$, with $m_G$ determined by the number of active block pairs.
 Per-iteration cost is $\Theta(m_G^3)$, independent of $n$.
 
 \item \textbf{Example~IV} (banded): both $A$ and the constraint subspace $S$
 have half-bandwidth $b \ll n$.
 Band structure is preserved throughout the optimization, yielding
 $\Theta(nb^2)$ per-iteration cost via banded Cholesky factorization.
 \end{enumerate}

 \medskip
Table~\ref{tab:algebraic_examples_summary} summarizes the algebraic assumptions,
algorithmic choices, theoretical complexity, and empirical behavior observed in
these four examples.
The table highlights how the same decomposition problem exhibits markedly
different computational behavior depending on whether dimension reduction
(primal versus dual), symmetry, or sparsity can be exploited.
While all formulations recover the same pair $(B^\ast,C^\ast)$, the effective
optimization dimension and the cost of the underlying linear algebra operations
vary substantially across structural settings, leading to large differences in practical
performance. \\



Figure~\ref{fig:block_group_demo} illustrates the block-permutation invariant
setting of Example~III on a small instance with $n=25$ (five blocks of size
five), chosen for visualization.
The input matrix $A$ is block-structured and $G$-invariant.
The constraint matrix $C\in S$ is block-constant, with the active symmetric block
pairs indicated by red stars.
The corresponding precision matrix $B\in S^\perp$ exhibits exact zeros on the
inactive block pairs (marked by red circles), while $B^{-1}$ recovers the dense
covariance structure.
This example highlights how symmetry reduces the effective optimization
dimension while enforcing exact structural constraints in both $C$ and $B$.



\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\footnotesize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.18}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}

\caption{Algebraic settings and empirical behavior for four representative instances ($n=2000$). In all cases, convergence was achieved in fewer than twenty Newton/Newton-CG iterations, with reconstruction error $\|A-(B^{-1}+C)\|_F \leq 10^{-10}$. Timing is reported for a run on a standard PC laptop (Intel Core i7-1165G7, 2.80\,GHz, 32\,GB RAM).}
\label{tab:algebraic_examples_summary}

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{Y}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}X}

\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{}L{2.35cm}YYYY@{}}
\toprule
&
\shortstack{\textbf{Ex.~I}\\\emph{Small $S$}}
&
\shortstack{\textbf{Ex.~II}\\\emph{Dual}}
&
\shortstack{\textbf{Ex.~III}\\\emph{Group-invariant}}
&
\shortstack{\textbf{Ex.~IV}\\\emph{Banded}}
\\
\midrule

\multicolumn{5}{@{}l}{\textbf{Problem Structure}}\\
\addlinespace[0.15em]
$A$ &
Dense SPD &
Dense SPD &
$G$-invariant SPD &
Banded SPD \\
$S$ &
Low-dim.\ explicit span &
Large/implicit; optimize over $S^\perp$ &
$G$-invariant; reduce to $S^G$ &
Banded; bandwidth preserved \\
Primary benefit &
Baseline  &
Dim.\ reduction ($m^\perp \ll m$) &
Symmetry reduction ($m_G \ll m$) &
Fast structured solves ($b \ll n$) \\
\addlinespace[0.25em]
\midrule

\multicolumn{5}{@{}l}{\textbf{Solver configuration}}\\
\addlinespace[0.15em]
Formulation / solver &
Primal / exact Newton &
Dual / Newton-CG &
Primal on $S^G$ / Newton-CG &
Primal / Newton-CG \\
Optimization dim. &
$m=5$ &
$m^\perp=3999$ &
$r=5, m_G=13$ &
$b=2, m=3997$ \\
\addlinespace[0.25em]
\midrule

