Rational approximation — where it appears
Named by 8 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Why a Gramian can be truncated at all
Every method in this field rests on one fact nobody states the reason for — the eigenvalues of a Gramian fall off a cliff. The equation defining it has a rank-one right-hand side and no low-rank structure anywhere — and the answer's decay is a rational approximation problem with a closed-form rate.
Where to put the poles of a rational function
Three times in one field the same question arrives from different directions — ADI shifts, rational approximation of a square root, the decay of a Gramian — and it has one answer. Cluster them geometrically towards wherever the function is difficult, and the alternative that looks reasonable costs orders.
The problem the solver was actually given
A linearisation is exact — it has the polynomial's eigenvalues, with their multiplicities, and the whole loss is arithmetic. A nonlinear eigenvalue problem does not offer that. Every algorithm replaces the function first, and the term that replacement contributes is committed before any number is rounded and appears in no residual.
An error committed before the arithmetic
Before a nonlinear eigenvalue problem is solved, somebody says where they think the eigenvalues are. That sentence sets the accuracy of everything that follows by five orders, costs nothing to say, and cannot be revised once the approximation built on it is in hand.
Two approximants and one matrix size
A polynomial approximant linearises to nd rows and a rational one to n(m+1), so the fair contest fixes the matrix and varies the basis. On an easy target set the two are indistinguishable and the ordering flips with the noise; on one that reaches a branch point the rational pulls away by two orders.
The eigenvalues that are answers to nothing
A rational approximant of degree five turns a six-by-six problem into a thirty-six-by-thirty-six one, and thirty-six numbers come back. Six are the answer. The rest are exact eigenvalues of the approximant, lying where the function it approximates is not a real number at all.
The points the algorithm chose
A rational approximant whose support points are picked by its own residual clusters geometrically at a branch point nobody named — recovering by measurement the rule a hand-built approximant is given. At degree ten it is seven hundred and fifty times more accurate than the same form with its points spread evenly.
An error estimate made of samples
A Loewner model built from samples of a transfer function comes with no error bound, and the number every code reads to choose its order — the pencil's next singular value — is the obvious stand-in. On four systems sampled at 48 points it is the error of the order-k model for the first two orders, within a factor of 2.5, and then falls away from it by about a decade an order: by the fifth it is optimistic by 109, 181 and 457, and on one system by 6,700 at the sixth. An AAA fit of the same degree to the same samples has an error within a factor of six of the Loewner model's at every order, so the shortfall is not the projection's. The model's misfit at its own samples is optimistic the same way. What works is more samples: the error at the 47 midpoints between the samples is within a factor of 2.2 of the true error at every order on every system, and the four midpoints nearest the poles alone within a factor of three.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Approximation before linearisationCondition numberBranch pointLinearisationNonlinear eigenvalue problemZolotarev numberADI iterationData-driven realisationEquioscillationExact ground truthGramianLoewner matrix