arXiv:1401.5439v1 [math.AP] 21 Jan 2014

Formal Solutions of a Class of Pfaffian
Systems in Two Variables∗
Moulay Barkatou, Suzy S. Maddah
XLIM UMR 7252 ; DMI
University of Limoges; CNRS
123, Avenue Albert Thomas
87060 Limoges, France
moulay.barkatou@unilim.fr
suzy.maddah@etu.unilim.fr

†

Hassan Abbas
Laboratory of Mathematics
Lebanese University
Beirut, Lebanon
habbas@ul.edu.lb
January 22, 2014
Abstract
In this article, we present an algorithm which computes a fundamental matrix of formal solutions of completely integrable Pfaffian
systems with normal crossings in two variables, based on [Barkatou,
1997]. A first step was set in [Barkatou et al., 2006] where the problem of rank reduction was tackled via the approach in [Levelt, 1991].
We give instead a Moser-based approach following [Barkatou et al.,
2014; Barkatou, 1995]. And, as a complementary step, we associate
to our problem a system of ordinary linear singular differential equations from which the formal invariants can be efficiently derived via
the package ISOLDE [Barkatou et al., 2013], implemented in the computer algebra system Maple.

Keywords: Linear systems of partial differential equations, Pfaffian systems, Formal solutions, Moser-based reduction, Hukuhara-Turritin’s normal
form
∗

Submitted to the International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation,
Kobe, Japan, 2014.
†
Enrolled under a joint PhD program with the Lebanese University

1

1

Introduction

Let O = C[[x1 , x2 , . . . xm ]] be the ring of formal power series in x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xm )
over the field of complex numbers C and K its field of fractions. Let V be
a K-vector space of dimension n, A(1) , . . . , A(m) be nonzero matrices with
entries in O, and p1 , . . . , pm be nonnegative integers. Set δi = xi ∂x∂ i . Then
the operator ∆i = δi − A(i) /xpi i , i = 1, . . . , m, is a δi -differential operator
acting on V , that is, an additive map from V to itself satisfying the Leibniz
condition:
∀f ∈ O, v ∈ V, ∆i (f v) = δi (f )v + f ∆i (v).
Let Y be an unknown n-dimensional column vector. In this article, we are
interested in the formal reduction of the so-called completely integrable Pfaffian systems with normal crossings, the class of linear systems of partial
differential equations in m variables and dimension n, given by
∆i Y = 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ m.

(1)

satisfying the integrability conditions (pairwise commutativity of the operators),
∆i ◦ ∆j = ∆j ◦ ∆i , 1 ≤ i, j ≤ m.
Pfaffian systems arise in many application [Awane, 2000] including the studies of aerospace and celestial mechanics [Broucke, 1978]. By far, the most
important for applications are those with normal crossings [Novikov et al.,
Pm A(i)
2002]. The associated pfaff (1-form) to system (1) is d =
i=1 pi +1 dxi .
xi

Without loss of generality, the singularity of system(1) is placed at the origin. Otherwise, translations in the independent variables can be performed.
The singular locus of the system is the union of hyperplanes of coordinates
x1 x2 . . . xm = 0. This is what is referred to as normal crossings.
Let T ∈ GL(V ). A change of basis Y = T Z gives rise to
˜ i Z = 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ m
∆
(2)
˜ i = T −1 ∆i T = δi − Ã(i) /xp̃i and
where ∆
i
(i)
Ã(i)
−1 A
T − δi T ),
=
T
(
xpi i
xp̃i i

1 ≤ i ≤ m.

(3)

We say that system (2) is equivalent to system (1). Without loss of generality, we assume that A(i) (xi = 0) are nonzero matrices; otherwise pi can be
readjusted. The m-tuple (p1 , . . . , pm ) of nonnegative integers is called the
Poincaré rank of the system. It is said to be minimal, and is called the
true Poincaré rank, whenever the pi ’s are simultaneously and individually
the smallest among all the possible changes of basis Y = T Z, T ∈ GLn (K).
In [Charrière et al., 1981; van den Essen et al., 1982], the language of stable modules over the ring of power series is used to establish the following theorem (Theorem 1 in [Charrière et al., 1981] and Main Theorem in
[van den Essen et al., 1982]).
2

Theorem 1 Consider the completely integrable system (1). Under additional ramifications, xi = tαi i where αi is a positive integer, 1 ≤ i ≤ m, there
exists T that belongs to GLn (C((t1 , . . . , tm ))) such that the change of basis
Y = T Z gives the equivalent system:
T −1 ∆i T =

∂
− Ã(i) (ti )
∂ti

where Ã(i) (ti ) = Diag(Ãi1 , Ãi2 , . . . , Ãih ), and for all 1 ≤ k ≤ h we have
−1 i
• Ãik = wki (t−1
i )Ink + ti Nk ;
Pαi pi +1
ξijk t−j
• wki (ti ) = j=1
is a polynomial in t−1
with coefficients in C.
i
i
P
α
p
+1
−j
i i
In particular, w̄ki (ti ) = j=2
ξijk ti , for all 1 ≤ k ≤ h, are called
the xi -exponential parts;

