Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: in this paper , we make some progress on a problem that has essentially been open since 1902 @xcite . it is well known that for each monic polynomial @xmath3 one can construct a matrix @xmath4 , such that @xmath5 . one of the options is a companion matrix ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) @xmath6.\ ] ] thus , we can numerically compute the zeros of the polynomial @xmath7 as eigenvalues of the corresponding companion matrix @xmath8 using tools from numerical linear algebra . this approach is used in many numerical packages , for instance in the ` roots ` command in matlab  @xcite . the aim of this paper is to find a similar elegant tool for finding the zeros of a system of two bivariate polynomials of degree @xmath1 @xmath9 an approach analogous to the univariate case would be to construct matrices @xmath10 , @xmath11 , @xmath12 , @xmath13 , @xmath14 , and @xmath15 of size @xmath16 such that @xmath17 \det(a_2+x b_2 + y c_2)&=q(x , y ) . \end{split}\ ] ] this would give an equivalent two - parameter eigenvalue problem @xcite @xmath18 ( a_2+x b_2 + y c_2 ) \ , u_2&=0 \end{split}\ ] ] that could be solved by the standard tools like the qz algorithm , see @xcite for details . this idea looks promising , but there are many obstacles on the way to a working numerical algorithm that could be applied to a system of bivariate polynomials . although it is known for _ more than a century _ @xcite that such matrices of size @xmath19 exist , so far there are no efficient numerical algorithms that can construct them . even worse , it seems that the construction of such matrices might be an even harder problem than finding zeros of polynomials @xmath7 and @xmath20 . there exist simple and fast constructions @xcite that build matrices of size @xmath21 that satisfy ( [ eq : detrep ] ) , where the resulting two - parameter eigenvalue problem ( [ eq : twopar ] ) is singular ; we will discuss more details in section  [ sec : multipar ] . recent results @xcite show that it is possible to solve singular two - parameter eigenvalue problems numerically for small to medium - sized matrices . however , the @xmath21 size of the matrices pushes the complexity of the algorithm to the enormous @xmath22 and it is reported in @xcite that this approach to compute zeros is competitive only for polynomials of degree @xmath23 .    the construction of @xcite yields matrices that are of asymptotic order @xmath24 , while those of @xcite are of asymptotic order @xmath25 . in this paper we give two new representations . the first one uses the tree structure of monomials in @xmath26 and @xmath27 . the resulting matrices are smaller than those of @xcite , with the same asymptotic order @xmath25 . this representation can be used for bivariate polynomials as well as for polynomial multiparameter eigenvalue problems @xcite ; that is , for polynomials with matrix coefficients . the second representation is even more condensed , with asymptotic order @xmath28 , and can be applied to scalar bivariate polynomials . although the size of the matrices asymptotically still grows quadratically with @xmath1 , the smaller size renders this approach attractive for polynomials of degree @xmath29 , or for larger @xmath1 if the polynomials have only few terms . this already is an interesting size for a practical use and might trigger additional interest in such methods that could culminate in even more efficient representations . moreover , as we will see , for modest @xmath1 , the order of the matrices is only roughly @xmath30 . furthermore , for polynomials of degree 3 , we present a construction of matrices of order ( exactly ) 3 . there are other ways to study a system of polynomials as an eigenvalue problems , see , e.g. , @xcite and @xcite , but they involve more symbolic computation . in @xcite an algorithm is proposed that only requires to solve linear systems and check rank conditions , which are similar tools that we use in the staircase method @xcite to solve the obtained singular two - parameter eigenvalue problem . of course , there are many numerical methods that can be applied to systems of bivariate polynomials , two main approaches are the homotopy continuation and the resultant method , see , e.g. , @xcite and the references therein . there are also many methods which aim to compute only real solutions of a system of two real bivariate polynomials , see , e.g. , @xcite . we compare our method with two existing approaches , mathematica s nsolve @xcite and phcpack @xcite in section  [ sec : numex ] , and show that our approach is competitive for polynomials up to degree @xmath31 . let us mention that another advantage of writing the system of bivariate polynomials as a two - parameter eigenvalue problem is that then we can apply iterative subspace numerical methods such as the jacobi  davidson method and compute just a small part of zeros close to a given target @xmath32 @xcite ; we will not pursue this approach in this paper . the rest of this paper is organized as follows . in section  [ sec : motiv ] we give some applications where bivariate polynomial systems have to be solved . in section  [ sec : detrep ] we introduce determinantal representations . section  [ sec : multipar ] focuses on two - parameter eigenvalue problems . in section  [ sec : lin1 ] we give a determinantal representation that is based on the `` tree '' of monomials , involves no computation , and is suitable for both scalar and matrix polynomials . the matrices of the resulting representation are asymptotically of order @xmath25 . in section  [ sec : lin2 ] we give a representation with smaller matrices , of asymptotic order @xmath28 , that involves just a trivial amount of numerical computation ( such as computing roots of low - degree univariate polynomials ) and can be computed very efficiently . this representation may be used for scalar polynomials . we end with some numerical experiments in section  [ sec : numex ] and conclusions in section [ sec : conc ] . in delay differential equations , determining critical delays in the case of so - called commensurate delays may lead to a problem of type @xcite . the simplest example is of the form @xmath33 , where @xmath34 is the delay ; asked are values of @xmath35 that results in periodic solutions . this yields @xmath7 and @xmath20 of degrees 2 and 3 , respectively . more delay terms with delays that are multiples of @xmath35 gives polynomials of higher degree . polynomial systems of form arise in numerous applications and fields , such as signal processing @xcite and robotics @xcite . in computer aided design , one may be interested in the intersections of algebraic curves , such as ellipses @xcite . in two - dimensional subspace minimization @xcite , such as polynomial tensor optimization , one is interested in two - dimensional searches @xmath36 , where @xmath37 , @xmath26 is the current point , and @xmath38 and @xmath39 are search directions ; see @xcite and the references therein .    