Random probe — where it appears
Named by 11 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Counting what is inside a circle
A trace of a matrix nobody wants to form, integrated around a contour, gives an integer — how many eigenvalues are inside. It converges exponentially, it is estimated with random probes, and the probe block is a ceiling that the answer does not mention.
The split nobody is in a position to choose
Hutch++ spends two thirds of its budget on a sketch and a third on probes, and the third is published as a constant. Swept across six rates of spectral decay at a fixed budget of 48 products, the best share is 0.45 on the fastest and 0.00 on the slowest — sketch nothing at all — and the published third costs between 1.09 and 4.11 times the best error. The decay that decides it is readable from the sketch's own singular values, for products the estimator was going to spend anyway.
A rule that reads only its own probes
A trace estimator is a mean of independent samples, so its own standard error is estimable from the samples and a stopping rule needs nothing the estimator does not already have. Over forty draws it is calibrated in the middle and not at the edge: at a target relative standard error of 1% the median error reached is 5.3·10⁻³ and the worst of forty is 2.9·10⁻² — three times the target. And the cost of the target is the estimator's own square root: tightening it from 3% to 1% takes the median probe count from 75 to 696.
The rank a certificate charges
A randomised range finder can choose its own rank: grow the basis a column at a time and stop when ten fresh probes all come back short. With the published safety factor it never stopped early in any draw measured, and on a matrix whose singular values fall by 0.8 a step it stopped at rank 30 for a tolerance the best rank-11 approximation already meets. The nineteen extra columns are three separate prices — four for building the basis from random vectors, five because a probe reads more than the spectral norm, and ten for the constant — and the spectrum decides which of them dominates.
The miss a normal table already priced
A trace estimator that stops when its own standard error reaches a target misses the target on about a third of draws, and the essay that measured it read the loose targets as the worst calibrated. Over 400 draws the loose target is the better covered — 76% at 10% against 64% at 3% — because the warm-up stops most of its runs with probes to spare. Where the criterion decides, the misses are a normal distribution's: a margin of c on the standard error buys what a normal table says, 94.8% at 1.96, and costs c² in probes, 3.86 times.
A spread measured on probes it does not average
A trace estimator that stops on its own standard error misses its target a few points more often than a normal table says, because the runs that stop earliest are the ones that underestimated their noise. Spend a pilot of probes only on the spread, fix the number of probes to average in advance, and the selection is gone: with Student's margin the two-stage rule covers 64.8 to 73.3 per cent at one standard error where the table says 68.3. With the normal's margin and a pilot of four it covers 58.5. At one standard error it recovers one to five points for a fifth to two fifths more probes; at 1.96 there was nothing to recover, and the guarantee costs a tenth to double.
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.
Columns that steer a random start
A condition estimator whose first vector is random cannot be built against, and concentrating the hidden column did not hide it: its own entries steer the first sign vector onto it. Give the steering to other columns — each equal on both rows of every pair the hidden column alternates over — and the random start is fooled after all. The prediction was a factor of one over the square root of the number of steering columns, on a share of seeds that falls as they lose to the hidden column, and the block of two fooled as often. The factor is whatever the builder chooses; the share, at a fixed factor of one half, rises with every column added, from 9 per cent with four to 77 with thirty-four. And the block of two is not fooled as often: it is fooled on the square of the single start's share, and the block of four on its fourth power — independent guesses, which is the one thing that still works.
A spread carried from the trace before
A two-stage trace estimator spends a pilot of probes learning its spread, and a computation that needs many traces of a slowly changing operator would rather pay for that once. Frozen at the first trace, the pilot is wrong by the sixteenth: on a spectrum that drifts from decay 0.9 to 0.86 the last estimate is inside a 3% target 52 times in a hundred against the table's 68, and at a faster drift 34. Carry instead the spread of the previous trace's own averaged probes — free, independent of this trace's, one step stale — and its sixteenth estimate covers between 64.5 and 69.5 per cent at every drift, for up to a quarter fewer products than a fresh pilot every time.
A drift put back at the table's price
A trace estimator that carries its spread from the trace before loses one step of drift, and the drift is visible in the spreads themselves, so the repair proposed was to multiply the carried spread by the ratio of the last two. Over 400 drifting sequences it works: averaged over the third to sixteenth traces it covers 67.8 to 68.9 per cent at one standard error at every drift, where the plain carry falls to 65.4 and the table says 68.3. It costs what the table says closing that gap costs — 10.5 per cent more products at the fastest drift against a price of 11.9 — so at that drift it spends more than a fresh pilot every trace. Its factor is noisy, scattering the spread it uses two and a half times as widely as the plain carry does, and on a sequence that does not drift that noise costs nothing at all. And the single-trace comparison the proposal named turned out to be smaller than its own draw noise.
A turn is seen one trace late
A carried spread multiplied by the ratio of the last two spreads restored a drifting sequence's coverage, and the prediction for a sequence whose drift turns was a dip of four or five points on the trace after the turn, gone a trace later, and a guard that removes it for nothing. Run on the turn the prediction described — the spread rising and then falling — there is no dip: the extrapolation promises more rise, uses a spread eleven per cent too large, and covers 70.5 per cent against a table of 68.3. Run on the mirror turn, the spread falling and then rising, the dip is there and larger than predicted: a spread a quarter too small and 59.5 per cent coverage. Either way it is gone a trace later and the sequence's average stays within a point. The guard costs nothing and does not help, because no rule that reads past spreads can see a turn before the trace that shows it.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Probabilistic boundsSpectral decayTrace estimationHutchinson's estimatorStopping criterionMatrix-freeExact ground truthFlop countRankCondition numberContour integralDeflation