• Nki is a square matrix of order nk with elements in C, nilpotent in upper
triangular form;
• n1 + n2 + · · · + nh = n.
This theorem guarantees the existence of a change of basis which takes system
(1) to Hukuhara-Turritin’s normal form from which the construction of a
fundamental matrix of formal solutions (see (6) for m = 2) is straightforward.
In particular, if two systems are equivalent then they have the same xi exponential parts for all 1 ≤ i ≤ m. However, the formal reduction, that
is to say the algorithmic procedure computing such a change of basis, is a
question of another nature.
We remark that the integrability conditions and the property of normal crossings play a major role in establishing this theorem. In particular,
they give rise to the following aspect of system (1) (Proposition 1, page 8,
[van den Essen et al., 1982]).
Proposition 1 The eigenvalues of A(i) (xi = 0), 1 ≤ i ≤ m, lie in the field
of constants.
The univariate case, m = 1, is the well-known case of linear singular system
of ordinary differential equations (ODS, in short) which have been studied
extensively (see, e.g., [Balser, 2000; Wasow, 2002] and references therein).
Moreover, unlike the case of m > 1, algorithms to related problems leading
to the construction of the formal solutions and computation of the exponential parts have been developed by various authors (see, e.g., [Barkatou,
1997; Barkatou et al., 2013, 1999, 2009] and references therein). The package ISOLDE [Barkatou et al., 2013] written in the computer algebra system
Maple is dedicated to the symbolic resolution of ODS and more generally
linear functional matrix equations.
3

The bivariate case, m = 2, is the interest of this article. Our first contribution is an explicit method to compute the xi -exponential parts. Alongside
their importance in the asymptotic theory, their computation reduces the
ultimate task of formal reduction to constructing a basis of the C-space of
regular solutions (see, for m = 1, [Barkatou et al., 1999]). Rank reduction
as well can complement our work into full formal reduction. Rank reduction
is the explicit computation of a change of basis which takes system (1) to
an equivalent system whose rank is the true Poincaré rank. Two well-known
approaches in the uniariate case are those of Levelt [Levelt, 1991] and Moser
[Moser, 1960]. The former is generalized for systems (1) in two variables
(m = 2) in [Barkatou et al., 2006]. The latter, on the other hand, gives a
reduction criterion upon which the efficient algorithms of [Barkatou et al.,
2013] are based. It is generalized for singularly-perturbed linear differential systems in [Barkatou et al., 2014] and examples over the bivariate field
favored its efficiency [Section 4 in [Barkatou et al., 2014]]. Our second contribution is a Moser-based rank reduction algorithm of system (1) in two variables. This establishes its formal reduction upon following the univariate-case
descripiton of [Barkatou, 1997].
We remark that the multivariate particular case of pi = 0 for all 1 ≤ i ≤
m (systems with singularity of first kind) is studied in [LeRoux, 2006] and
references therein.
Our article is organized as follows: In Section 2 we give the preliminaries and restrict our notations to two variables. In Section 3 we review the
formal reduction techniques in [Barkatou, 1997] of ODS, including the computation of the exponential parts. Thereafter the discussion is restricted to
the bivariate case. In Section 4 we present the building blocks of formal
reduction reducing the discussion to two elements. The first of which is the
computation of the xi -exponential parts given in Section 5. The second is the
Moser-based rank reduction algorithm given in Section 6. We finally discuss
the limitations and point out prospects of further investigations in Section
7. Our main results are Theorem 3 and Theorem 4.

2

Preliminaries and Notations

For the clarity of presentation in the bivariate case, we set O = C[[x, y]], K
its field of fractions, Ox = C[[x]], and Oy = C[[y]]. The variables x and y will
be dropped from the notation whenever ambiguity is not likely to arise. We
refer to the identity and zero matrices of prescribed dimensions by Iν and
Oν,µ . System (1) can be rewritten as
(
x ∂Y
= A(x, y)Y = x−p (A0 (y) + A1 (y)x + A2 (y)x2 + . . . )Y
∂x
(4)
y ∂Y
= B(x, y)Y = y −q (B0 (x) + B1 (x)y + B2 (x)y 2 + . . . )Y
∂y

4

where (A0 (y), B0 (x)) is called the leading coefficient pair. The Poincaré rank
of system (4) is thus (p, q) and we refer to (A00 , B00 ) := (A(0, 0), B(0, 0)) as
the leading constant pair. An easy calculation shows that the the integrability
condition is given by
x

∂A
∂B
+ BA = y
+ AB.
∂x
∂y

(5)

It follows from Theorem 1 that a fundamental matrix of formal solutions has
the following form and properties
Φ(x1/s1 , y 1/s2 ) xΛ1 y Λ2 exp(Q1 (x−1/s1 )) exp(Q2 (x−1/s2 ))

(6)

• s = (s1 , s2 ) is two-tuple of positive integers;
• Φ is an invertible meromorphic series in (x1/s1 , y 1/s2 ) over C;
• Q1 , Q2 are diagonal matrices containing polynomials in x−1/s1 and y −1/s2
over C without contant terms; they are obtained by formally integrating the x, y-exponential parts respectively;
• Λ1 and Λ2 are constant matrices commuting with Q1 and Q2 .
System (4) (resp. system (1)) is said to be regular singular whenever Q1 and
Q2 are null. In this case s = (1, 1), and the formal series φ converges whenever the series of A and B do. Otherwise, system (4) is irregular singular and
the entries of Q1 , Q2 determine the main asymptotic behavior of the actual
solutions as xi → 0 in appropriately small sectorial regions (Proposition 5.2,
page 232, and Section 4 of [Gérard et al., 1979]). It is shown in [Deligne,
1970; van den Essen, 1979], for the multivariate case in geometric and algebraic settings respectively, that the regularity of system (4) is equivalent to
the regularity of the individual subsystems each considered as a system of
ordinary differential equations. As a consequence, system (4) is regular singular if and only if its true Poincaré rank is (0, 0). And to test its regularity,
algorithms given for m = 1 (e.g.[Barkatou et al., 2009; Levelt, 1991]) can be
applied separately to the individual subsystems.
We end this section by a further characterization of a change of basis T
in the bivariate case, which takes system (4) to an equivalent system in a
weak-triangular form, rather than that of Theorem 1. However, we’ll see in
Theorem 3 that this form suffices to give an insight into the computation of
x, y-exponential parts. The following Proposition is given as [Proposition3,
page 654, [Charrière et al., 1981]] and the proof is to be omitted here due to
the lack of space.
Proposition 2 Consider the completely integrable system (4). Under additional ramification, x = ts1 where s1 is a positive integer, there exists T ∈
GLn (C((t, y))), product of transformations of type diag(tk1 , . . . , tkn ) (where
5

