Numerical Linear Algebra
where the algebra stops being the arithmetic
Concept

QR factorisation — where it appears

Writing a matrix as an orthonormal basis times a triangular factor, which solves least squares without forming AᵀA. Its cost is twice an LU's and it avoids squaring the condition number, which is the whole reason least squares is not solved through the normal equations.

Named by 18 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A = H8 · κ = 1.5·10¹⁰ · both factorisations reconstruct A to 6·10⁻¹⁷the diagonal is 1 in both — every column is a unit vector either way1.000000000001.000000000001.000000000001.000000000001.00000.002-0.002000001.0000.125-0.13300000.0020.1251.000-1.0000000-0.002-0.133-1.0001.000classical Gram–Schmidt1.000000000001.000000000001.000000000001.000000000001.000000000001.000000000001.000000000001.000Householderclassical ‖QᵀQ − I‖1.4Householder ‖QᵀQ − I‖1.4·10⁻¹⁵largest off-diagonal 1 against 3.1·10⁻¹⁶length is not angle

Orthogonal is a number

"Q is orthogonal" is a claim about a measurable quantity, ‖QᵀQ − I‖, and on the eight-by-eight Hilbert matrix two standard algorithms return 10⁻¹⁵ and 1 for it. The one that returns 1 still reconstructs the matrix perfectly, which is why nothing warns you.

orthogonality · Orthogonality the mirrorx, length 4.000Hx = (-4.000, 0)v = x − αe₁safe sign: α = −‖x‖, so v is formed from a sum and nothing cancelsunsafe sign: α = +‖x‖ gives ‖v‖ only 35.1% of ‖x‖ + ‖x‖ — the digits go‖HᵀH − I‖5·10⁻¹⁶‖Hx‖ − ‖x‖8.9·10⁻¹⁶second component2.2·10⁻¹⁶built from a unit vectororthogonality is structural

A reflection cannot stop being one

Householder QR holds orthogonality at 10⁻¹⁵ whatever the condition number of the matrix, and Gram–Schmidt does not. The reason is not that it is more careful. It is that its Q is built from unit vectors, and rounding a unit vector gives a different reflection rather than a broken one.

orthogonality · Householder classical Gram–Schmidt4.62·10⁻¹⁰modified Gram–Schmidt1.49·10⁻¹²Householder, one sweep2.03·10⁻¹⁴reduction tree, 16 leaves1.48·10⁻¹⁵departure from orthogonality, logarithmicthe tree, at four depths‖AᵀA − RᵀR‖/‖AᵀA‖, depth 13.4·10⁻¹⁵‖AᵀA − RᵀR‖/‖AᵀA‖, depth 24.3·10⁻¹⁵‖AᵀA − RᵀR‖/‖AᵀA‖, depth 31.7·10⁻¹⁵‖AᵀA − RᵀR‖/‖AᵀA‖, depth 41.5·10⁻¹⁵the same algebra, four timestwo of them are products of reflections

A reduction that changes the order

A tall-skinny QR computed as a tree of independent block factorisations touches a 512×12 matrix once instead of twelve times, computes a completely different sequence of roundings from the sweep it replaces, and returns ‖AᵀA − RᵀR‖/‖AᵀA‖ = 1.65·10⁻¹⁵ against the sweep's 9.95·10⁻¹⁵. On the same matrix classical Gram–Schmidt returns 4.6·10⁻¹⁰.

cost · Communication how far is it from A to an orthogonal matrix?smaller is nearer · the polar factor minimises this in every unitarily invariant normpolar factor U1.8554QR, signs fixed2.1265QR as returned3.8226200 drawn at randomκ = 10polar factor1.9QR, signs fixed2.1QR as returned3.8best of 200 random2.7‖A − QR‖ is the same either wayand ‖A − Q‖ is not

The nearest orthogonal matrix

Every field that has to clean up a drifted rotation reaches for QR, and QR does not answer the question. The nearest orthogonal matrix is the orthogonal factor of the polar decomposition — nearer by about a tenth, and, more to the point, the same matrix whatever order the columns were written in. QR's answer changes completely.

orthogonality · Polar decomposition κ(A) = 10⁶ throughout · κ(H) = 100 · the answer is the same answer for every basisorthonormal — κ(Z)1κ(ZᵀHZ)25.6relative error1.07·10⁻¹⁵first m basic — κ(Z)1.99·10⁸κ(ZᵀHZ)3.8·10¹⁶relative error0.0518pivoted basic — κ(Z)2.06κ(ZᵀHZ)31.9relative error6.71·10⁻¹⁶what the choice costsdensity, orthonormal1density, fundamental0.5κ(ZᵀHZ) ÷ κ(Z)², naive0.96error, pivoted choice6.7·10⁻¹⁶every one of them is a basisand one of them loses fourteen digits