in systems and control the first - order conditions of the @xmath40-approximation problem of minimizing @xmath41 , for a given impulse response @xmath42 of degree @xmath1 , and @xmath43 , lead to a system of type @xcite . when considering quadratic eigenvalue problems in numerical linear algebra , it is of interest to determine @xmath44 , as an approximate eigenvalue for a given approximate eigenvector @xmath45 , which gives a system of degree 3 in the real and imaginary part of @xmath46 ( * ? ? ? generalizations to polynomial eigenvalue problems give rise to polynomials @xmath7 and @xmath20 of higher degree . also , there has been some recent interest in this problem in the context of the chebfun2 project @xcite . in chebfun2 , nonlinear real bivariate functions are approximated by bivariate polynomials , so solving is relevant for finding zeros of systems of real nonlinear bivariate functions and for finding local extrema of such functions . in this section we introduce determinantal representations and present some existing constructions . the difference between what should theoretically be possible and what can be done in practice is huge . the algorithms we propose reduce the difference only by a small ( but still significant ) factor ; there seems to be plenty of room for future improvements . we say that a bivariate polynomial @xmath47 has degree @xmath1 if all its monomials @xmath48 have total degree less or equal to @xmath1 , i.e. , @xmath49 , and if at least one of the monomials has total degree equal to @xmath1 . we say that the square @xmath50 matrices @xmath51 , and @xmath52 form a _ determinantal representation _ of the polynomial @xmath7 if @xmath53 . as our motivation is to use eigenvalue methods to solve polynomial systems , we will , instead of determinantal representation , often use the term _ linearization _ since a determinantal representation transforms an eigenvalue problem that involves polynomials of degree @xmath1 into a linear eigenvalue problem . a definition of linearization that extends that for the univariate case ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) is the following .    a linear bivariate pencil @xmath54 of size @xmath50 is a linearization of the polynomial @xmath47 if there exist two polynomial matrices @xmath55 and @xmath56 such that @xmath57 and @xmath58.\ ] ]    we are interested not only in linearizations of scalar polynomials but also in linearizations of matrix bivariate polynomials of the form ( cf .  ) @xmath59 where the @xmath60 are @xmath61 matrices . in line with the above , a linear pencil @xmath62 of matrices of size @xmath50 presents a linearization ( determinantal representation ) of the matrix polynomial @xmath63 if there exist two polynomial matrices @xmath55 and @xmath56 such that @xmath57 and @xmath64.\ ] ] in this case @xmath65 . each linearization of a matrix polynomial gives a linearization for a scalar polynomial , as we can think of scalars as of @xmath66 matrices ; the opposite is not true in general . dixon @xcite showed that for every scalar bivariate polynomial @xmath47 of degree @xmath1 there exists a determinantal representation with symmetric matrices of size @xmath16 . dickson  @xcite later showed that this result can not be extended to general polynomials in more than two variables , except for three variables and polynomials of degree two and three , and four variables and polynomials of degree two . although they both give constructive proofs , there does not seem to exist an efficient numerical algorithm to construct the determinantal representation with matrices of size @xmath16 for a given bivariate polynomial of degree @xmath1 . in recent years , the research in determinantal representations is growing , as determinantal representations for a particular subset of polynomials , _ real zero polynomials _ , are related to linear matrix inequality ( lmi ) constraints used in semidefinite programming sdp . for an overview see , e.g. , @xcite ; here we give just the essentials for bivariate polynomials that are related to our problem . we say that a real polynomial @xmath47 satisfies the _ real zero condition _ with respect to @xmath67 if for all @xmath68 the univariate polynomial @xmath69 has only real zeros . a two - dimensional _ lmi set _ is defined as @xmath70 where @xmath51 , and @xmath52 are symmetric matrices of size @xmath50 and @xmath71 stands for positive semidefinite . in sdp we are interested in convex sets @xmath72 that admit an lmi representation , i.e. , @xmath73 is an lmi set for certain matrices @xmath51 and @xmath52 . such sets are called _ spectrahedra _ and helton and vinnikov  @xcite showed that such @xmath73 must be an algebraic interior , whose minimal defining polynomial @xmath7 satisfies the real zero condition with respect to any point in the interior of @xmath73 . their results state that if a polynomial @xmath47 of degree @xmath1 satisfies real zero condition with respect to @xmath32 , then there exist symmetric matrices @xmath51 , and @xmath52 of size @xmath16 such that @xmath74 and @xmath75 . matrices @xmath51 , and @xmath52 thus form a particular determinantal representation for @xmath7 . the problem of constructing an lmi representation with symmetric or hermitian matrices @xmath76 and @xmath52 for a given spectrahedron @xmath73 raised much more interest than the related problem of generating a determinantal representation for a generic bivariate polynomial . there exist procedures , which rely heavily on slow symbolic computation or other expensive steps , that return an lmi representation with hermitian matrices for a given spectrahedron , but they are not efficient enough . for instance , a method from @xcite , based on the proof from @xcite , does return @xmath16 matrices for a polynomial of degree @xmath1 , but the reported times ( 10 seconds for a polynomial of degree 10 ) show that it is much too slow for our purpose . as a first step of the above method is to find zeros of a system of bivariate polynomials of degree @xmath1 and @xmath77 , this clearly can not be efficient enough for our needs . in addition , we are interested in determinantal representations for polynomials that do not necessary satisfy the real zero condition .    in sdp and lmi the matrices have to be symmetric or hermitian , which is not required in our case . we need a simple and fast numerical construction of matrices that satisfy ( [ eq : detrep ] ) and are as small as possible  ideally their size should increase linearly and not quadratically with @xmath1 . if we look at the available determinantal representations for generic bivariate polynomials , we first have the linearization by khazanov with matrices of size @xmath78 @xcite . in ( * appendix ) , a smaller linearization for bivariate matrix polynomials is given with block matrices of order @xmath79 . the linearization uses all monomials of degree up to @xmath77 and contains a direct expression for the matrices @xmath80 , @xmath81 and @xmath52 such that @xmath82 . similar to @xcite , it can be applied to matrix polynomials . we give an example for a general matrix polynomial of degree @xmath83 , from which it is possible to deduce the construction for a generic degree . this linearization will be superseded in section  [ sec : lin1 ] by a more economical one . [ ex : lin0 ] ( * ? ? ? * appendix ) we take a matrix bivariate polynomial of degree @xmath83 @xmath84 if @xmath45 is a nonzero vector , then @xmath85 if and only if @xmath86 , where @xmath87}\ ] ] and @xmath88^t.\ ] ] we have @xmath89 and @xmath90 is a linearization of @xmath63 . we remark that quarez  @xcite also gives explicit expressions for determinantal representations . he is interested in symmetric representations and is able to construct , for a bivariate polynomial of degree @xmath1 such that @xmath91 , a linearization with symmetric matrices of size @xmath92 , where @xmath93 this has asymptotically the same order as the linearization that we give in section  [ sec : lin1 ] . let us also remark that in the phase , when we are solving a two - parameter eigenvalue problem to compute the zeros of a system of two bivariate polynomials , we can not exploit the fact that the matrices are symmetric , so this is not important for our application . there are some other available tools , for instance it is possible to construct a determinantal representation using the package ncalgebra @xcite for noncommutative algebra that runs in mathematica @xcite , but this does not give satisfactory results for our application as the matrices that we can construct have smaller size . in this section we briefly present the two - parameter eigenvalue problem and the available numerical methods . a