k1 , . . . , kn are nonnegative integers) and transformations in GLn (C[[t, y]]),
such that the change of basis T = Y Z gives the following equivalent system:
(
∂Z
= Ã(t, y)Z
∂t
(7)
∂Z
=
B̃(y)Z
∂y
where Ã(t, y) = Diag(Ã1 , Ã2 , . . . , Ãh ) and for all 1 ≤ k ≤ h
• Ãk = ak (t−1 )Ink + t−1 Nk (y);
Ps1 p+1
ξjk t−j is a polynomial in t−1 with coefficients in C;
• ak (t) = j=1
• Nk is a nk -square matrix with elements in Oy ;

• y q+1B̃(y) ∈ Oy and B̃(y) = Diag(B̃1 , B̃2 , . . . , B̃h );
• y q+1B̃k |y=0 = ck Ink + Fk where ck ∈ C and Fk is a nilpotent constant
matrix.
Ps1 p+1
Remark 1 Let āk (t) = j=2
ξjk t−j then they are the x-exponential parts
of system (7) (resp. system (4)).

3

Formal Reduction of ODS

For m = 1, system (1) reduces to the linear singular differential system of
ordinary equations
x

dY
= A(x)Y = x−p (A0 + A1 x + A2 x2 + . . . )Y
dx

(8)

where A0 := A(0) is the leading coefficient matrix and p is a nonnegative
integer denoting the Poincaré rank. For a fundamental matrix of solutions,
in analogy to (6), we write
Φ(x1/s ) xΛ exp(Q(x−1/s )).

(9)

If T ∈ GLn (C((x))) then the change of basis Y = T Z results in the equivalent
system
dZ
x
= Ã(x)Z = x−p̃ (Ã0 + Ã1 x + Ã2 x2 + . . . )Z.
(10)
dx
The second author of this article developed in [Barkatou, 1997] a recursive
algorithmic process that constitutes of finding, at every step, a change of basis
which results in a system (10) equivalent to system (8) which is either of lower
Poincaré rank or can be decoupled into systems of lower dimensions. At each
step, the starting point is the nature of eigenvalues of the leading coefficient
matrix A0 according to which either a block-diagonalized equivalent system,
a Moser-irreducible one, or the Katz invariant are computed. The following
operations summarize the recursive process:
6

• Block-diagonalization: Whenever A0 has at least two distinct eigenvalues, system (8) can be decoupled into systems of lower dimensions
via the classical Splitting Lemma. For its statement and a constructive
proof one may consult [Section 12, pages 52-54, [Wasow, 2002]].
• Eigenvalue shifting: Whenever A0 has a single nonzero eigenvalue
γ ∈ C, the so-called Eigenvalue shifting
Z
Y = exp( γx−p−1 dx)Z,
(11)
results in a system with a nilpotent leading coefficient matrix (in fact,
Ã(x) = A − x−p γIn ).
• Moser-based rank reduction: This is the rank reduction based on
the reduction criterion defined by Moser in [Moser, 1960]. It results in
an equivalent system whose Poincaré rank is the true Poincaré rank
and whose leading coefficient matrix has the minimal rank among any
possible choice of a change of basis. For an efficient Moser-based rank
reduction algorithm, one may consult [Barkatou et al., 2009]. If the
leading matrix coefficient of the equivalent Moser-irreducible system is
still nilpotent, one proceeds to compute the Katz invariant, a process
for which Moser-irreducibility is a prerequisite.
• Katz invariant:
Definition 1 Given system (8) whose x-exponential parts are denoted
by {w̄k }1≤k≤n . For 1 ≤ k ≤ n, let ζk be the minimum exponent in x
within the terms of w̄k . The Katz invariant of (8) (resp. A(x)) is then
the rational number
κ = −1 − min1≤k≤n ζk .
Katz invariant can be obtained from the characteristic polynomial of
A(x), i.e. det(λI − A(x)), given that A(x) is Moser-irreducible [e.g.
Theorem 1 in [Barkatou, 1997]]. Consider a Moser-irreducible system
(8) whose leading matrix coefficient is nilpotent and κ = ml with l, m
relatively prime positive integers. Then, a ramification, that is to say
a re-adjustement of the independent variable t = x1/m , followed by
Moser-based rank reduction results in an equivalent Moser-irreducible
system whose Poincaré rank is equal to l and its leading matrix coefficient has at least m distinct eigenvalues. Hence, block-diagonalization
may be applied again.
This recursive process results either in a group of decoupled systems with
dimension n = 1 (scalar case) or Poicaré rank p = 0 (system with singularity
of first kind). For the latter case one may consult Chapter 1 in [Wasow,
7

2002] or [Barkatou et al., 1999] for a more general context. The changes of
basis applied at every stage are used to construct a fundamental matrix of
solutions (9). Algorithms of the four described operations are implemented
in Maple (see ISOLDE [Barkatou et al., 2013]).