\multicolumn{5}{@{}l}{\textbf{Empirical performance}}\\
\addlinespace[0.15em]
Newton iterations &
2 & 16 & 5 & 4 \\
Runtime (sec.) &
10.759 & 350.144 & 3.327 & 14.346 \\
Final $\|\nabla\Phi\|_2$ &
$4.3 \times 10^{-9}$ &
$3.6 \times 10^{-12}$ &
$1.3 \times 10^{-11}$ &
$4.7 \times 10^{-9}$ \\
Recon. Error &
$1.0 \times 10^{-10}$ &
$2.7 \times 10^{-14}$ &
$1.0 \times 10^{-14}$ &
$1.3 \times 10^{-13}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}





\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{demo3_block_group_color.png}
\caption{Block-permutation invariant decomposition (Example~III), with $n=25$ (five blocks of size five).
Top left: input matrix $A$.
Top right: constraint matrix $C\in S$, block-constant on symmetric block pairs;
red stars indicate the active block pairs.
Bottom left: precision matrix $B\in S^\perp$.
Bottom right: covariance matrix $B^{-1}$, exhibiting exact zeros on block pairs for which one block is always active in $C$ (red circles).}
\label{fig:block_group_demo}
\end{figure}



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\clearpage
\newpage
\section{Newton-CG implementation details}
\label{app:newtoncg_pseudocode}

This appendix collects pseudo-code for the Newton-CG routines used throughout
Section~\ref{sec:optimization}.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:newtoncg} implements the outer Newton-CG iteration.
At each iterate, Algorithm~\ref{alg:evaluate_phi_grad} is used to evaluate the
objective value, gradient, and to construct a structure-exploiting solver for $M(x)=A-C(x)$.
Hessian-vector products required by the conjugate-gradient solver are computed
on demand via Algorithm~\ref{alg:hv_product}.

%\vspace{-0.5cm}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\subsection{Newton-CG solver}

\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{ConstrainedDecompositionNewtonCG}
\label{alg:newtoncg}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require $A\in\SPD$
\Parameters tolerances $\texttt{tol},\texttt{tol\_cg}>0$
\Ensure $x^\ast$, $C^\ast=C(x^\ast)$, $B^\ast=(A-C^\ast)^{-1}$
\State Initialize $x\gets0$
\State $(\Phi,g,\texttt{SolveM})\gets \Call{EvaluatePhiGrad}{A,x}$
\While{$\|g\|_2>\texttt{tol}$}
 \State Solve $H(x)d=-g$ by CG using \Call{HvProduct}{\dots}
 \State Choose $t$ by feasibility-preserving Armijo backtracking
 \State $x\gets x+td$
 \State $(\Phi,g,\texttt{SolveM})\gets \Call{EvaluatePhiGrad}{A,x}$
\EndWhile
\State \Return $(x,B^\ast,C^\ast)$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\vspace{-0.3cm}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\subsection{Evaluation of objective and gradient}

\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{EvaluatePhiGrad}
\label{alg:evaluate_phi_grad}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require $A\in\SPD$, $x\in\Omega_x$
\Ensure $\Phi$, gradient $g\in\R^m$, solver handle \texttt{SolveM}
\State $C \gets \sum_{k=1}^m x_k D_k$
\State $M \gets A-C$ \Comment{$M\succ0$}
\State Construct a structure-exploiting representation of $M$
\State $\Phi \gets -\log|M|$
\For{$k=1$ \textbf{to} $m$}
 \State $g_k \gets \tr(M^{-1}D_k)$
\EndFor
\State \Return $(\Phi,g,\texttt{SolveM})$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}


\vspace{-0.2cm}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\subsection{Hessian-vector product}

\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{HvProduct}
\label{alg:hv_product}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require basis $\{D_k\}_{k=1}^m$, solver \texttt{SolveM}, vector $p\in\R^m$
\Ensure $q=H(x)p\in\R^m$
\State $D(p)\gets \sum_{\ell=1}^m p_\ell D_\ell$
\For{$k=1$ \textbf{to} $m$}
 \State $q_k \gets \tr(M^{-1}D_kM^{-1}D(p))$
\EndFor
\State \Return $q$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}


\end{document}

% SIAM Shared Information Template
% This is information that is shared between the main document and any
% supplement. If no supplement is required, then this information can
% be included directly in the main document.


