Concept

Iterative regularisation — where it appears

Using the number of iterations of a Krylov method as the regularisation parameter, so the knob is an integer rather than a real number. It costs nothing extra, since the iterations were going to be run anyway, and it gives up the fine control a continuous parameter has.

Named by 16 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

015304560759010512010⁻²10⁻¹110¹steprelative sizeleast error: 20discrepancy stop: 7errorresidualthe knob is an integerleast error, at step20error there0.14error at step 1206the residual falls at every stepthe error turns and keeps rising

A parameter that counts steps

The regularisation field's knob is a positive real number chosen by one of three rules. The iterative field's is an integer nobody called a knob — where to stop. On the same problem the best step is 20 and the best λ is 0.025, and they reach 0.1426 and 0.1406.

combination · Iterative regularisation
00.250.50.75110⁻¹110¹10²10³fraction of the method's own rangerelative errorfloor 0.141truncation KTikhonov λCGLS steprandomised rankfour methods, one floortruncation K0.14Tikhonov λ0.14CGLS step0.14randomised rank0.14four knobs from four fieldsand one obstruction underneath them

Four knobs and one floor

A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a step count and a randomised rank, on one problem with an answer that is known. Their best errors are 0.1445, 0.1406, 0.1426 and 0.1449 — a spread of 3% across four methods that share no arithmetic.

combination · Parameter choice
1591317212529333710⁻¹110¹10²bidiagonalisation stepsrelative errorleast without: 20no penaltypenalty insidewhat stopping is worthbest without a penalty0.14and at step 40161best with one0.14and at step 400.14the same floor, reached twiceand only one run stays on it

The step that stops mattering

Regularise the problem the iteration has built rather than the problem it was given, and the error curve stops turning. The unregularised run ends 1,127 times above its own best; the same run with a penalty inside it ends 1.000000000003 times above.

combination · Iterative regularisation
26101418222630343810⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹stepsizeleast error: 20‖QᵀQ − I‖filter disagreementan identity with an expiry datedisagreement at step 1210⁻¹³disagreement at step 400.014least error at step20exact while the basis is orthogonaland false where the method is best

An expiry date the noise does not move

The polynomial description of conjugate gradients leaves the level of rounding at step 17 or 18 on this operator, at every noise level from 10% to 0.1%. The step worth stopping at moves from 3 to 44 across the same range. They coincide at about 1% noise, which is where the coincidence was first read, and it is a fact about the noise rather than about the method.

combination · Iterative regularisation
unpreconditionedbest step20best error0.14Tikhonov's best0.14α = 0.001best step1best error0.14eigenvalues sent near one22051015202530354010⁻¹110¹steprelative errorTikhonov's best: 0.1405plain CGLSpreconditioneda better preconditionerarrives at the noise sooner

A preconditioner that arrives past the answer

On a system that is solved to convergence a preconditioner changes how fast the answer arrives and not what it is. On a problem regularised by stopping it changes where every step lands. Conjugate gradients preconditioned by AᵀA + αI reaches its best answer in one step at α = 10⁻³, and at α = 10⁻⁶ its best answer is its first step, with an error of 1.35 against the unpreconditioned run's 0.1426 — while the count of eigenvalues it has clustered at one rises from 22 to 32.

combination · Iterative regularisation
conjugate gradientsbest step20best error0.1410% window, last/first6.5Landweberbest step1778best error0.1410% window, last/first901110¹10²10³10⁴10⁵10⁶10⁷10⁻¹110¹10²matrix–vector productsrelative errorCGLS best: step 20Landweber best: step 1,778CGLSLandweberthe same answer at two pricesand a window three orders wide

A step that is not a unit of work

Landweber's iteration reaches conjugate gradients' best answer on the same deconvolution — 0.1414 against 0.1426 — at step 1,778 instead of step 20, and at 0.1% noise at step 56,234 instead of 44. Each step costs the same two products. And within 10% of its best it runs from step 7 to step 6,310, where conjugate gradients runs from 4 to 26: the slow method is the one that forgives a late stop.

combination · Iterative regularisation
12345610⁻⁶10⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹digits of measurement accuracybest relative errorTikhonovtruncationCGLS stepslope 0.89, optimalslope 2/3, Tikhonov's limithow fast the error fallsTikhonov slope0.7truncation slope0.94CGLS step slope0.89optimal 2ν/(2ν + 1)0.89Tikhonov's limit0.67better data, smaller errorat a rate the method may not be able to keep