4

Formal Reduction in the bivariate case

Consider again the completely integrable system (4)
(
= A(x, y)Y = x−p (A0 (y) + A1 (y)x + . . . )Y
x ∂Y
∂x
y ∂Y
= B(x, y)Y = y −q (B0 (x) + B1 (x)y + . . . )Y.
∂y
A major difficulty within the symbolic manipulation of system (4) (resp. system (1)) arises from (3) as it is evident that any transformation applied to
any of the subsystems alters the others. Hence, the generalization of the
univariate-case techniques is not straightforward. In particular, the equivalent system does not necessarily inherit the normal crossings even for very
simple examples, as exhibited by Example 1 in [Section 4, [Barkatou et al.,
2006]] which we recall here.
Example 1 Consider the following completely integrable pfaffian system with
normal crossings of Poincaé rank (3, 1) and true Poincaré rank (0, 0).

#
"
3
2

x
+
y
y

∂Y
−3

Y

x ∂x = A(x, y)Y = x
−1
−y + x3
#
"
.
(12)
2

y
y

∂Y
−1

Y.

y ∂y = B(x, y)Y = y
−2 −3


x3 −y 2
Z computed by the univariate-case MoserThe change of basis Y =
0
y
based rank reduction algorithm, upon regarding the first subsystem as an ODS
in x, results in the following equivalent system

"
#

−2
0

∂Z


x ∂x = Ã(x, y)Z = −1 1 Z
y"
#
2

−y
0

∂Z
−2

Z.

y ∂y = B̃(x, y)Z = y
−2x3 −2y 2


We can see that such a transformation achieves the goal of diminishing the
rank of the first subsystem, considered as an ODS, to its minimum (p̃ = 0).
However, it alters the normal crossings as it introduces the factor y in the
denominator of an entry in Ã. Moreover, it elevates the rank of the second
subystem.
8

The urge to preserve the normal crossings, whose importance is highlighted
in the Introduction, motivates the following definition
Definition 2 Let T ∈ GLn (K). We say that the change of basis Y = T Z
(resp. T ) is compatible with system (4) if the normal crossings of the system is preserved and the Poincaré rank of the individual subsystems is not
elevated.
Remark 2 Clearly, if T is a constant matrix or it lies in GLn (O) then it is
compatible with system (4).
As in the univariate case, the main difficulties in formal reduction arise whenever the leading constant pair consists of nilpotent matrices. Since otherwise
a block diagonalization can be attained. A generalization of the univariatecase Splitting Lemma is given with constructive proof in [Section 5.2, page
233, [Gérard et al., 1979]]. We repeat hereby the theorem without proof.
Theorem 2 Given system (4) with leading constant pair
1
2
A00 = diag(A100 , A200 ) and B00 = diag(B00
, B00
).
1
2
If the matrices in one of the couples (A100 , A200 ) or (B00
, B00
) have no eigenvalues in common, then there exists a unique transformation T ∈ GLn (O)
partitioned conformally


I T 12
T (x, y) =
T 21 I

such that the change of basis Y = T Z results in the following equivalent
system partitioned conformally with A00 , B00 ,
(
x ∂Z
= Ã(x, y)Z = diag(Ã1 , Ã2 )Z
∂x
= B̃(x, y)Z = diag(B̃ 1 , B̃ 2 )Z
y ∂Z
∂y
1
2
1
2
where (Ã100 , Ã200 ) = (A100 , A200 ) and (B̃00
, B̃00
) = (B00
, B00
).

By an eigenvalue shifting (11) we can then arrive at an equivalent system
whose leading constant pair consists of nilpotent matrices. It can be easily verified that such a transformation is compatible with system (4). By
Proposition 1, the matrices of the leading coefficient pair are nilpotent as
well. The case of n = 1 is straightforward and the case of (p, q) = (0, 0) is
already resolved in [Chapter 3, [LeRoux, 2006]]. Henceforth, following Section 3, the problem of formal reduction is reduced now to discussing two
operations: computing Katz invariant and a compatible Moser-based rank
reduction. The former is the subject of the next section.

9

5

Computing Exponential Parts and Katz Invariant

In analogy to Definition 1, the Katz invariant of system (4) is defined as
follows.
Definition 3 Given system (4) whose x, y-exponential parts are denoted by
{āk }1≤k≤n and {b̄k }1≤k≤n respectively. For 1 ≤ k ≤ n, let ζk (resp. ηk ) be
the minimum exponent in x (resp. y) within the terms of āk (resp. b̄k ). The
Katz invariant of (4) is then the two-tuple of rational numbers (κ1 , κ2 ) where
(
κ1 = −1 − min1≤k≤n ζk
κ2 = −1 − min1≤k≤n ηk .
In this section, we show that the x, y-exponential parts of system (4) are
those of the two associated ODS defined below. Hence, the computation of
the x, y-exponential parts (consequently of Q1 , Q2 , and Katz invariant) is
reduced to computations over a univariate field.
Definition 4 Given system (4). Let A(x) := A(x, 0) and B(y) := B(0, y).
We call the following the associated ODS with the first and second subsystem
respectively of (4):
dY
dx
dY
y
dy

x

= A(x) Y

(13)

= B(y) Y

(14)

Theorem 3 Given the completely integrable system (4)
(
= A(x, y)Y = x−p (A0 (y) + A1 (y)x + . . . )Y
x ∂Y
∂x
= B(x, y)Y = y −q (B0 (x) + B1 (x)y + . . . )Y.
y ∂Y
∂y
The x, y-exponential parts of this system are those of its associated ODS (13)
and (14) respectively.
Proof. We prove the theorem for A(x, y). The same follows for B(x, y) by
interchanging the order of the subsystems in system (4). Let s1 , t and T be
as in Proposition 2. Upon the change of independent variable x = ts1 , the
first subsystem of (4) is given by
∂Y
= s1 t−1 A(ts1 , y)Y.
∂t