motivation for the search for small determinantal representations is that if we transform a system of bivariate polynomials into an eigenvalue problem , then we can apply existing numerical methods for such problems . a _ two - parameter eigenvalue problem _ has the form where @xmath94 , and @xmath95 are given @xmath96 complex matrices . we are looking for @xmath97 and nonzero vectors @xmath98 , @xmath99 , such that ( [ eq : twopar ] ) is satisfied . in such case we say that a pair @xmath100 is an eigenvalue and the tensor product @xmath101 is the corresponding eigenvector . if we introduce the so - called operator determinants , the matrices @xmath102 then the problem ( [ eq : twopar ] ) is related to a coupled pair of generalized eigenvalue problems @xmath103 \label{drugi}\\[-1.5ex ]    \delta_2 \ , w&=y \ \delta_0 \ , w\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] for a decomposable tensor @xmath104 . if @xmath105 is nonsingular , then atkinson  @xcite showed that the solutions of ( [ eq : twopar ] ) and ( [ drugi ] ) agree and the matrices @xmath106 and @xmath107 commute . in the nonsingular case the two - parameter problem ( [ eq : twopar ] ) has @xmath108 eigenvalues and we can numerically solve it with a variant of the qz algorithm on ( [ drugi ] ) from @xcite . ideally , if we could construct a determinantal representation with matrices @xmath19 for a bivariate polynomial of degree @xmath1 , this would be the method that we would apply on the `` companion '' two - parameter eigenvalue problem to get the zeros of the polynomial system . as matrices @xmath109 , and @xmath110 have size @xmath111 , the computation of all eigenvalues of a nonsingular two - parameter eigenvalue problem has time complexity @xmath112 , which would lead to @xmath113 algorithm for a system of bivariate polynomials . of course , for this approach we need a construction of a determinantal representation with matrices @xmath16 that should not be more computationally expensive than the effort to solve a two - parameter eigenvalue problem .    unfortunately , all practical constructions for determinantal representations ( including the two presented in this paper ) return matrices that are much larger than @xmath16 . if we have a determinantal representation with matrices larger than the degree of the polynomial , then the corresponding two - parameter eigenvalue problem is singular , which means that both matrix pencils ( [ drugi ] ) are singular , and we are dealing with a more difficult problem . there exists a numerical method from @xcite that computes the regular eigenvalues of ( [ eq : twopar ] ) from the common regular part of ( [ drugi ] ) . for the generic singular case it is shown in @xcite that the regular eigenvalues of ( [ eq : twopar ] ) and ( [ drugi ] ) do agree . for other types of singular two - parameter eigenvalue problems the relation between the regular eigenvalues of ( [ eq : twopar ] ) and ( [ drugi ] ) is not completely known , but the numerical examples indicate that the method from @xcite can be successfully applied to such problems as well . however , the numerical method , which is a variant of a staircase algorithm @xcite , has to make a lot of decisions on the numerical rank and a single inaccurate decision can cause the method to fail . as the size of the matrices increases , the gaps between singular values may numerically disappear and it may be difficult to solve the problem . this is not the only issue that prevents the use of determinantal representations to solve a bivariate system . the algorithm for the singular two - parameter eigenvalue problems still has complexity @xmath112 , but the fast determinantal representations that we are aware of return matrices of size @xmath21 instead of @xmath114 . this is what pushes the overall complexity to @xmath22 and makes this approach efficient only for polynomials of small degree . nonetheless , at complexity so high , each construction that gives a smaller determinantal representation can make a change . in view of this , we propose two new linearizations in the next two sections . we are interested in linearizations of the matrix polynomial @xmath115 of degree @xmath1 , where @xmath60 are square matrices . our goal is to find square matrices @xmath51 , and @xmath52 as small as possible such that @xmath116 . also , we need a relation that @xmath85 if and only if @xmath117 , where @xmath118 is a tensor product of @xmath45 and a polynomial of @xmath26 and @xmath27 . the linearization in this section also applies to scalar bivariate polynomials , where all matrices are @xmath66 and @xmath119 .    in section  [ sec : detrep ] we have given a linearization with block matrices of order @xmath79 . we can view this linearization in the following way . if @xmath85 for @xmath120 , then @xmath121 , where the vector @xmath118 has the form @xmath122^t.\ ] ] this means that @xmath118 always begins with the initial block @xmath45 and then contains all blocks of the form @xmath123 where @xmath124 . to simplify the presentation we will usually omit @xmath45 when referring to the blocks of the vector ( [ eq : blockvec ] ) . the blocks are ordered in the degree negative lexicographic ordering , i.e. , @xmath125 if @xmath126 , or @xmath127 and @xmath128 . the above block structure of vector @xmath118 is defined in the rows of the matrix from the second one to the last one ( see example [ ex : lin0 ] ) . for each block @xmath129 of ( [ eq : blockvec ] ) such that @xmath130 there always exists a preceding block @xmath20 of the grade @xmath131 such that either @xmath132 or @xmath133 ( when @xmath134 and @xmath135 both options are possible ) . suppose that @xmath132 , @xmath136 , and @xmath137 , where function @xmath138 returns the index of a block . then the matrix @xmath139 has block @xmath140 on position @xmath141 and block @xmath142 on position @xmath143 . these are the only nonzero blocks in the block row @xmath144 . a similar construction with @xmath140 replaced by @xmath145 is used in the case @xmath133 .    the first block row of the matrix @xmath139 is used to represent the matrix polynomial @xmath63 . one can see that there exist linear pencils @xmath146 , @xmath147 , such that @xmath148 \underline{u},\ ] ] where @xmath149 is the number of blocks in ( [ eq : blockvec ] ) . the pencils in ( [ eq : firstrow ] ) are not unique . for instance , a term @xmath150 of @xmath63 can be represented in one of up to the three possible ways :    1 . if @xmath151 , we can set @xmath152 where @xmath153 , 2 . if @xmath154 , we can set @xmath155 where @xmath156 , 3 . if @xmath157 , we can set @xmath158 where @xmath159 . based on the above discussion we see that not all the blocks in ( [ eq : blockvec ] ) are needed to represent a matrix polynomial @xmath63 . what we need is a minimal set of monomials @xmath160 , where @xmath151 , that is sufficient for a matrix polynomial of degree @xmath1 . we can formulate the problem of finding the smallest possible set for a given polynomial as a graph problem . for the polynomial of degree @xmath161.[fig : graph ] ]    we can think about all possible terms @xmath162 , where @xmath151 , as of nodes in a directed graph @xmath163 with the root @xmath164 and a directed edge from node @xmath165 to node @xmath166 if @xmath167 or @xmath168 ( see figure  [ fig : graph ] for the case @xmath169 ) . now , we are looking for the smallest connected subgraph @xmath170 with a root @xmath164 that can represent a given polynomial . equivalently , we are looking for a minimal directed rooted tree . let us remember that for each term @xmath171 of the polynomial @xmath63 there are up to three possible nodes in the graph @xmath163 that can be used to represent it . it is sufficient that one of these nodes is in a minimal tree @xmath170 . furthermore , if @xmath172 , then we can assume that we always use a node of degree @xmath131 to represent @xmath171 and then there are only one or two options for a given term . all together , each nonzero term @xmath150 , where @xmath173 , in the polynomial @xmath174 defines one of the following rules for the subgraph @xmath170 :    * if @xmath175 then @xmath176 has to be in the subgraph @xmath170 , * if @xmath177 then @xmath178 has to be in the subgraph @xmath170 , * if @xmath154 and @xmath157 then at least one of @xmath179 or @xmath180 has to be in the subgraph @xmath170 . the term @xmath181 can be presented by the root @xmath164 , which is always present in the subgraph @xmath170 .    