The method that cannot use a smooth answer

On the collection's own signal four regularisers reach the same floor to a few per cent. Score them instead against answers of increasing smoothness and one stops improving. Across six decades of noise Tikhonov's error falls with a fitted slope of 0.70 whether the answer is twice or four times as smooth, while truncation's rises to 0.94 — and at 10⁻⁶ noise Tikhonov's best is 38 times truncation's.

combination · Iterative regularisation
unpreconditionedbest step20rule stops at7its error ÷ best1steps within 10%23truncated at τ = 0.032best step8rule stops at4its error ÷ best1steps within 10%6010203040506010⁻¹110¹steprelative errorrule stops: 7rule stops: 4plain CGLSpreconditionedbars: the steps within 10% of each run's bestthe rule reads the residual, not the window

A stopping rule that follows the run it is given

A preconditioner that reaches the answer four times sooner leaves four steps within 10% of its best instead of sixteen, and a rule that stops by the residual ought to miss so narrow a window more often. Over forty draws of the noise it misses it less: the discrepancy principle stops at 1.030 times the preconditioned run's best against 1.073 times the plain run's. And past the edge it stops within a factor of 1.7 of a run whose own best is 5.5 times Tikhonov's — faithful to a run that has already failed.

combination · Iterative regularisation
unpreconditionedbest step20best error0.14Tikhonov's best0.14cosine, truncatedbest step5best error0.14directions preconditioned25010203040506010⁻¹110¹steprelative errorTikhonov's best: 0.1405plain CGLSpreconditionedthe blur approximated by a cosine transformtruncation leaves it alone

What a cheap preconditioner has to leave alone

A blur approximated by a matrix the cosine transform diagonalises agrees with the operator everywhere but its first and last seven rows. Made invertible by a shift, as the exact preconditioner was, it never reaches the unpreconditioned run's floor — at α = 10⁻³ its best iterate is 0.749 against 0.143. Made invertible by leaving every eigenvalue below τ alone, it reaches 0.141 in five steps instead of twenty, and the smallest τ that keeps the floor sits at a third to a half of the Tikhonov oracle's λ at three noise levels.

combination · Iterative regularisation
unpreconditionedbest step20best error0.14edge τ0.01cutoffs at τ = 0.5λdiscrepancy0.032GCV0.016L-curve0.00410⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹10⁻¹110¹truncation τbest relative errorunpreconditioned floor: 0.1426discrepancy: 0.144GCV: 0.142L-curve: 0.234the cutoff read as 0.5 × each rule's own λthe plateau is wide and the cliff is steep

The rule that is wrong in the right direction

The preconditioner's cutoff is not a new parameter. It is the regularisation parameter this field already knows how to choose, halved — and the rule criticised for choosing λ a factor of two or three too large is the one whose cutoff keeps the floor on every draw, where the rule that chooses λ to within 3% has a worst draw two hundred times off it.

combination · Iterative regularisation
unpreconditioneddimension a step1.2best iterate carries24at step20τ = 10⁻³, past the edgedimension a step3.6best iterate carries33its error0.4837111519232731353910⁻¹10⁻⁰.⁵1effective dimensionrelative errorthe arc: dimension 8.0 to 24.0none10⁻⁰.⁵10⁻¹10⁻¹.⁵10⁻²10⁻².⁵10⁻³large dots: each run's own best iteratethe answer sits at one effective dimension

The parameter neither knob is

A preconditioned run has a cutoff and a step count, and neither is the regularisation parameter. The parameter is the effective dimension of the iterate: every cutoff that works puts its own best at 23.7 to 24.3 of it, where the unpreconditioned run's best sits at 23.2, and what the cutoff buys is the rate — 1.27 of it a step with no preconditioner and 3.53 with one. The edge is where a single stride is longer than the distance left.

combination · Iterative regularisation
where each run leaves the arcnarrow blur, directions33the collection's blur, directions22wide blur, directions15the answer's own dimensionnarrow blur32the collection's blur23wide blur1501020300123456directions the preconditioner divideseffective dimension a stepnarrow blurthe collection's blurwide blurrings: the first cutoff past which most of the run misses the arcthey sit at three different strides