(15)

By change of basis Y = T Z we arrive at the equivalent subsystem
∂Y
= Ã(t, y)Y
∂t
10

(16)

with the notations and properties as in Proposition 2.
It follows from (3) that
∂T
= s1 t−1 AT − T Ã.
(17)
∂t
On the other hand, we have the following expansions as formal power series
in y whose matrix coefficients lie in C((t))n×n :
A(t, y) =

∞
X

j

Aj (t)y , Ã(t, y) =

j=0

∞
X

Ãj (t)y j ,

j=0

and T (t, y) =

∞
X

Tj (t)y j

(18)

j=0

with leading terms A(ts1 ), Ã, and T respectively. We Plug (18) in (17) and
compare the like-power terms. In particular, we are interested in the relation
between the leading terms which is clearly given by
∂T
= s1 t−1 AT − TÃ.
(19)
∂t
Due to the form of T (t, y) characterized in Theorem 2, it is evident that T ∈
∂
∂
−s1 t−1 A(ts1 ) (resp. x ∂x
−A(x))
GLn (C((t))). Hence, the systems given by ∂t
∂
and ∂t − Ã are equivalent. It follows that they have the same x-exponential
parts āk (t) given in Remark 1.
Two corollaries follow directly from Theorem 3.
Corollary 1 Let κ = (κ1 , κ2 ) be as in Definition 3 denoting the Katz invariant of system (4). Then κ1 (resp. κ2 ) is the Katz invariant of the associate
ODS (13) (resp. (14)).
Corollary 2 Let γ = (γ1 , γ2) denote the true Poincaré rank of system (4).
Then γ1 (resp. γ2 ) is the true Poincaré rank of the associate ODS (13) (resp.
(14)).
Proof. Consider system (13). By (Remark 3, [Barkatou, 1997]) we have
γ1 − 1 ≤ κ1 ≤ γ1 . This fact establishes the proof since γ1 is an integer. The
same holds for system (14).
Hence, the Katz invariant, the true Poincaré rank, and most importantly
Q1 , Q2 in (6), can be computed efficiently over univariate fields using the existing package ISOLDE [Barkatou et al., 2013]. Moreover, since now we know
κ at any stage of formal reduction, it is left to give a compatible Moser-based
rank reduction of system (4). We remark however, that although the rank
reduction of [Barkatou et al., 2006] reduces the Poicaré rank to its minimal
integer value, Moser-based rank reduction results in an equivalent system for
which the Poincaré rank and the rank of the leading matrix coefficient are
both minimal. In the univariate case, this is a necessary component of formal
reduction, in particular when computing the Katz invariant.
11

6

Moser-based Rank Reduction

We consider again system (4) and label its subsystems as follows:
∂Y
= A(x, y)Y = x−p (A0 (y) + A1 (y)x + . . . )Y
∂x
∂Y
= B(x, y)Y = y −q (B0 (x) + B1 (x)y + . . . )Y.
y
∂y
x

(20)
(21)

Let T ∈ GLn (K). To keep track of applied transformations, we use the
following notation for the equivalent system resulting upon the change of
basis Y = T Z.
∂Z
∂x
∂Z
y
∂y

x

= ÃZ,
= B̃Z,

∂T
)
∂x
∂T
T [B] := B̃ = T −1 (BT − y
).
∂y

T [A] := Ã = T −1 (AT − x

(22)
(23)

In particular, T −1 AT will be referred to as the similarity term of T [A].
We study Moser-based rank reduction of subsystem (20). The same results follow for subsystem (21) by interchanging (20) its order in system (4).
We adapt the algorithm given for singularly-perturbed linear differential systems in [Barkatou et al., 2014] since it is well-suited to bivariate fields. It
suffices to verify that the transformations in the proposed algorithm of system (20) are compatible with the second. We will see that this can be
guaranteed by giving an additional structure to A0 (y), in particular form
(24), rather than the form proposed in (Lemma 1, [Barkatou et al., 2014]).
We remark that the algorithm of [Barkatou et al., 2014] is a generalization
of Moser-based rank reduction developed by the second author of this article
in [Barkatou, 1995] over a univariate field. We recall that, in the sequel, we
drop x and y from the notation whenever ambiguity is unlikely to arise. Set
r = rank(A0 (y)).
Following [Barkatou, 1995; Moser, 1960] we define the Moser rank and
Invariant of system (20) as the respective rational numbers:
m(A) = max (0, p +

r
)
n

µ(A) = min {m(T [A])|T ∈ GLn (K)}.

Definition 5 The system (20) (the matrix A respectively) is called Moserreducible if m(A) > µ(A), otherwise it is said to be Moser-irreducible.
It is easy to see from this definition that system (20) is regular if and only if
µ(A) ≤ 1, i.e. the true Poincaré rank is zero.
12

Definition 6 System (4) is said to be Moser-irrreducible whenever each of
its subsystems (20) and (21) is.
The following theorem is the analog of (Theorem 1, [Barkatou et al., 2014]).
Theorem 4 Given System (20) such that A0 (y) is of rank r and m(A) > 1.
A necessary and sufficient condition for A to be Moser-reducible, i.e. for the
existence of a T (x, y) ∈ Gln (K) such that r(Ã0 ) < r, is that the polynomial
θ(λ) := xr det(λI +