finding a minimal tree for a given polynomial is not an easy problem : it can be formulated as an np - hard directed steiner tree problem ( dst ) ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) , where one has a directed graph @xmath182 with nonnegative weights on edges and the goal is to find the minimum weight directed rooted tree that connects all terminals @xmath183 to a given root @xmath184 . suppose that we are looking for a minimal representation tree for a polynomial @xmath63 of degree @xmath1 . in the graph @xmath163 , which contains all nodes @xmath162 for @xmath151 ( see figure  [ fig : graph ] for the case @xmath169 ) , we put weight @xmath164 on all directed @xmath26 and @xmath27 edges . now we add a new vertex for each monomial @xmath162 that is present in @xmath63 and connect it with zero weight edges from all possible nodes in @xmath163 that could be used to represent the monomial in the linearization . we make a dst problem by taking node @xmath164 as a root and all newly added vertices as terminals . from a solution of the dst problem the minimal representation tree can be recovered . although this is an np - hard problem , there exist some polynomial time approximation algorithms that give a solution close to the optimal one and could be used to construct a small determinantal representation for a given polynomial with small number of nonzero terms . for the latest available algorithms , see , e.g. , @xcite and the references therein . [ ex : minlin ]    we are interested in a minimal tree for the matrix polynomial @xmath185 nonzero terms in ( [ eq : pol6 ] ) define the nodes that have to be present in the minimal subgraph . they are either strictly defined as are the nodes @xmath164 , @xmath186 , and @xmath187 , or come in pairs where at least one element of each pair has to be present in the subgraph . such pairs are @xmath188 , and @xmath189 . the situation is presented in figure  [ fig : graphex ] , where nodes and pairs , such that either left or right node has to be included , are shadowed green . the nodes of the minimal connected subgraph that includes all required nodes are colored red .    in a dst formulation each green shadow presents a terminal linked by zero weight edges to one or two nodes that are included in the region . on all other edges we put weight 1 and then search for the minimum weight directed rooted tree that connects all terminals to the root @xmath164 .     for the matrix polynomial ( [ eq : pol6 ] ) of degree @xmath190.[fig : graphex ] ]    matrix polynomial ( [ eq : pol6 ] ) can thus be represented with matrices of block size @xmath191 . if we order the nodes of the subgraph in the degree negative lexicographic ordering , then @xmath192 has the form @xmath193^t\ ] ] and a possible first block row of @xmath62 has the form @xmath194.\ ] ] in the subsequent block rows , the matrix @xmath62 has only 20 nonzero blocks , 10 of them are identity blocks on the main diagonal . the remaining nonzero blocks are @xmath140 on block positions @xmath195 , @xmath196 , @xmath197 , @xmath198 , @xmath199 , @xmath200 , @xmath201 and blocks @xmath145 on positions @xmath202 .    if we have a generic matrix polynomial @xmath63 , whose terms are all nonzero , then it is easy to see that the subgraph that contains all terms @xmath162 , where @xmath151 and either @xmath175 or @xmath203 is even , is minimal . the detailed situation for the case @xmath204 is presented in figure  [ fig : mingraph ] , and representation trees for polynomials of degree from 1 to 8 are presented in figure  [ fig : lin1first8 ] . counting the number of nodes in the tree gives the following result @xmath205 if we compare this with the linearization from example  [ ex : lin0 ] that has matrices of block size @xmath79 , we see that the new linearization uses matrices of roughly half size . the size of the matrices is also smaller than ( [ eq : quarez ] ) from @xcite , which has the same asymptotic order .     for a generic polynomial of degree @xmath161.[fig : mingraph ] ]    = [ circle , draw , fill = blue!40 , inner sep=0pt , minimum size=5pt , node distance=0.35 cm ]    \(00 ) ; ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ( 02 ) [ below right of=01 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) to ( 02 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 30 ) [ below left of=20 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ( 02 ) [ below right of=01 ] ; ( 03 ) [ below right of=02 ] ; ( 12 ) [ below left of=02 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) to ( 02 ) to ( 03 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) to ( 30 ) ; ( 02 ) to ( 12 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 30 ) [ below left of=20 ] ; ( 40 ) [ below left of=30 ] ; ( 50 ) [ below left of=40 ] ; ( 60 ) [ below left of=50 ] ; ( 70 ) [ below left of=60 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ( 02 ) [ below right of=01 ] ; ( 12 ) [ below left of=02 ] ; ( 22 ) [ below left of=12 ] ; ( 32 ) [ below left of=22 ] ; ( 42 ) [ below left of=32 ] ; ( 52 ) [ below left of=42 ] ; ( 03 ) [ below right of=02 ] ; ( 04 ) [ below right of=03 ] ; ( 05 ) [ below right of=04 ] ; ( 06 ) [ below right of=05 ] ; ( 16 ) [ below left of=06 ] ; ( 07 ) [ below right of=06 ] ; ( 15 ) [ below left of=04 ] ; ( 25 ) [ below left of=15 ] ; ( 35 ) [ below left of=25 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) to ( 02 ) to ( 03 ) to ( 04 ) to ( 05 ) to ( 06 ) to ( 07 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) to ( 30 ) to ( 40 ) to ( 50 ) to ( 60 ) to ( 70 ) ; ( 02 ) to ( 12 ) to ( 22 ) to ( 32 ) to ( 42 ) to ( 52 ) ; ( 04 ) to ( 15 ) to ( 25 ) to ( 35 ) ; ( 06 ) to ( 16 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 30 ) [ below left of=20 ] ; ( 40 ) [ below left of=30 ] ; ( 50 ) [ below left of=40 ] ; ( 60 ) [ below left of=50 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ( 02 ) [ below right of=01 ] ; ( 12 ) [ below left of=02 ] ; ( 22 ) [ below left of=12 ] ; ( 32 ) [ below left of=22 ] ; ( 42 ) [ below left of=32 ] ; ( 03 ) [ below right of=02 ] ; ( 04 ) [ below right of=03 ] ; ( 05 ) [ below right of=04 ] ; ( 06 ) [ below right of=05 ] ; ( 15 ) [ below left of=04 ] ; ( 25 ) [ below left of=15 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) to ( 02 ) to ( 03 ) to ( 04 ) to ( 05 ) to ( 06 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) to ( 30 ) to ( 40 ) to ( 50 ) to ( 60 ) ; ( 04 ) to ( 15 ) to ( 25 ) ; ( 02 ) to ( 12 ) to ( 22 ) to ( 32 ) to ( 42 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 30 ) [ below left of=20 ] ; ( 40 ) [ below left of=30 ] ; ( 50 ) [ below left of=40 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ( 02 ) [ below right of=01 ] ; ( 12 ) [ below left of=02 ] ; ( 22 ) [ below left of=12 ] ; ( 32 ) [ below left of=22 ] ; ( 03 ) [ below right of=02 ] ; ( 04 ) [ below right of=03 ] ; ( 14 ) [ below left of=04 ] ; ( 05 ) [ below right of=04 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) to ( 02 ) to ( 03 ) to ( 04 ) to ( 05 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) to ( 30 ) to ( 40 ) to ( 50 ) ; ( 02 ) to ( 12 ) to ( 22 ) to ( 32 ) ; ( 04 ) to ( 14 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 30 ) [ below left of=20 ] ; ( 40 ) [ below