The basis nobody chose on purpose

A method that eliminates a constraint has to pick a basis for its null space, and every basis is correct. Their condition numbers are eight orders apart, the reduced problem inherits the square, and the choice is usually made by a one-line rule nobody thought of as a numerical decision.

orthogonality · Null-space basis 0246810121410⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹10⁴10⁷10¹⁰log₁₀ τ — the weight on the constraintrelative error against the exact answerτ = 1/√uGram–Schmidtnormal equationsHouseholder QRthe ceiling is the method'sHouseholder, τ = 10¹⁴4.8·10⁻¹⁵normal equations14Gram–Schmidt4.9·10¹⁰1/√u6.7·10⁷a constraint is a weight at infinityand the solver decides how far infinity is

A constraint is a weight at infinity

Stack an equality constraint on top of a least-squares problem with a large weight and the answer approaches the constrained one like 1/τ². The limit is takeable to any accuracy — and how far it can be taken is a property of the solver, not of the problem. One of them stops at the square root of the precision, and one of them does not stop.

leastsquares · Constrained least-squares polar: U₁P − U₂QR: Q₁P − Q₂-3.3·10⁻¹⁶-3.3·10⁻¹⁶2.2·10⁻¹⁶-1.9·10⁻¹⁶5.6·10⁻¹⁷-1.7·10⁻¹⁶6.7·10⁻¹⁶-8.9·10⁻¹⁶2.8·10⁻¹⁶-5.6·10⁻¹⁶-3.6·10⁻¹⁶6.1·10⁻¹⁶-8.3·10⁻¹⁶8.3·10⁻¹⁶-7.2·10⁻¹⁶-10·10⁻¹⁶2.2·10⁻¹⁶4.4·10⁻¹⁶1.7·10⁻¹⁶-4.4·10⁻¹⁶-5.6·10⁻¹⁷5.6·10⁻¹⁷0-7.2·10⁻¹⁶-4.4·10⁻¹⁶3.9·10⁻¹⁶5.6·10⁻¹⁷2.8·10⁻¹⁶-1.1·10⁻¹⁶-3.3·10⁻¹⁶2.2·10⁻¹⁶1.1·10⁻¹⁶-2.8·10⁻¹⁶5.6·10⁻¹⁶-2.8·10⁻¹⁶5.6·10⁻¹⁶0.67-0.35-0.23-0.620.19-0.72-0.770.170.20.290.190.93-0.180.55-0.0290.06-0.460.11-0.17-0.61-0.230.38-0.55-0.380.750.870.661.1-0.36-0.530.42-0.670.180.180.52-0.3Frobenius norms, columns reordered‖U₁P − U₂‖2.8·10⁻¹⁵‖Q₁P − Q₂‖3‖Q‖, for scale2.4κ of the matrix100Frobenius distance between the two answers, on one scale0 to 4polar2.8·10⁻¹⁵QR3.048‖Q‖ = 2.449the column space did not moveand one of the two answers did

A test with no answer in it

A caller with no reference answer can still ask whether a routine answered the right question: reverse the columns, run it again, compare. The polar factor's two answers agree to 10⁻¹⁵ at every conditioning drawn; a QR's differ by 2.353 on matrices whose own norm is 2.449. The test has a floor, and the floor is measurable too.

orthogonality · Polar decomposition 10²10⁴10⁶10⁸10¹⁰10¹²10¹⁴10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹condition number κ(A)‖x̂ − x‖ / ‖x‖modified, through Qᵀbclassical, either route‖QᵀQ − I‖, modifiedHouseholdermodified, on [A b]κ²uκuforward error at κ = 10⁸Householder4·10⁻⁹modified, through Qᵀb0.13modified, on [A b]2.7·10⁻¹⁰classical840×8, three seeds, against an exact rational solveQ is not orthogonal; x is right

The right-hand side as one more column

Modified Gram–Schmidt's Q is 4.3·10⁻⁹ from orthogonal at κ = 10⁸, and a least-squares solve that multiplies b by it is wrong by 0.13. Hand the same routine b as an extra column instead and the answer is right to 2.7·10⁻¹⁰ — closer than Householder's 4.0·10⁻⁹. Classical Gram–Schmidt gains nothing from the same trick, to the last bit.