A0
+ A1 )|x=0
x

vanishes identically in λ. Moreover, T (x, y) can always be chosen to be compatible with system (21). More precisely, it is a product of transformations
in GLn (Oy ) and polynomial transformations of the form diag(xα1 , . . . , xαn )
where α1 , . . . , αn are nonnegative integers.
Remark 3 By Corollary 2, the true Poincaré rank of system (4) can be deduced from its associated ODS. However, the reduction criterion in Theorem
4 guarantees that the rank of the leading coefficient matrix of the equivalent
Moser-irreducible system is minimum as well, not only its Poincaré rank.
Moreover, this criterion furnishes the construction of the change of basis
T (x, y) as will be demonstrated in the sequel.
Theorem 4 is to be proved after giving its necessary building blocks. We
start by the following lemma.
Lemma 1 There exists a unimodular transformation U(y) ∈ GLn (Oy ) such
that for the resulting equivalent system (22), we have

 11
Ã0
O
O
(24)
Ã0 (y) = Ã21
Or−d
O 
0
32
31
On−r
Ã0
Ã0

where



Ã11
0
Ã21
0



and


 11
Ã0
O
Ã21
Or−d 
0
31
Ã0
Ã32
0

are r × d and n × r matrices of full column ranks d and r respectively.
Proof. It suffices to apply the unimodular transformation of (Lemma 1,
[Barkatou et al., 2014]) to A0 (y) and then to the first left block of the resulting similar matrix. Denoting respectively by U1 (y), U2(y) these transformations, we set

13

U(y) = diag(U2 (y), In−r ).U1 (y). Hence, the leading coefficient matrix of
U[A] has the form (24). Clearly, U(y) is compatible with system (21) as it is
unimodular.
Hence, without loss of generality, we assume that A0 (y) is in form (24)
and partition A1 (y) conformally with A0 . Let

 11
A0
O
A13
1
.
O
A23
Gλ (A) = A21
(25)
0
1
31
32
33
A0 A0 A1 + λIn−r

Then we have the following Lemma given and proved as (Lemma 2, [Barkatou et al.,
2014]).
Lemma 2 Det(Gλ (A) ≡ 0 vanishes identically in λ if and only if θ(λ) does.
Proposition 3 Suppose that m(A) > 1 and det(Gλ (A)) ≡ 0 where Gλ (A) is
given by (25). Then there exists a unimodular matrix Q(y) in GLn (Oy ) with
det Q(y) = ±1, compatible with system (21), such that the matrix Gλ (Q[A])
has the form

 11
A0
O
U111
U211
 A21
O
U121
U221 
0
,
(26)
Gλ (Q[A]) = 
 V111 V112 W1 + λIn−r−ρ
W2 
M111 M112
M2
W3 + λIρ
where 0 ≤ ρ ≤ n − r, W1 , W3 are square matrices of orders (n − r − ρ) and
ρ respectively , M112 is a null matrix, and

 11

 11
A0 U111
A0 U111
21
21 

,
(27)
rank A0 U1 = rank
A21
U121
11
0
M1 M2

 11
A0 U111
< r.
(28)
rank
A21
U121
0

Proof. Since Q(y) is independent form x, it follows from (22) that the discussion can be restricted to the similarity term of the transformations. Hence,
the transformation Q(y) can be constructed as in the proof of (Proposition 2, [Barkatou et al., 2014]). As it is unimodular, it is necessarily compatible with system (21). It remains to remark however, that each row of
[M111 M112 M2 ] is a linear combination of the rows of

 11
A0 O U111
.
A21
O U121
0
Hence, by construction, M112 is a null matrix.

14

Proposition 4 If m(A) > 1 and Gλ (A) ≡ 0 is as in (26) with conditions (27) and (28) satisfied, then system (20) (resp. A) is Moser-reducible
and reduction can be carried out with the so-called shearing Y = SZ where
S = diag(xIr , In−r−ρ , xIρ ) if ρ 6= 0 and S = diag(xIr , In−r ) otherwise. Furthermore, this shearing is compatible with system (21).
Proof. We partition A(x, y) conformally with (26)
 11

A
A12 A13 A14
A21 A22 A23 A24 

A=
A31 A32 A33 A34 
A41 A42 A43 A44

where A11 , A22 , A33 , A44 are of dimensions d, r − d, n − r − ρ, ρ
It is easy to verify then, by (22) and (23), that
 11
A
A12 x−1 A13
 A21 A22 x−1 A23
∂
Ã(x, y) = S −1 AS − xS −1 S = 
xA31 xA32
A33
∂x
41
42
−1 43
A
A
x A
− diag(Ir , On−r−ρ, Iρ )

 11
B
B 12 x−1 B 13 B 14
 B 21 B 22 x−1 B 23 B 24 
.
B̃(x, y) = S −1 BS = 
xB 31 xB 32
B 33
xB 34 
B 41 B 42 x−1 B 43 B 44

Hence, the new leading coefficient matrix
 11
A0 O
 A21
O
0
Ã0 = 
 O O
M111 O

respectively.

A14
A24 

xA34 
A44

is

U111
U121
O
M2


O
O

O
O

where rank(Ã0 ) < r since (27) and (28) are satisfied.
It remains to prove the compatibility of S with the subsystem (21), in
particular, that the normal crossings is preserved. It suffices to prove that the
submatrices of B(x, y) which are multiplied by x−1 , i.e. B 13 , B 23 , B 43 , have
no term independent from x so that no poles in x are introduced. This can
be restated as requiring B 13 (0, y), B 23(0, y), and B 43 (0, y) to be null. This
requirement is always satisfied due to the integrability condition (5). In fact,
we can obtain from the former that
B(0, y)A0(y) − A0 (y)B(0, y) = y

15

∂A0 (y)
.
∂y

(29)

On the other hand, since Gλ (A) is as in (26) then A0 (y) have the following
form (30) and B(0, y) can be partitioned conformally

