Numerical rank — where it appears
Named by 37 essays across 10 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A model that is a rational function
A state matrix has a hundred thousand rows and the thing anyone wants from it is a function of one complex variable. The number that says how much of that size was ever the complexity is a rank — and the rank a derivation writes down cannot be computed, while one built from samples alone can.
A block nobody can call sparse
A 96 × 96 block of a kernel matrix has ninety-six nonzero singular values and five that matter. It has no zero entries, it is not described by fewer numbers than it contains, and neither of the two ways this collection already knows to make a large matrix affordable applies to it.
A rank that is a number of digits
Ask a kernel block for two digits and it costs two columns; ask for fourteen and it costs nine. The curve is a straight line at 0.55 columns a decade, and the bound the geometry gives is a straight line too — at 3.32, which is the same shape and six times the price.
Rank is a decision
A floating-point matrix does not have a rank. It has a spectrum of singular values, and somewhere in that spectrum is a place where the values stop being signal and start being noise. Deciding where is a judgement, and the evidence for it is a gap.
The size the rank does not notice
Sample a kernel block at 32, 64, 128 and 256 points a side and it needs five columns, five, five and five. Sample the touching block next to it at the same four sizes and it needs nine, eleven, twelve and thirteen. Same kernel, same accuracy, one number and a logarithm.
A nearest point that is not there
Eckart and Young guarantee that a matrix has a best rank-k approximation and that the truncated SVD is it. For three indices the guarantee is false in the strongest available way — there are tensors whose distance to the rank-two set is zero and which no rank-two tensor equals.
A rank that is not a property of the tensor
The same eight real numbers have rank three over the reals and rank two over the complexes, and a random 2 × 2 × 2 tensor has rank two with probability exactly π/4. Neither sentence has an analogue for matrices, where the rank is one number and a random matrix has the largest one.
The kernel with nothing to compress
Hold the geometry fixed at q = ½, fix the wavelength, and scale the picture up by sixteen. A smooth kernel needs six columns at every scale. An oscillatory one needs twelve, sixteen, twenty-two, thirty-three, fifty-three, and there is no scale at which it stops.
The test that costs what it saves
The partition that refuses to compress a touching pair keeps every rank at five while the other lets them climb from nine to thirteen. It also stores more numbers at every size measured — 67,968 against 61,440 at n = 512 — and which of those two facts matters is a question about how large the problem is going to get.
The fill that is not independent
Eliminate both halves of a grid and what is left on the separator is 100 per cent nonzero — the sparsity field's result, unchanged. Its off-diagonal block is 11 by 12 and six columns describe it to eight digits. Renumber the separator and the same block needs all eleven.
The cliff behind the count
The fill's rank is an integer between three and six across every separator two dense half-eliminations can afford, and this field has already recorded that a handful of such integers cannot carry a law. The singular values underneath are real numbers. They say the cliff's first step is 23.0 at a separator of eleven, 19.1 at fifteen and 16.2 at twenty-three — and that a control with no differential operator behind it gives 14,672.
Deciding that a zero has arrived
The previous tolerances were offers — accept this much error, save this much work. A detection threshold is not an offer, because both directions are failures. One matrix here has three genuinely near-invariant subspaces, and the constant somebody typed decides which of them the recurrence stops at; at eight significand bits the same kind of constant produces a proof of something false.
A condition number that is not the model's
κ(P)κ(Q) is quoted as the reason one route to the Hankel singular values fails, and it is. It is also read as a measure of how reducible a model is, and it is not — the norm of the Gramian does not move at all as the McMillan degree runs from four to fourteen, and the condition number wanders over a factor of thirty-five with no trend.
A ceiling with a knob on it
A contour method returns at most as many eigenvalues as its probe block has columns, and the object that comes back does not distinguish that from having found everything. One line of the derivation multiplies the ceiling by a number the caller chooses, and it costs no extra solves at all.
The digit that costs more than the tensor
Ask a three-index reciprocal tensor on six points a side for seven digits and its train is 288 numbers against 216 entries. The break-even rank is n − 1 at all four grids measured, and a train that reaches it fits with exactly n numbers to spare.
A rank that depends on the thread count
One 60 × 14 matrix, one threshold, seven partitionings of the inner products that build its Gram matrix — and numerical ranks of 12, 12, 12, 10, 10, 11 and 11. Not a digit of an answer: the number of columns a model built from this matrix would have.
