Matrix pencil — where it appears
Named by 8 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A preconditioner that need not know the constraint
Keep the constraint block exactly and replace the objective block by anything positive definite on the null space. The preconditioned matrix then has 2m eigenvalues at exactly one, and its remaining n − m are the generalised eigenvalues of a pencil in which the constraint does not appear. Sweep its condition number over six decades and they do not move in six digits.
The rank that stops being typical
A random 2 × 2 × 2 tensor has rank two with probability π/4 and rank three otherwise, and the sentence has no analogue for matrices. It is the first of a family. An n × n × 2 tensor is a pencil of two slices, and it has rank n exactly when the pencil's eigenvalues are all real, n + 1 otherwise. Over draws, the share of rank n is 0.786 at n = 2, 0.500 at 3, 0.264 at 4, 0.039 at 6, 0.004 at 8 and none of 4,000 at 10 — falling like e^(−0.087n²) — because the mean number of real eigenvalues grows only like the square root of n, to Edelman, Kostlan and Shub's closed form within two per cent. Both ranks stay typical in theory; in practice the lower one disappears.
A fit with no answer to find
Half of all random 3 × 3 × 2 tensors, and most larger ones, have no rank-three decomposition, because their pencil has a complex pair. A rank-n fit to one of them does not wander and does not stall. Two starts settle at the same error to five digits, and that error is the distance from the tensor to the surface where its pencil has a double eigenvalue — found with no fitting at all, and matched to within one and a half per cent. Meanwhile the fit's terms grow without limit, like the square root of the sweep count, while the fitted pencil's two closest eigenvalues close on each other at exactly the rate the terms grow. The error has an answer; the decomposition does not.
Two matrices and one problem
Ax = λBx is what a finite element model, a structural vibration and a constrained optimisation actually produce, and it is not the one-matrix problem with a change of variables. Everybody is told not to form B⁻¹A because it is not symmetric. That is true, the departure from symmetry is about one, and it is not what decides the accuracy.
A stop that knows the distance
A rank-two fit to a random 2 × 2 × 2 tensor of rank three settles at the tensor's distance to the boundary of the rank-two set while its terms grow without limit, and the distance can be computed without fitting. So a fit can be stopped when its error is within a stated fraction of it, and the prediction was that at one per cent the terms would still be within three times the tensor's norm, because one per cent is reached early. On 23 random tensors the terms at the one-per-cent stop are 3.8 to 12.9 times the norm — none within three — and the reason is the law the earlier essay found: the excess falls as the inverse square of the term size, so the size at the stop is the square root of a constant over τ times the distance, and a tensor close to the boundary pays twice, in larger terms and in sweeps. The two closest tensors never reach one per cent in 20,000 sweeps. The stall test a code would use stops in the same range by accident. And one of the 24 computed distances was wrong, which the fit itself exposed.
An eigenvalue with no value
If the second matrix of a pencil is singular then some of the eigenvalues are infinite, and that is not a degeneracy — it is the algebraic constraints of the model, one per constraint. What survives is a pair of numbers rather than one, and on the line those pairs live on, infinity is an ordinary point with an ordinary residual.
A problem with no answer
If two matrices share a null vector then det(A − λB) is identically zero and every λ is an eigenvalue, which means none of them is. Perturb such a pencil by a ten-billionth and a solver returns six numbers with residuals below 10⁻⁹. Change the seed and it returns six different numbers, spread over forty-four, with residuals just as small.
The largest gap is inside the null space
The rule recommended for counting a pencil's infinite eigenvalues is to cut at the largest gap in the singular values of B. On integer pencils, with no perturbation anywhere and an exact answer available from the characteristic polynomial, it returns the wrong count on nine of twenty-five — because the singular values that are mathematically zero come back spread over a hundred and forty orders of magnitude, and the largest ratio in the list is between two of them.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Generalised eigenvalue problemBorder-rankCP decompositionDeterminantExact arithmeticTensor rankAlternating least-squaresBackward errorCondition numberDegeneracyDescriptor systemEigenvalues