left of=30 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ( 02 ) [ below right of=01 ] ; ( 12 ) [ below left of=02 ] ; ( 22 ) [ below left of=12 ] ; ( 03 ) [ below right of=02 ] ; ( 04 ) [ below right of=03 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) to ( 02 ) to ( 03 ) to ( 04 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) to ( 30 ) to ( 40 ) ; ( 02 ) to ( 12 ) to ( 22 ) ;    [ thm : one ] we can linearize each matrix polynomial @xmath63 of degree @xmath1 with matrices of block size @xmath206 from ( [ eq : sizeg ] ) using a minimal tree @xmath170 that contains the terms @xmath162 , where @xmath151 and either @xmath175 or @xmath203 is even . we order all nodes of a minimal tree @xmath170 in the degree negative lexicographic ordering and form the block matrix @xmath55 in the following way . all diagonal blocks of @xmath55 are @xmath142 . if a node with index @xmath7 is connected to a node with index @xmath20 with an @xmath26 or @xmath27 edge , then we put @xmath140 or @xmath145 in the block position @xmath207 , respectively . because of the ordering , the matrix @xmath208 is block lower triangular and nonsingular . its inverse @xmath209 is therefore also a lower triangular matrix with diagonal identity blocks . let @xmath210 be the number of nodes in @xmath170 . if follows from @xmath211 that the first block column of @xmath209 has the form @xmath212^t,\ ] ] where @xmath213 is the monomial in the @xmath203th node of @xmath170 for @xmath214 ( @xmath215 ) . now we will construct the linearization of the matrix polynomial @xmath63 . we need a block matrix @xmath216 , whose elements are linear pencils in @xmath26 and @xmath27 . we take @xmath217 and adjust the first block row @xmath218 , where we put linear pencils such that @xmath219^t)=p(x , y).\ ] ] this is always possible as for each term @xmath150 in the polynomial @xmath63 there exists a term @xmath220 in @xmath170 such that @xmath221 is one of the following three options : @xmath222 , @xmath223 , or @xmath224 . the product @xmath225 is an upper block triangular matrix of the form @xmath226,\ ] ] where @xmath227 are matrix polynomials . if we introduce the matrix polynomial @xmath228,\ ] ] then it follows that @xmath229\ ] ] and since @xmath230 , this proves that @xmath216 is indeed a linearization of the matrix polynomial @xmath63 . [ ex::cubic1 ] as an example we consider the scalar bivariate polynomial @xmath231 which was already linearized in @xcite with matrices of size @xmath232 ( we can also get a @xmath232 linearization if we insert the coefficients in matrix ( [ eq : ex2 ] ) of example  [ ex : lin0 ] ) . now we can linearize it with matrices of size @xmath233 as @xmath234 , where @xmath235}.\ ] ] in the next section we will further reduce the size of the matrices to @xmath236 and @xmath237 . we will upgrade the approach from the previous section and produce even smaller representations for scalar polynomials . as before , representations have a form of the directed tree , but instead of using only @xmath26 and @xmath27 , an edge can now be any linear polynomial @xmath238 such that @xmath239 . these additional parameters give us enough freedom to produce smaller representations . the root is still @xmath164 while the other nodes are polynomials in @xmath26 and @xmath27 that are products of all edges on the path from the root to the node . in each node all monomials have the same degree , which is equal to the graph distance to the root . before we continue with the construction , we give a small example to clarify the idea . = [ ellipse , draw , fill = red!20 , font= , text width=4.2em , text centered , rounded corners , minimum width=4.1em , minimum height=1em , node distance=2 cm ] = [ rectangle , draw , fill = red!20 , font= , text width=1.6em , text centered , rounded corners , minimum width=1.6em , minimum height=1.4em , node distance=1.6 cm ]    ]    [ ex : lin2 ]    a linearization of a polynomial of degree @xmath83 with matrices of size @xmath240 is presented in figure  [ fig : ex4 ] . let us explain the figure and show how to produce the matrices from the representation tree . the nodes in the representation tree are the following polynomials : @xmath241 q_3(x , y)= ( x+y ) \ , q_2(x , y ) = x^2-y^2 , & & q_4(x , y)= ( 2x - y ) \ , q_1(x , y ) = 2x -y . \end{array}\ ] ] the polynomial of degree @xmath83 is then a linear combination of nodes in the representation tree and coefficients @xmath242 which are polynomials of degree @xmath164 contained in the ellipses . this gives @xmath243    similar as in section  [ sec : lin1 ] , we can write the matrices by putting the linear coefficients in the first row and relations between the polynomials @xmath244 to @xmath245 in the subsequent rows . for each edge of the form @xmath246 we put @xmath247 in the position @xmath248 in the matrix @xmath249 and @xmath164 in the position @xmath250 . in the first row we put @xmath251 in the position @xmath252 if @xmath253 is the linear factor that multiplies the polynomial @xmath254 in the linearization . the matrix @xmath255 that corresponds to figure [ fig : ex4 ] , such that @xmath256 , is @xmath257.\ ] ]    1 . compute @xmath1 zeros @xmath258 of the polynomial @xmath259 . 2 .   form a branch of the tree with the root @xmath260 and nodes @xmath261 , where @xmath262 is a successor of @xmath263 and the edge from @xmath263 to @xmath262 contains the factor @xmath264 for @xmath265 . 3 .   compute linear coefficients @xmath266 for nodes @xmath267 in the following way : 1 . take @xmath268 , 2 . take @xmath269 , where @xmath270 is a coefficient of @xmath254 at @xmath271 , for @xmath272 , 3 . take @xmath273 . 4 .   compute the remainder @xmath274 which has the form @xmath275 , where @xmath276 is a polynomial of degree @xmath277 . if @xmath278 then stop and return the tree . add node @xmath279 and connect it to the root by an edge having the factor @xmath27 . if @xmath276 is a nonzero constant @xmath280 , then use @xmath281 as a coefficient for the node @xmath279 , stop , and return the tree . recursively call the same algorithm to obtain a representation tree with the root @xmath282 for the polynomial @xmath276 . connect @xmath279 to @xmath282 by an edge with a factor @xmath27 and return the tree with the root @xmath283 . in example [ ex : lin2 ] we showed how to construct the bivariate pencil @xmath284 from a representation tree and the corresponding linear coefficients . the outline of an algorithm that constructs a representation tree and the corresponding linear coefficients for a given polynomial @xmath47 is presented in algorithm  [ alg : lin2 ] . in the following discussion we give some missing details and show that the algorithm indeed gives a linearization . * the nodes @xmath261 that we construct in step 2 are polynomials of the form @xmath285 for @xmath286 . all monomials in @xmath263 have degree @xmath287 and the leading term is @xmath288 . * each product @xmath289 for @xmath286 is a polynomial with monomials of exact degree @xmath290 , while @xmath291 is a polynomial of degree @xmath164 . the linear factors @xmath292 in step 3 are constructed so that : * * leading two monomials ( @xmath293 and @xmath271 ) of @xmath294 agree with the part @xmath295 of the polynomial @xmath47 for @xmath272 , * * the product @xmath296 agrees with the part of @xmath47 composed of all monomials of degree exactly @xmath1 , * * the product @xmath297 agrees with the part of @xmath47 composed of all monomials of degree up to @xmath164 . + as a result , the remainder in step 4 has the form @xmath298 , where @xmath276 is a polynomial of degree @xmath277 . the situation at the end of step 4 is presented in figure  [ fig : lin22 ] . the remainder @xmath299 is a polynomial of the form @xmath300 , where @xmath276 is a polynomial or degree @xmath277.