 11
A0
O O O
 A21
O O O
0
.
(30)
A0 (y) = 
11
 V1
V112 O O
M111 O O O
11
B0y
21
B0y
B(0, y) = 
31
B0y
41
B0y



12
B0y
22
B0y
32
B0y
42
B0y

13
B0y
23
B0y
33
B0y
43
B0y


14
B0y
24 
B0y

34  .
B0y
44
B0y

(31)

Inserting (30) and (31) in (29), one can obtain the desired results by equating
the entries of (29). In particular, upon investigating the entries of the L.H.S.
in (Column 3), (Rows 1 and 2, Column 2), and (Row 4, Column 2), we
observe the following respectively:

 11
A0
O 

13
 B0y
 A21
O
0
 23 = On,n−ρ−r . The first matrix is of full rank r by
• 
 V111 V112  B0y
M111 O
 13 
B0y
construction thus
23 is null.
B0y
 11 
A0
12
B0y
= Or,r−d. The first matrix is of full rank d by construction
•
A21
0
12
is null.
thus B0y
43
12
12
• Finally, B0y
V112 − M111 B0y
= Oρ,(r−d) . But B0y
is null and V112 is of
43
full column rank r − d by construction and so B0y is null as well.

This completes the proof.
We give hereby the proof of Theorem 4.
Proof. (Theorem 4) For the necessary condition, we proceed as in the
proof of Theorem 1 in [Barkatou et al., 2014]. As for the sufficiency, we set
r = rank(A0 (y)). Without loss of generality, we can assume that A0 (y)
has the form (24). Let Gλ (A) be given as in (25). Then, by Lemma 2,
det(Gλ (A)) vanishes identically in λ if and only if θ(λ) does. Then the
matrix S[Q[A]] where S, Q are as in Propositions 3 and 4 respectively, has
the desired property.
Corollary 3 Given system (4) with Poincaré rank (p, q). A necessary and
sufficient for it to be Moser-reducible is that one of the polynomials
(
θA (λ) := xrank(A0 ) det(λI + Ax0 + A1 )|x=0
θB (λ) := y rank(B0 ) det(λI + By0 + B1 )|y=0
16

vanishes identically in λ. An equivalent Moser-irreducible system can be
attained via a change of basis compatible with both subsystems (20) and (21).
We illustrate the process by this simple example.
Example 2

#
"
3
2
2

x
+
x
+
y
y

∂Y
−3

Y

x ∂x = x
−1
x3 + x2 − y
#
"
2
3

y
−
2y
−
6
y

∂Y
−2

Y

y ∂y = y
−2y
−3y 2 − 2y − 6

(32)

The associated ODS are then respectively:

#
"
3
2

x
+
x
0

∂Y
−3

Y,

x ∂x = x
−1
x3 + x2
#
"
2
3

y
−
2y
−
6
y

∂Y
−2

Y.

y ∂y = y
−2y
−3y 2 − 2y − 6

Via ISOLDE, we compute Q1 =
s1 = s2 = 1 and (6) is given by

−1
I
x 2

Φ(x, y) xΛ1 y Λ2 e
−1

and Q2 =

−1
x
3

3

e y2

+ y2

3
y2

+ y2 I2 . Thus we have

.

+2

Upon the eigenvalue shifting Y = e x e y2 y Z we get from (32)

#
"
3
2

x
+
y
y

∂Z
−3

Z

x ∂x = x
−1
x3 − y
#
"
2

y
y

∂Z
−1

Z

y ∂y = y
−2 −3y

We
 3arriveat the system of Example (1). By Algorithm 1, we compute T1 =
yx −y
. Hence, by Z = T1 U, we have
0
1

"
#

−2
0

∂U


x ∂x = −y 1 U
"
#

−2
0

∂U


y ∂y = −2x3 −1 U


1
0
.
By a simple calculation, we find T2 = y
+ 2x3 −1
3
A fundamental matrix of solutions is then given by
3

T1 T2 xΛ1 y Λ2 e x e y2




−2 0
−2 0
.
and Λ2 =
where Λ1 =
0 −1
0 1
−1

17

+ y2

Algorithm 1 Moser-based Rank Reduction of System (4)
Input: A(x, y), B(x, y) of (4)
Output: T (x, y) a change of basis and a Moser-irreducible equivalent
system {T [A], T [B]}. In particular, the Poincaré rank of this system is its
true Poincaré rank.
T ← In ; p ← Poincaré rank of A;
U(y) ← Lemma 1;
A ← U −1 AU; T ← T U;
while Det(Gλ (A) = 0) and p > 0 do
Q(y), ρ ← Proposition 3;
S(x) ← Proposition 4;
P ← QS; T ← T P ;
;
A ← P −1 AP − xS −1 ∂S
∂x
p ← Poincaré rank of A;
U(y) ← Lemma 1;
A ← U −1 AU; T ← T U;
end while.
;
B ← T −1 BT − yT −1 ∂T
∂y
T ← In ; q ← Poincaré rank of B;
U(x) ← Lemma 1;
B ← U −1 BU; T ← T U;
while Det(Gλ (B) = 0) and q > 0 do
Q(x), ρ ← Proposition 3;
S(y) ← Proposition 4;
P ← QS; T ← T P ;
B ← P −1 BP − yS −1 ∂S
;
∂y
q ← Poincaré rank of B;
U(x) ← Lemma 1;
B ← U −1 BU; T ← T U;
end while.
A ← T −1 AT − xT −1 ∂T
;
∂x
return (T, A, B).