% Packages and macros go here
\usepackage{lipsum}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{epstopdf}
%\usepackage{algorithmic}
\ifpdf
  \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.eps,.pdf,.png,.jpg}
\else
  \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.eps}
\fi

% Add a serial/Oxford comma by default.
\newcommand{\creflastconjunction}{, and~}

% Used for creating new theorem and remark environments
\newsiamremark{remark}{Remark}
\newsiamremark{hypothesis}{Hypothesis}
\crefname{hypothesis}{Hypothesis}{Hypotheses}
\newsiamthm{claim}{Claim}
\newsiamremark{fact}{Fact}
\crefname{fact}{Fact}{Facts}

% Sets running headers as well as PDF title and authors
\headers{A Unique Inverse Decomposition of SPD Matrices}{Y. Dolinsky and O. Zuk}

% Title. If the supplement option is on, then "Supplementary Material"
% is automatically inserted before the title.
\title{A Unique Inverse Decomposition of Positive Definite Matrices under Linear Constraints\thanks{Submitted to SIMAX.
\funding{This work was funded by the ISF 305/25 and ISF 2392/22}}}

% Authors: full names plus addresses.
\author{Yan Dolinsky\thanks{Department of Statistics and Data Science, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel 
  (\email{Yan.Dolinsky@mail.huji.ac.il}, \email{or.zuk@mail.huji.ac.il}).}
\and Or Zuk\footnotemark[2]}

\usepackage{amsopn}
\DeclareMathOperator{\diag}{diag}






%%% Local Variables: 
%%% mode:latex
%%% TeX-master: "ex_article"
%%% End: 

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
%\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{geometry}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\mathtoolsset{showonlyrefs}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{cite}

\usepackage{xr}


\newcommand{\zuk}[1]{\textcolor{red}{[#1 --Or]}} 

\newcommand{\hurst}{{\mathcal{H}}} % Hurst parameter
\newcommand{\band}{{\mathcal{S}}} % Banded matrices
\newcommand{\antiband}{{\mathcal{T}}} % 'Anti'-banded matrices
\newcommand{\cov}{{\Sigma}} % Covariance matrix of the Gaussian
\newcommand{\pre}{{\Lambda}} % Precision matrix of the Gaussian

\DeclareMathOperator{\proj}{proj}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max} % optional, but usually useful too

%\usepackage{algpseudocode} % alternative to algorithmic


% Hide the "End..." lines in algorithms
\algtext*{EndFor}
\algtext*{EndIf}
\algtext*{EndWhile}
\algtext*{EndFunction}

\DeclareMathOperator{\tr}{tr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cov}{Cov}


% Rename "Require" / "Ensure" headers
\algrenewcommand\algorithmicrequire{\textbf{Input:}}
\algrenewcommand\algorithmicensure{\textbf{Output:}}

% Add a custom "Parameters:" header
%\algnewcommand{\Parameters}{\Statex \textbf{Parameters:}}
%\algnewcommand{\Parameters}{%
%	 \Statex\hspace{-1.5ex}\textbf{Parameters:}\hspace*{1em}%
%

\algnewcommand{\Parameters}{%
	\Statex\noindent\hspace*{-1.7em}\textbf{Parameters:}\hspace*{0.5em}%
}

\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}


% --- Notation ---
\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\Sym}{\mathbb{S}^n} % Symmetric matrices
\newcommand{\SPD}{\mathbb{S}^n_{++}} % Positive definite matrices
\newcommand{\SPSD}{\mathbb{S}^n_{+}} % Positive semidefinite matrices


\newcommand{\SPDD}{\mathbb{S}^{nd}_{++}} % Positive definite (nd) x (nd) matrices
\newcommand{\SPSDD}{\mathbb{S}^{nd}_{+}} % Positive semidefinite (nd) x (nd) matrices


\newcommand{\Tr}{\text{Tr}}
\newcommand{\bx}{\mathbf{x}}

%\input{OrZuk_latex_macros.txt}

% turn off overfull box markers (black bars at the margin)
\overfullrule=0pt