orthogonality · Gram–Schmidt 1357911131510⁻¹⁶10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹²10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁸10⁻⁶10⁻⁴10⁻²1k, where h = 1 − 10⁻ᵏrelative error of 1 − h1 − ‖R⁻ᵀa‖²1 − ‖row of Q₁‖²‖row of Q₂‖²40 × 6k = 12, Cholesky route1.1·10⁻⁴k = 12, thin QR route4.4·10⁻⁴complement, worst k3·10⁻¹⁵one minus a sum of squaresor the sum of the other squares

One minus a leverage is a subtraction

Every deletion diagnostic divides by 1 − h, and computing it as one minus a computed leverage loses digits in proportion to 1/(1 − h), however accurate the leverage. The complementary block of a QR factor gives the same number as a sum of squares and loses κ(A)·u instead: every digit on a well-conditioned design, and half the digits the subtraction loses on a design whose far point is what made 1 − h small.

leastsquares · Leverage 10¹10³10⁵10⁷10⁹10¹¹10¹³10⁻¹⁶10⁻¹³10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁷10⁻⁴10⁻¹κ(B), the conditioning of the constraint blockrelative error, and feasibilitydashes: the method of weightingthe saddle-point routethe null-space routealong the bottom: how nearly every answer satisfies the constraintsfeasible and wrongκ(B)4.6·10¹²κ(B)·u0.001null space1.2·10⁻⁴saddle point0.0082weighting2.6feasibility10⁻¹⁵every constraint is satisfiedand the answer has no digits

Feasible and wrong

A third constraint that nearly repeats the first takes the best route's answer from 2.96·10⁻¹⁵ to 1.16·10⁻⁴, and the other two routes to no correct digit at all. Every one of those answers satisfies every constraint to 10⁻¹⁵. The quantity a caller checks after a constrained solve is the one quantity here that says nothing.

leastsquares · Constrained least-squares 8×8, κ = 10⁸direction at ε = 10⁻², ‖QᵀQ − I‖1.5·10⁻¹⁵scalar at ε = 10⁻², ‖QᵀQ − I‖0.065direction at ε = 10⁻², residual0.00510⁻¹⁴10⁻¹²10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁸10⁻⁶10⁻⁴10⁻²10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²relative perturbation εdeparture‖QᵀQ − I‖, scalar‖A − QR‖/‖A‖, scalar‖A − QR‖/‖A‖, direction‖QᵀQ − I‖, directionflat line: a different reflection is still a reflectionsloped line: a non-reflection is not

One number that has to be right

Householder's orthogonality was called structural: a reflection is built from a unit vector, so rounding the vector names a different reflection rather than a broken one. Tested by breaking it, the claim is narrower and sharper. Perturb every component of the reflector by a relative 10⁻², and ‖QᵀQ − I‖ stays at 1.5·10⁻¹⁵ while the factorisation moves to 5·10⁻³. Perturb the one stored scalar by the same amount and ‖QᵀQ − I‖ is 6.5·10⁻². The structure is one degree of freedom, and the departure is four times its relative error.

orthogonality · Householder 10³10⁶10⁹10¹²10⁻¹⁶10⁻¹³10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁷10⁻⁴10⁻¹κ(A), identical for both problemsrelative error in the answerthe weak directions in the constraint's null spacethe weak directions in the constraint's own rowsone κ(A), two problemsκ(A), both10¹²κ left, constrained1κ left, free10¹²error, constrained4.7·10⁻¹⁶error, free3·10⁻⁴between them6.4·10¹¹a constraint is informationand κ(A) does not know it arrived

The condition number that does not know

Two constrained fits with the same size, the same number of constraints and the same κ(A) to twelve figures. One returns 4.7·10⁻¹⁶ and the other 3.0·10⁻⁴. What separates them is the conditioning of A restricted to the constraint's null space — 1.00 against 10¹² — which every solver computes on the way and none reports.

leastsquares · Constrained least-squares what each reachesbest pair0.0034‖x‖ alone0.0048‖L₁x‖ alone0.0035λ₁, on ‖x‖λ₂, on ‖L₁x‖ — log₁₀0-6-5-4-3-2-100-6-5-4-3-2-10outlined row and column: one penalty switched offred cell: the best pair, 0.00343darker is worse, on a logarithmic scalethe optimum sits on or beside an edge

A second penalty is not a second parameter

Penalise ‖x‖ and ‖L₁x‖ at once and there are two λ to choose. Over ten draws on five signals the best pair beats the better single penalty by between 0.00% and 3.1%, and one of its two parameters is exactly zero on 30 to 70 per cent of draws. Choosing the wrong one of the two costs up to 54%. The surface is a choice between two curves with a knob nobody needs.