18

7

Conclusion and Further Investigations

We gave an explicit method to compute the x, y-exponential parts of a completely integrable pfaffian system with normal crossings in two variables. This
gives the main information about the asymptotic behavior of its solutions.
Moreover, this new approach limited the computations to a finite number
of constant matrices instead of matrix-valued functions and constituted an
eminent portion of the formal reduction. To complement our work, we gave a
Moser-based rank reduction algorithm. Both results, allowed us to generalize
the formal reduction of the univariate case as developed in [Barkatou, 1997]
to the bivariate case. One field to investigate for this bivariate system would
be an algorithm to construct a basis for the space of regular solutions (see,
e.g., [Barkatou et al., 1999, 2013], for m = 1).
Another research direction over bivariate fields is the generalization of
techniques developed here to completely integrable pfaffian systems with no
restriction to the locus of singularities (i.e. general crossings rather than
normal crossings). Such systems are discussed e.g. in [Novikov et al., 2002].
And there remains of course the ultimate task of formal reduction of the
multivariate system with no restriction to the number of variables. Theorem
1 was first given and proved in [Charrière, 1980] for bivariate systems. In
the theory developed there, one operator ∆i was considered and the fact
that Oy and Ox are principal ideal domains was used in many places to
prove that certain modules introduced are free modules. This did not allow
an immediate generalization to the case of more than two variables. The
same obstacle arises in rank reduction whether in [Barkatou et al., 2006] or
in adapting the Moser-based rank reduction algorithm of [Barkatou et al.,
2014; Barkatou, 1995]. This limits our proposed formal reduction in Section
6 to m = 2. However a generalization of Proposition 2 is Theorem 2.3 in
[Charrière et al., 1981]. This furnishes the generalization of Theorem 3 to a
general multivariate system. Furthermore, it motivates the investigation of
their formal reduction since the leading coefficient matrix of a change of basis
which takes the system to a weak-triangular form, would be characterized.

References
M. Barkatou, S.S. Maddah, and H. Abbas. On the Reduction of SingularlyPerturbed Linear Differential Systems. Submitted to ISSAC’14. A preliminary version is available at arXiv.
A. Awane and M. Goze. Pfaffian Systems and k-Symplectic Systems. Springer
Science + Business Media Dordrecht, 2000.
W. Balser. Formal Power Series and Linear Systems of Meromorphic Ordinary Differential Equations. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000.
19

M. Barkatou. An algorithm to compute the exponential part of a formal
fundamental matrix solution of a linear differential system. Journal of App.
Alg. in Eng. Comm. and Comp., 8(1):1-23, 1997.
M. Barkatou. A Rational Version of Moser’s Algorithm. In Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, pages
297-302. ACM Press, July 1995.
M. Barkatou and C. El Bacha. On k-simple forms of first-order linear differential systems and their computation. Journal of Sym. Comput., 54: 36-58,
2013.
M. Barkatou and E. Pflugel. An algorithm computing the regular formal solutions of a system of linear differential equations. Journal of Sym. Comput.,
28, 569-587, 1999.
M. Barkatou and E. Pflugel. On the Moser-and super-reduction algorithms
of systems of linear differential equations and their complexity. Journal of
Sym. Comput., 44 (8), 1017-1036, 2009.
M. Barkatou and E. Pflugel. ISOLDE, Integration of Systems of Ordinary
Linear Differential Equations. Available at: http://isolde.sourceforge.net/
M. Barkatou and N. LeRoux. Rank Reduction of a class of Pfaffian Systems in
Two Variables. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Symbolic
and Algebraic Computation, pages 204-211. ACM Press, 2006.
R. Broucke. On Pfaff’s equations of motion in dynamics; Applications to
Satellite Theory. Journal of Celestial Mechanics, 18(3): 207-222, 1978.
H. Charrière. Triangulation Formelle de certains Systèmes de Pfaff
Complètement Intégrables et Application à l’etude C ∞ des Systèmes non
Linéaires. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa CI. Sci., 7(4): 625 - 714, 1980.
H. Charrière and R. Gérard. Formal Reduction of Integrable Linear Connexion having a certain kind of Irregular Singularities. Analysis, 1:85-115,
1981.
P. Deligne. Equations Différentielles à Points Singuliers Réguliers. Volume
163 of Lecture Notes In Mathematics. Springer-Verlag,1970.
A. van den Essen. Regular Singularities along Normal Crossings. In Gerard
ramis, editor, Systèmes de Pfaff et Equations Différentielles dans le Champ
Complexe, volume 712 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 88-130.
Springer-Verlag, 1979.
A. van den Essen et A.H.M. Levelt. Irregular Singularities in Several Variables. Memoirs of AMS, 40(270), 1982.

20

R. Gérard et Y. Sibuya. Etude de certains systèmes de Pfaff avec singularités.
In Gerard ramis, editor, Systemes de Pfaff et Equations Différentielles dans
le Champ Complexe, volume 712 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages
131-288. Springer-Verlag, 1979.
N. LeRoux. Solutions formelles d’équations aux d’érivées partielles. Ph.D.
Thesis. University of Limoges. 2006.
A.H.M. Levelt. Stabilizing Differential Operators: a method for Computing
Invariants at Irregular Singularities. Differential Equations and Computer
Algebra, M. Singer (ed.), pages 181-228, 1991.
Maddah S.S., http : //www.unilim.f r/pages perso/suzy.maddah/
J. Moser. The Order of a Singularity in Fuchs’ Theory. Mathematische
Zeitschrift, 72:379- 398, 1960.
D. Novikov, S. Yakovenko. Lectures on meromorphic flat connections, 2002.
Available at: arXiv:math/0212334
W. Wasow. Asymptotic Expansions for Ordinary Differential Equations.
Dover Phoenix Editions, 2002.

21