A count that marks the edge and not the pace

The number of directions a truncated preconditioner divides is counted for free when it is built, and it was proposed as a stand-in for the stride it buys. On three blurs it is not one — the runs leave the answer at strides of 5.71, 3.44 and 2.41. What the count does predict is the edge: on all three blurs, at two noise levels, a run stops landing on the answer's path within five per cent of the point where the count reaches the answer's own effective dimension. And the halved cutoff rule, measured on one blur, crosses that line on the narrowest.

combination · Iterative regularisation
falls through a half, % of the answerfast, truncated96exact, shifted105fast, shifted66the answer's own dimensionblur 2.5 points wide2300.250.50.7511.251.500.20.40.60.81the preconditioner's own dimension ÷ the answer'sshare of the run on the arcfast, truncatedexact, shiftedfast, shifteddashed: as much dimension as the answer carrieshorizontal: half the run on the arc

The shift had an edge, and the approximation moved it

A fast-transform preconditioner made invertible by a shift was recorded as never reaching the unpreconditioned floor, and predicted to sit off the answer's path at every shift. At a large shift it sits on the path and reaches the floor to a tenth of a per cent. It has an edge like the truncated one — but on the exact operator that edge is where the shift's own effective dimension reaches the answer's, 1.02 to 1.05 of it on six problems, and on the fast approximation it arrives at 0.49 to 0.77. The difference is sixteen samples at the ends of the signal, where the approximation is wrong and a shift divides the error by α.

combination · Iterative regularisation
each method's best, dimensionconjugate gradients24Tikhonov23truncated SVD21and the error thereconjugate gradients0.14Tikhonov0.14truncated SVD0.140510152025301effective dimensionrelative errorconjugate gradientsTikhonovtruncated SVDdashed vertical: the iteration's bestthe iteration drawn while its dimension still rises

One arc, and what each filter pays to be on it

Conjugate gradients and Tikhonov stop at the same effective dimension, and that could have meant two curves crossing once or one curve. It is one curve over a stretch — on six problems, Tikhonov and truncation reach the iteration's error at the iteration's dimension to within 7.2 per cent from 0.7 of the answer to its top — and the two separate on either side. But the curve is shared by a trade, not by an identical answer: at the same dimension Tikhonov carries 22 to 42 per cent more noise than the iteration and up to five per cent less bias.

combination · Iterative regularisation
sum with overshoot clippedwidest departure, 1.1 to 1.30.17widest departure, 0.3 to 0.50.690.30.50.70.91.11.30.7511.251.51.7522.252.5clipped sum ÷ the answer'serror ÷ the iteration'sTikhonovtruncated SVDshaded column: 0.7 to 1.0 of the answerthe axis decides the band above the top

The overshoot was the lead

Past its best, conjugate gradients' error rose more slowly than Tikhonov's at the same effective dimension — on the narrow blur at 0.1% noise Tikhonov was 2.35 times worse at 1.3 of the answer — and the reading was that the iteration spends its dimension where the data has content. Count admitted directions instead of summing factors, so that a factor of 1.81 counts once, and the lead is gone: 0.96 on that problem, and within 0.17 of one on all six from 1.1 to 1.3. Tikhonov now carries less noise than the iteration there. Below half the answer, where the three filters also disagree, the count changes nothing.

combination · Iterative regularisation
p = 2widest departure, 0.3 to 0.50.11Tikhonov's, same stretch0.690.30.50.70.91.11.30.811.21.41.61.8clipped sum ÷ the answer'serror ÷ the iteration'sp = 2Tikhonovshaded column: the first one to five stepssharpening closes the band below half

A tail from Tikhonov and a corner from truncation

Below half the answer, conjugate gradients beat Tikhonov at a matched count of directions by up to 69 per cent, and the proposed measurement was the sharpness p of a roll-off between Tikhonov and truncation that matches the iteration there. Any p from 2 to 4 closes the gap to a tenth; truncation, the family's limit, reopens it to a third. But no p describes the iteration. Its filter has Tikhonov's slope exactly in its tail and a local sharpness of 2 to 5 on its shoulder, and a single fitted p is a compromise that drifts from 2.3 at the first step to 1.7 at the answer.

combination · Iterative regularisation

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Tikhonov regularisationConjugate gradientsSemi-convergenceFilter factorsPreconditioningStopping criterionCirculant preconditionerDiscrepancy principleEffective dimensionDeconvolutionRitz valuesTruncated SVD

All concepts