The offset that moved the slope
The accuracy is supposed to lift a storage curve and leave its growth alone. Measured at seven tolerances, the strong partition adds 10.9 numbers per unknown per doubling at two digits and 36.5 at twelve — the growth rate more than triples, so ten decades of accuracy cost 33 per cent more storage at 64 unknowns and 118 per cent at 512.
The definition asks for more of what defeats it
The rank of a p × p Hankel matrix of Markov parameters resolves a degree of p, and it needs 2p parameters to do it. Those parameters grow like the norm of the state matrix raised to their index, so the count that buys resolution is the same count that buys dynamic range. One model, four run lengths, and a spread that runs from 10¹¹ to 10¹⁰².
The conditioning that rises with the ceiling
Higher moments multiply a contour method's ceiling by K and grade its block Hankel over ρ to the 2K, so the two knobs are the same knob. One division per quadrature point separates them, and the measurement of what it is worth grows from twenty to twenty thousand.
The partition that does not move
The storage curve's growth rate more than triples between two digits and twelve, and the earlier measurement said so without saying what moves it. There are two candidates and the measurement separates them decisively: the partition is identical at every tolerance — 250 blocks, 156 of them low-rank, 94 dense — and the mean rank rises by exactly one per two decades of accuracy. The slope is 5.11 numbers per unknown per doubling per unit of rank, with a worst residual of 0.03 over six tolerances.
The cheap rank and what it cannot see
Almost nobody computes singular values to decide a rank. The standard substitute is QR with column pivoting, read off the diagonal of R — and there is a triangular matrix on which the greedy rule makes no interchange at all, has no better column available at any step, and reports a matrix eight orders of magnitude further from singular than it is.
Two knobs on one number
The tolerance raises every block's rank and leaves the partition alone. The leaf size does the opposite — it changes how many blocks there are and does not move a single rank. Both act on the same storage, and only one of them has a best setting: at eight digits the least storage is at a leaf of 16 and the largest leaf tried costs 59 per cent more. The best leaf rises with the accuracy, from 4 at two digits to 16 at twelve, and the influence runs only that way.
A constraint the count stops seeing
Let one constraint drift towards being a combination of the others and the inertia of the saddle-point matrix keeps its promise only while σ²/|h| can be resolved — σ the constraint's smallest singular value, h the curvature along the direction it barely constrains. At h = −1 the count stops seeing the constraint at σ = 1.4·10⁻⁹, six decades before any rank test would drop it, and below that it reports a genuine minimum as a saddle on three to six draws in eight. No shift of H brings the constraint back: the correction loop shifts a problem that needed nothing by as much as 2,620. A perturbation of the constraint block does not bring it back either — it decides, at σ = √(|h|δ).
A second objective that is the first one doubled
Counting the operations a hierarchical product does was supposed to give the leaf size a second optimum, somewhere other than where the storage puts it. The count is 160,128, 139,904, 135,936, 155,136 and 216,064 against stored totals of 80,064, 69,952, 67,968, 77,568 and 108,032 — twice each, at every leaf, exactly. The two objectives cannot disagree, and what separates the leaf that stores least from the leaf that runs fastest is a charge of about 139 operations for reaching a block at all.
A geometry setting that is a second accuracy
The tolerance raises every rank and moves no block; the leaf moves every block and no rank. The constant that decides how far apart two clusters must be before their block may be compressed moves both — 592 blocks at mean rank 3.25 at one end and 94 at mean rank 8.94 at the other — and the storage falls the whole way while the error against the dense matrix rises by a factor of 3.5, at a tolerance that never changed. It has no best setting, and it is not a third knob on the storage.
A loop that asks the null space why
An inertia-correction loop sees only an integer, and two different faults produce the same wrong one: curvature that needs a shift, and a constraint too weak for the count to see. One QR of the constraint matrix on a wrong count tells them apart — it shifts none of the 22 weak-constraint minima the ordinary loop shifted by up to 2,621 — and its reduced eigenvalue gives the shift a saddle needs in one step, twice the need exactly, where the schedule overshoots by up to 17,783 times. But at κ(A) = 10⁸ the loop still certifies 57 saddles of 152, because a false certificate is a count that read right, and a check made only on wrong counts never sees it. Asking every time leaves five, all shallower than 2·10⁻⁸.
A prediction that arrives a decade late
A rougher kernel raises every rank, a higher rank raises the side at which compressing a block stops paying, so the leaf that stores least should rise. Across four kernels whose largest rank runs 5, 5, 9 and 10, it is 16 on three of them and a tie between 8 and 16 on the fourth. The prediction is right in sign and out by a decade of tolerance, and the reason is a ceiling: an oscillation multiplies the rank by exactly two — 3 and 6, 4 and 8, 5 and 10, 6 and 12, 7 and 14 — at any frequency, because a cosine of a difference is a rank-two function.