regularisation · Parameter choice what a block storesnumbers in T, block of 11numbers in T, block of 16136‖QᵀQ − I‖ there3.9·10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹⁶10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹²10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁸10⁻⁶block size‖QᵀQ − I‖124816T perturbed by 10⁻⁶T as computed1, 3, 10, 36, 136 computed numbers in the triangleand a factor of five in what they produce

A triangle where the scalar was

Every level-3 QR assembles a block of reflectors into Q = I − Y T Yᵀ, and T is computed by a recurrence whose inputs are its own previous columns. A block of sixteen carries 136 computed numbers where sixteen separate reflections carry sixteen. The orthogonality it produces is 3.9·10⁻¹⁵ against the single reflector's 7.8·10⁻¹⁶ — a factor of five for a hundred and thirty-six times as many things that have to be right.

orthogonality · Householder 81930415263110²10⁴10⁶10⁸10¹⁰10¹²size of the matrix|rₙₙ| ÷ σₘᵢₙthe two agreec = 0.2c = 0.35c = 0.5no ceilingratio at n = 1021ratio at n = 646.8·10¹⁰interchanges, anywhere0the greedy rule never had a choiceand the gap grows with every row

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.

spectra · Rank 10¹10³10⁵10⁷10⁹10¹¹10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹²10⁻⁹10⁻⁶10⁻³1κ(A), the conditioning of the fitrelative error in the answerthe saddle-point route, in floating pointdashes: forming AᵀA, then solving exactlythe method of weighting, τ = 10⁸the null-space routethe reference was a methodκ(A)10¹¹κ of what is left4.9·10⁶null space1.9·10⁻⁹saddle point4.6·10⁻⁴forming AᵀA alone3.4·10⁻⁴weighting3·10⁻⁹the damage is in the formingand not in the solving

The reference was a method

The optimality conditions of a constrained fit contain AᵀA, so solving them is the road that squares the problem wearing a block structure. At κ(A) = 10¹¹ the route that never forms a cross-product returns 1.89·10⁻⁹ and the route that does returns 4.64·10⁻⁴ — and forming AᵀA and then solving it in exact rationals returns 3.45·10⁻⁴, so nearly all of the loss happens before any elimination begins.

leastsquares · Constrained least-squares 1357911131510⁻¹⁶10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹²10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁸10⁻⁶10⁻⁴10⁻²1k, where h = 1 − 10⁻ᵏrelative error of 1 − hsubtractwith a correction stepcorrection kept as a pairfrom the reflectors40 × 6k = 12, subtracting1.1·10⁻⁴k = 12, with a correction1.1·10⁻⁴k = 12, from the reflectors3·10⁻¹⁵reflector operations900dashed: a unit of roundoff over the divisorthree routes sit on it and one does not

The factor a sparse code keeps anyway

Every deletion diagnostic divides by one minus a leverage, and computing it as a subtraction loses a digit for every decade the leverage is from one. The route that does not subtract needs the orthogonal factor, which a sparse factorisation is supposed not to have. Three repairs that avoid it all fail at exactly a unit of roundoff over the divisor — and the fourth, which reaches the orthogonal factor through the Householder vectors a sparse code keeps in order to solve anything at all, returns the same bits as a stored factor in 900 operations.

leastsquares · Leverage heavy row first1 − h at 4³⁰7.4·10⁻¹⁸κ(A) at 4³⁰3.1·10⁸complement's error2.1·10⁻¹⁶110³10⁶10⁹10¹²10¹⁵10¹⁸10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹³10⁻¹¹10⁻⁹10⁻⁷10⁻⁵10⁻³10⁻¹weight on the rowrelative error of 1 − h1 − ‖R⁻ᵀa‖²1 − ‖row of Q₁‖²‖row of Q₂‖²κ(A)·uthe rows are the same in every positiononly the order the factorisation meets them changes

The weight the factor met first

The route to one minus a leverage through the orthogonal factor was said to lose a digit for every decade of the condition number, whatever else it does. Put a weight on one row and it does not. With the heavy row first, the complement keeps every digit at κ(A) = 2.5·10⁹ while both subtractions return nothing. With the same row last it loses digits as the row's scale grows. And two heavy rows that leave κ(A) at 3.1 still lose six digits when the light rows come first. The law was about the order the factor met the rows, and the condition number had been standing in for it.

leastsquares · Leverage

Named alongside it

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

Condition numberHouseholder reflectionExact ground truthOrthogonalityGram–SchmidtCatastrophic cancellationNormal equationsSaddle-point systemsUnit roundoffEquality constrained least-squaresResidualBackward stability

All concepts