[fig : lin22 ] ] * if the coefficient @xmath301 is zero , then we can apply a linear substitution of @xmath26 and @xmath27 of the form @xmath302 and @xmath303 , where we pick @xmath304 such that @xmath305 this ensures that the substituted polynomial in @xmath306 and @xmath307 will have a nonzero coefficient at @xmath308 . after we complete the representation tree for the substituted polynomial in @xmath306 and @xmath307 , we perform the substitution back to @xmath26 and @xmath27 . * if the polynomial @xmath276 in step 4 is not a constant , then we obtain a representation subtree for @xmath276 by calling recursively the same algorithm . in order to obtain the final representation tree , we then join the existing branch to the representation subtree for the polynomial @xmath276 . we do this by introducing a new node @xmath279 in step 6 that is linked to the root by the edge with the factor @xmath27 . to this new node we link the root @xmath282 of the subtree for the polynomial @xmath276 in step 9 , again using the edge with the factor @xmath27 . as @xmath282 is linked to the root by two edges @xmath27 , this multiplies all nodes in the subtree by @xmath186 and , since the subtree is a representation for @xmath276 , this gives a representation for the remainder @xmath309 from step 4 . the situation after step 9 with the final representation tree for the polynomial @xmath47 is presented in figure  [ fig : lin23 ] .    ]    from the output of algorithm  [ alg : lin2 ] , matrices @xmath310 such that @xmath74 can be obtained in the same way as in example  [ ex : lin2 ] . let us remark that the zeros @xmath258 in step 1 can be complex , even if polynomial @xmath7 has real coefficients . thus , in a general case a linearization produced by algorithm  [ alg : lin2 ] has complex matrices @xmath51 , and @xmath52 .    [ ex::pol2 ] we apply algorithm  [ alg : lin2 ] on @xmath311 from example [ ex::cubic1 ] . first , we compute the roots @xmath312 of the polynomial @xmath313 . the zeros are ordered so that @xmath314 . in exact computation the order is not important , but in numerical tests we experience better results with this order . this gives the polynomials in the first branch of the representation tree : @xmath315 and we can compute the corresponding coefficients @xmath316 for the remainder @xmath317 we need just one additional node @xmath318 with the coefficient @xmath319 . the determinantal representation with @xmath240 matrices is @xmath320 , where @xmath321},\quad b = { \footnotesize\left[\begin{array}{rrrr } 2 & 4 & 7 & 0\cr -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & -1 &   0 & 0\cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right ] } , \quad \text{and } \\[1 mm ] c & = { \footnotesize \left[\begin{matrix } 3 & 4.9681 + 4.5036i & 7.8882 & 0.88972 + 5.5576i\cr -0.0079857 + 1.1259i & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & -0.0079857 - 1.1259i &   0 & 0\cr -1 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{matrix}\right]}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    = [ circle , draw , fill = blue!40 , inner sep=0pt , minimum size=5pt , node distance=0.35 cm ]    \(00 ) ; ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 30 ) [ below left of=20 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ( 02 ) [ below right of=01 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) to ( 02 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) to ( 30 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 30 ) [ below left of=20 ] ; ( 40 ) [ below left of=30 ] ; ( 50 ) [ below left of=40 ] ; ( 60 ) [ below left of=50 ] ; ( 70 ) [ below left of=60 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ( 02 ) [ below right of=01 ] ; ( 12 ) [ below left of=02 ] ; ( 22 ) [ below left of=12 ] ; ( 32 ) [ below left of=22 ] ; ( 42 ) [ below left of=32 ] ; ( 03 ) [ below right of=02 ] ; ( 04 ) [ below right of=03 ] ; ( 15 ) [ below left of=04 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) to ( 02 ) to ( 03 ) to ( 04 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) to ( 30 ) to ( 40 ) to ( 50 ) to ( 60 ) to ( 70 ) ; ( 02 ) to ( 12 ) to ( 22 ) to ( 32 ) to ( 42 ) ; ( 04 ) to ( 15 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 30 ) [ below left of=20 ] ; ( 40 ) [ below left of=30 ] ; ( 50 ) [ below left of=40 ] ; ( 60 ) [ below left of=50 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ( 02 ) [ below right of=01 ] ; ( 12 ) [ below left of=02 ] ; ( 22 ) [ below left of=12 ] ; ( 32 ) [ below left of=22 ] ; ( 03 ) [ below right of=02 ] ; ( 04 ) [ below right of=03 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) to ( 02 ) to ( 03 ) to ( 04 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) to ( 30 ) to ( 40 ) to ( 50 ) to ( 60 ) ; ( 02 ) to ( 12 ) to ( 22 ) to ( 32 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 30 ) [ below left of=20 ] ; ( 40 ) [ below left of=30 ] ; ( 50 ) [ below left of=40 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ( 02 ) [ below right of=01 ] ; ( 12 ) [ below left of=02 ] ; ( 22 ) [ below left of=12 ] ; ( 03 ) [ below right of=02 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) to ( 02 ) to ( 03 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) to ( 30 ) to ( 40 ) to ( 50 ) ; ( 02 ) to ( 12 ) to ( 22 ) ;    \(00 ) ; ( 10 ) [ below left of=00 ] ; ( 20 ) [ below left of=10 ] ; ( 30 ) [ below left of=20 ] ; ( 40 ) [ below left of=30 ] ; ( 01 ) [ below right of=00 ] ; ( 02 ) [ below right of=01 ] ; ( 12 ) [ below left of=02 ] ; ; ( 00 ) to ( 01 ) to ( 02 ) ; ( 00 ) to ( 10 ) to ( 20 ) to ( 30 ) to ( 40 ) ; ( 02 ) to ( 12 ) ;    representation trees for polynomials of degree from 1 to 8 are presented in figure  [ fig : small ] . if we compare them to the determinantal representations from section  [ sec : lin1 ] in figure  [ fig : lin1first8 ] , then we see that representations obtained by algorithm  [ alg : lin2 ] are much smaller . the following lemma shows that asymptotically we use @xmath322 fewer nodes than in section  [ sec : lin1 ] .    algorithm  [ alg : lin2 ] returns representation tree @xmath163 for the linearization of a polynomial @xmath47 of degree @xmath1 of size @xmath323    it follows from the recursion in the algorithm ( see figure  [ fig : lin23 ] ) that the number of nodes satisfies the recurrence equation @xmath324 the solution of this equation with the initial values @xmath325 , @xmath326 , and @xmath327 is ( [ eq : sizeg2 ] ) .    for generic polynomials of degrees @xmath328 and @xmath329 it turns out to be possible to modify the construction and save one node in the representation tree . the main idea is to apply a linear substitution of variables @xmath26 and @xmath27 in the preliminary phase to the polynomial @xmath47 to eliminate some of the terms . this implies that the resulting matrices are of order @xmath83 ( @xmath328 ) and @xmath161 ( @xmath329 ) , instead of order @xmath330 and @xmath190 as seen before and , it also reduces the size of the matrices for @xmath331 and @xmath332 by 1 . we give details in the following two subsections . let us consider a cubic bivariate polynomial @xmath333 , where we can assume that @xmath334 . we introduce a linear substitution of the form @xmath335 and @xmath336 , where @xmath165 is such that @xmath337 and @xmath338 . the substitution is well defined if @xmath165 is a single root of ( [ eq : sc31 ] ) and the only situation , where this is not possible , is when @xmath42 has a triple root . the above substitution transforms @xmath47 into a polynomial @xmath339 such that its coefficients @xmath340 and @xmath341 are both zero . if we apply algorithm  [ alg : lin2 ] to @xmath339 and choose @xmath342 for the first zero , then the remainder in step 4 is zero and we get @xmath343 matrices @xmath344 , @xmath345 , and @xmath346 such that @xmath347 . now , it is easy to see that for @xmath348 , @xmath349 , and @xmath350 , @xmath82 . [ ex::pol3 ] we take the recurrent example @xmath311 ( see examples [ ex::cubic1 ] and [ ex::pol2 ] ) . if we take @xmath351 ( see ( [ eq : sc31 ] ) ) and @xmath352 , then substitution @xmath335 and @xmath336 changes @xmath47 into a polynomial @xmath353 algorithm  [ alg : lin2 ] gives @xmath343 matrices @xmath344 , @xmath345 , and @xmath346 such that @xmath347 , from which matrices @xmath354,\quad b = { \footnotesize \left[\begin{matrix } 1.5317 &   -2.4833 & 7\cr    -1 &     0 &             0\cr              0   & -1 &    0\end{matrix}\right ] } , } \quad \text{and } \\[1 mm ] c & = { \footnotesize \left[\begin{matrix } 2.2189 &   2.8587 & 0.00559 + 7.8813i\cr    -1.1269 &     0 &             0\cr              0   & -0.0079857 + 1.1259i &    0\end{matrix}\right]}\end{aligned}\ ] ] such that @xmath355 , are obtained and we have a @xmath343 linearization . before we give a construction for a generic quartic bivariate polynomial , let us consider a particular case , when a polynomial @xmath356 of degree 4 is such that @xmath357 . in this case @xmath161 nodes are enough to represent the polynomial @xmath47 . the representation tree for the polynomial @xmath47 is presented in figure  [ fig : ex4new ] , where @xmath358 and @xmath359 are the zeros of @xmath360 .     of degree 4 such that @xmath357.[fig : ex4new ] ]    for a generic quartic polynomial we first transform it into one with zero coefficients at @xmath361 , @xmath362 , @xmath363 , and @xmath364 . except for very special polynomials , we can do this with a combination of two linear substitutions . similar as in case @xmath328 , we first introduce a linear substitution of the form @xmath335 and @xmath336 , where @xmath165 is such that @xmath365 and @xmath366 . the substitution is well defined if @xmath165 is a single root of @xmath367 . after the substitution we have a polynomial @xmath339 such that its coefficients @xmath368 and @xmath340 are both zero . on this polynomial we apply a new substitution @xmath369 and @xmath370 , where @xmath371 and @xmath372 . this substitution is well defined if @xmath45 is a single root of @xmath373 ; therefore , both substitutions exist for a generic polynomial of degree @xmath330 . after the second substitution we get a polynomial @xmath374 such that its coefficients @xmath375 , @xmath376 , @xmath377 , and @xmath378 are all zero . for such polynomial we can construct a representation with matrices @xmath240 as presented in figure [ fig : ex4new ] . this gives @xmath240 matrices @xmath379 , @xmath380 , and @xmath381 such that @xmath382 . finally , if we take @xmath383 then @xmath384 . if we add the constructions from subsections [ ss : case3 ] and [ ss : case4 ] as special cases to algorithm  [ alg : lin2 ] , then we save one node for all generic polynomials of degree @xmath385 or @xmath386 . although this advantage seems to be modest , numerical results in the following section point out that for small @xmath1 this does speed up the computation of the zeros considerably ( for instance , for @xmath204 the corresponding @xmath387-matrices are of order @xmath388 instead of @xmath389 ) . determinantal representations from sections [ sec : lin1 ] and [ sec : lin2 ] can be used to numerically solve a system of two bivariate polynomials . we first linearize the problem as a two - parameter eigenvalue problem and then solve it with the method for singular two - parameter eigenvalue problems from @xcite . subsequently , we refine the solutions by two steps of newton s method . we refer to the numerical methods that use linearizations from sections [ sec : lin1 ] and [ sec : lin2 ] as lin1 and lin2 , respectively . in the first example we take polynomials with random coefficients , while the second example considers some challenging benchmark polynomials . [ ex : randtest]we compare lin1 and lin2 to nsolve in mathematica 9 and phclab 1.02 @xcite running phcpack 2.3.84 on systems of full bivariate polynomials of the same degree , whose coefficients are random real numbers uniformly distributed on @xmath390 $ ] or random complex numbers , such that real and imaginary part are both uniformly distributed on @xmath390 $ ] .    the results are presented in table [ tbl : one ] . for each @xmath1 we run all methods on the same set of 20 random polynomial systems and measure the average time . lin1 and mathematica s nsolve work faster for polynomials with real coefficients while this does not make a change for lin2 and phclab , therefore , the results in the table for lin2 and phclab are an average of 20 real and 20 complex examples . clearly , if lin1 is applied to a polynomial with real coefficients , then matrices @xmath105 , @xmath391 , and @xmath110 are real . if we apply lin2 then the matrices are complex in general as roots of univariate polynomials are used in the construction . although the complex arithmetic is more expensive than the real one , complex eigenproblems from lin2 are so small that they are solved faster than the larger real problems from lin1 . r|cccccc|rr & & + @xmath1 & lin1 ( @xmath392 ) & lin1 ( @xmath393 ) & lin2 & phclab & nsolve ( @xmath393 ) & nsolve ( @xmath392 ) & lin1 & lin2 +    ' '' ''    3 & 0.01 & 20.01 & @xmath394 & 0.18 & 0.25 & 0.04 & 25 & 9 + 4 & 0.02 & 20.02 & 0.01 & 0.21 & 0.42 & 0.07 & 64 & 25 + 5 & 0.03 & 20.05 & 0.02 & 0.26 & 0.67 & 0.17 & 121 & 64 + 6 & 0.08 & 20.18 & 0.05 & 0.34 & 1.04 & 0.22 & 225 & 100 + 7 & 0.23 & 20.57 & 0.16 & 0.44 & 2.75 & 0.61 & 361 & 169 + 8 & 0.67 & 22.04 & 0.54 & 0.59 & 2.17 & 0.88 & 576 & 289 + 9 & 2.25 & 26.21 & 1.33 & 0.80 & 5.53 & 1.48 & 841 & 400 + 10 & 6.24 & 16.62 & 3.38 & 1.05 & 8.12 & 3.85 & 1225 & 576 +    computational times for lin1 , lin2 , and phclab are very similar for each of the 20 test problems of the same degree . on the other hand , nsolve needs substantially more time for certain problems . for example , for complex polynomials of degree @xmath395 , nsolve needed approximately @xmath396 for 16 of the 20 examples , and @xmath397 for the additional 4 examples . that explains why the average time for nsolve ( @xmath393 ) is larger in case @xmath395 than in case @xmath398 .    beside the computational time , accuracy and reliability are another important factors . nsolve is the only method that finds all solutions in all examples , but on the other hand , the results are on average less accurate than with other methods . as a measure of accuracy we use the maximum value of @xmath399 where @xmath400 is a jacobian matrix of @xmath401 and @xmath402 at @xmath32 , over all computed zeros @xmath32 . @xmath403 is an absolute condition number of a zero @xmath32 and we assume that in random examples all zeros are simple . for a good method ( [ eq : condn ] ) should be as small as possible .    for real or complex systems of degree @xmath404 , lin2 is the fastest method and usually the most accurate one . it is never significantly less accurate than the others , so it clearly wins in this case . for real polynomials of degree @xmath398 computational times of all methods are very close . nsolve is the fastest method with a tight margin in 17 out of 20 cases , but is also several orders of magnitude less accurate . phclab is faster and slightly less accurate than lin2 in 5 out of 40 cases , but , in one of them it fails to compute all the solutions .    for @xmath405 and @xmath406 phclab becomes the fastest method , but is less reliable . in many cases it does not compute all the solutions . for @xmath405 this happens in 14 out of 40 times and for @xmath406 in @xmath407 out of @xmath408 cases . as phclab is using random initial systems , a possible remedy is to run phclab several times . also lin2 fails to compute solutions for @xmath409 real examples for @xmath406 . a remedy for lin2 in these cases is to interchange variables @xmath26 and @xmath27 . lin1 is competitive in particular for real systems of degree @xmath404 . for @xmath398 it misses one solution in one example and in two examples for @xmath406 we have to adapt the criteria for detecting a numerical rank in the staircase algorithm to get the correct number of solutions . let us remark that each node less in the representation tree really does make a difference . for instance , if we do not apply the special case for @xmath329 in subsection [ ss : case4 ] , then the @xmath387 matrices for lin2 for polynomial systems of degree @xmath406 are of size @xmath410 instead of @xmath411 and the average computational time rises from @xmath412 to @xmath413 .    [ ex:25]we test lin1 and lin2 on 25 examples ex001 to ex025 from @xcite . this set contains challenging benchmark problems with polynomials of small degree from @xmath414 to @xmath415 that have many multiple zeros and usually have less solutions than a generic pair of the same degrees . lin1 and lin2 performed satisfactorily on most examples , but , they also failed on some . instead of giving the details for all 25 examples , we give the key observations . * multiple zeros can present a problem for the algorithm from @xcite that is used to solve the projected regular problem @xmath416 , @xmath417 that is obtained from ( [ drugi ] ) by the modified staircase algorithm from @xcite . the qz algorithm is first applied to @xmath416 and then @xmath417 is multiplied by @xmath418 and @xmath419 . the eigenvalues are clustered along the diagonal so that multiple eigenvalues @xmath26 should be in the same block . for several of the 25 examples with eigenvalues of high multiplicity the clustering criteria have to be adapted otherwise the results are not so accurate . * lin2 is faster , but the accuracy can be lost if the polynomial in step 1 of algorithm  [ alg : lin2 ] has multiple zeros , an example is @xmath402 from ex008 . the method fails for ex014 , ex018 , and ex020 . * we get very good results in example ex005 with the system @xmath420 and @xmath421 using lin2 . in this case lin2 returns optimal determinantal representations with matrices of size @xmath422 and @xmath423 , respectively . the obtained two - parameter eigenvalue problem is not singular and we get the solutions in @xmath424 , while phclab and nsolve need @xmath425 . for comparison , lin1 , applied to the same problem , returns @xmath387 matrices of size @xmath426 , while lin2 gives @xmath387 matrices of size @xmath427 . * lin1 is slower but can be more accurate . because there is no computation in the construction , no errors are introduced in the construction of the linearization . lin1 manages to solve 22 out of 25 examples ( in some examples the parameters have to be adapted to make it work ) , but fails for ex007 , ex016 , and ex018 . * nsolve always finds all solutions but is slower than lin1 and lin2 except for ex014 where polynomials are of degrees @xmath428 and @xmath429 . phclab usually finds just one instance of a multiple eigenvalue and thus returns much less zeros . [ ex : tri ] encouraged by the good results for ex005 in example [ ex:25 ] , we carry out some experiments with polynomials of form @xmath430 , where @xmath431 is a polynomial of small degree @xmath432 . for such polynomials algorithm  [ alg : lin2 ] returns matrices of size @xmath433 or even smaller . for example , it is easy to see that for @xmath434 we get linearization of the smallest possible size @xmath16 . we compared lin2 , phclab , and nsolve . computational times for random polynomials with complex coefficients of the above form are presented in table [ tbl : two ] . as @xmath1 increases , phclab becomes faster then lin2 , but in most cases it does not compute all solutions . for instance , for @xmath435 it misses 16 and 20 zeros for @xmath434 and @xmath436 , respectively . therefore , lin2 might be the preferred method for such polynomial systems . cc|lcc & + @xmath1 & @xmath437 & lin2 & phclab & nsolve +    ' '' ''    15 & 1 & 10.48 & 11.9 & 13.7 + 15 & 3 & 10.87 & 11.8 & 14.1 + 20 & 1 & 12.1 & 14.5 & 10.8 + 20 & 3 & 13.8 & 15.0 & 11.3 + 25 & 1 & 19.6 & 10.6 & 25.0 + 25 & 3 & 13.1 & 12.7 & 26.3 + 30 & 1 & 23.2 & 17.4 & 52.8 + 30 & 3 & 37.2 & 20.1 & 55.0 + we have proposed two linearizations for bivariate polynomials . the first linearization does not involve any computation as the coefficients of the polynomials appear as ( block ) coefficients of the matrices @xmath80 , @xmath81 , and @xmath52 . this linearization is suitable for both scalar and matrix bivariate polynomials . the second linearization , useful for scalar polynomials , involves little computation and returns much smaller matrices . they are still larger than the theoretically smallest possible size @xmath16 , but their construction is very simple and fast . moreover , while the asymptotic order is @xmath438 , the order for small @xmath1 is about @xmath30 ; for polynomials of degree 3 and 4 we have presented determinantal representations of order 3 and 5 , respectively .    as an application we have presented a method for finding roots of two bivariate polynomials . we show that an approach , where the polynomial system is first linearized into a two - parameter eigenvalue problem , which is later solved by a modified staircase method , is numerically feasible and gives good results for polynomials of degree @xmath29 , as well as for polynomials of higher degree but with few terms . any further results on even smaller determinantal representations that can be efficiently constructed numerically , could enlarge the above degree . * acknowledgment * the research was performed while the first author was visiting the casa group at tu eindhoven . the author wishes to thank the nwo for the visitor s grant and the casa group for the hospitality . , resultant - based methods for plane curves intersection problems , in : proceedings of the 8th international conference on computer algebra in scientific computing , vol . 3718 of lecture notes in computer science , springer - verlag ( 2005 ) 7592 .              , phclab : a matlab / octave interface to phcpack . in : m. stillman , j.  verschelde , and n.  takayama ( eds ) , _ software for algebraic geometry _ , volume 148 of the i m a volumes in mathematics and its applications , springer new york ( 2008 ) 1532 .                                  , a unified approach to computing real and complex zeros of zero - dimensional ideals , in : m.  putinar , s.  sullivant ( eds . ) , _ emerging applications of algebraic geometry _ , the i m a volumes in mathematics and its applications 149 , springer - verlag , new york ( 2009 ) 125155 .                                          , lmi representations of convex semialgebraic sets and determinantal representations of algebraic hypersurfaces : past , present , and future , in h.  dym , m.  c.  de oliveira , m.  putinar ( eds . ) , _ mathematical methods in systems , optimization , and control : festschrift in honor of j.  william helton . _ operator theory : advances and applications 222 , birkhuser ( 2012 ) 325349 .
Abstract:

Answer: we give two determinantal representations for a bivariate polynomial . they may be used to compute the zeros of a system of two of these polynomials via the eigenvalues of a two - parameter eigenvalue problem . the first determinantal representation is suitable for polynomials with scalar or matrix coefficients , and consists of matrices with asymptotic order @xmath0 , where @xmath1 is the degree of the polynomial . the second representation is useful for scalar polynomials and has asymptotic order @xmath2 . the resulting method to compute the roots of a system of two bivariate polynomials is competitive with some existing methods for polynomials up to degree 10 , as well as for polynomials with a small number of terms . system of bivariate polynomial equations , determinantal representation , two - parameter eigenvalue problem , polynomial multiparameter eigenvalue problem . 65f15 , 65h04 , 65f50 , 13p15 .