A quarter of the leaf
The leaf that stores a hierarchical matrix most cheaply had been read off a table of nine points, with the suggestion that it depends on the mean rank alone. Across six kernels at five tolerances — thirty cells — it does, once the mean rank is read in the right place. Plotted against the mean rank at a fixed leaf of 16, two cells a tenth of a rank apart want leaves of 8 and 16. Plotted against the rank of the blocks a halving would create, one rule — halve the leaf while that rank is below a quarter of the leaf — predicts the best leaf on 28 of the 30, and the two it misses are the two whose rank sits within three per cent of the threshold. The fractional power the last measurement expected to be rough is smoother than 1/r.
Where a contour's budget should go
A contour method's ceiling is the number of probes times the number of moments, and the moments are free in solves while the probes are not. Four ways of reaching one ceiling come out four orders apart, the ordering is not monotone, and what separates the best two is not the usual draw but the unlucky one.
The smaller cluster sets the rank
An oscillatory kernel block between two equal clusters needs a rank that grows without limit as they grow. Make the clusters unequal at the same separation ratio and the rank stops following the larger one: a target an eighth long against a source of four needs 8 columns where the square block of side four needs 33, and a target a third long against a source 130 wavelengths long needs 11. What decides the rank is the product of the two lengths over their distance — the Fresnel number, the count optics gives for the waves two apertures can exchange.
The field decides it, usually
A matrix whose rank depends on the field it is read over was built, the first time, from its invariant factors outward, because random integer matrices never seemed to show the effect. Random 0/1 matrices show it at almost every size that is not tiny. At twenty rows, 99.8% of them are invertible over the rationals, 29% modulo two, 56% modulo three — and 71% of the ones the rationals call invertible are singular modulo two. Modulo two they obey, corank by corank, the law for uniformly random matrices over that field; modulo three and five, which their entries cannot fill, they converge to that field's law anyway.
One build tells the leaf
The rule that picks a hierarchical matrix's cheapest leaf — halve it while the rank at half the leaf is below a quarter of the leaf — reads ranks that exist only after the matrix has been built at every candidate leaf. Fed instead the rank a code can guess from the tolerance alone, one rank per two decades, it names the best leaf on twenty-three cells of thirty, and on the rank-one kernel it cannot see it stores up to seventy-two per cent too much. Doubling the guess for an oscillation, as earlier measurements suggested, makes it worse: eighteen of thirty. Building once, at a single leaf, and holding that build's mean rank fixed names the best leaf on twenty-nine — one more than the rule that builds at all five — and never stores three per cent more than the least.
An offset that bends twice
A hierarchical matrix's cheapest leaf can be named by one build at a leaf of 8, and a rank guessed from the tolerance alone names it on smooth kernels and misses on oscillatory ones. The repair proposed was a term in the frequency: the oscillatory kernels sat two thirds of a rank and one and a half ranks above 1/r at frequencies 40 and 120, and the prediction was a fixed step each time the frequency triples. On five frequencies from 13⅓ to 1,080 the step is a third of a rank, then one, then one and a half, then a third again — a curve that bends twice. The last bend is the smallest blocks filling up: at the tightest tolerance every 8-wide block is at full rank from 360 on. No fixed term reproduces it, and the one build that reads it directly still names the cheapest leaf on thirteen cells of fifteen, never storing two per cent too much, where the uncorrected guess misses seven by up to nine.
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.
An eigenvalue count that cannot be slightly wrong
Every spectral computation here returns floats with errors in them. Counting eigenvalues below a shift by the signs of an unpivoted elimination returns an integer, and an integer cannot be 6.9999999997 — so the answer is exactly right, or wrong by a whole eigenvalue, and where the second happens is a band of measurable width.
A good curve and a bad verdict
The diagonal of a column-pivoted R is famous for the one matrix it is wrong about. On that matrix it is right about thirty-nine of its forty entries — every |rₖₖ| within a factor of six of the σₖ it stands for — and wrong by 4·10⁶ at the fortieth, which is the only one a rank verdict ever reads.
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.
Low-rank approximationOff-diagonal rankHierarchical matrixToleranceAdmissibilitySingular valuesCluster treeExact ground truthKernel matrixCondition numberStorageTruncation