Reduced hessian — where it appears
Named by 15 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Two ways to remove a constraint
A constrained system can be reduced by eliminating the multipliers or by eliminating the constrained directions. Both give the same answer in exact arithmetic and inherit different condition numbers — one of them squares the constraint's, and the other does not contain it at all.
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 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.
A minimum the Hessian cannot see
A Hessian with four negative eigenvalues can sit at a constrained minimum, and a Cholesky of it stops at the third row. One symmetric indefinite factorisation of the saddle-point matrix settles the question anyway — ten positive pivots and four negative — without a basis for the null space ever being formed. The count is exact in the algebra and blind in floating point, in a band that grows like κ(A)²; the route through the null space is blind in one that grows like κ(A).
Spread resistances make the loops easy
Scaled to a unit diagonal, the loop equations on the least-resistance tree get easier as a network's resistances spread — from 120 to 5.44 over six decades — and stop depending on the grid's size, while the node equations of the same flow get harder, from 538 to 4.6·10⁴. The spread that ruins the range-space formulation rescues the null-space one, though the loops' density means the work saved is a factor of two, not the factor of nine the iteration counts suggest.
A shift that certifies a saddle
On a constrained problem whose Hessian has four negative eigenvalues, a saddle-point matrix is quasi-definite only once H + δI is positive definite — past δ = 5.08 here. Its pivot signs then count the curvature of ZᵀHZ + δI rather than of ZᵀHZ, so a saddle with a negative curvature of −1 is certified a minimum from δ = 1.05 on, and every saddle shallower than δ goes the same way. Iterative refinement against the unregularised matrix keeps the second-order test the count gave up: it contracts on the minimum at δ/(μ + δ), 0.980 a step at δ = 5, and on the saddle it grows at exactly 1.25.
The tree the resistances choose
On a network every basic set is a spanning tree and every null-space basis is a set of loops with entries 0 and ±1, so no tree can make Z badly conditioned. The tree with the best-conditioned Z still gives loop equations 4.8 times worse than the tree of least resistance: the basis has to be chosen against the Hessian, and pivoting finds it only when it pivots on the resistances too.
The perturbation that does the work
A saddle-point matrix made quasi-definite is perturbed in both blocks, and the laws measured for it moved both together. Moved apart, the laws all belong to one block. The zero block's perturbation γ decides whether every ordering factorises, sets the worst ordering's growth at 0.51/γ, and costs the answer 1,451 per unit — the reciprocal of the smallest eigenvalue of AH⁻¹Aᵀ to three figures. The perturbation of H moves none of the first two and costs 19 per unit. Refinement removes each block's perturbation at the rate its own Schur complement sets, so γ's limit sits fifty times nearer than δ's.
The shift that stops at the first right count
A nonconvex solver that finds the wrong inertia adds δI to H and tries again, and the δ it settles on is used as though it measured the curvature it corrects. It does not. On a well-conditioned constraint it is the schedule's number — 1.8·10⁴ times the need at a curvature of 5.6·10⁻⁹, between one and 7.3 times above 10⁻² — and on an ill-conditioned one the loop stops wherever the count first reads right: 63 of 152 saddles at κ(A) = 10⁸, the deepest with curvature 56. Refining the shift by bisection removes the first error and adds to the second.
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 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.
The residual turns before the error doubles
Regularise a saddle-point matrix past the Hessian's most negative eigenvalue and its pivot signs certify every shallow saddle as a minimum; refinement against the unregularised matrix keeps the test, as a rate, and a saddle at a hundredth of the regularisation grows by only 1.0014 a step — 485 steps to double. That was read as hundreds of steps before the history says anything. The residual, which is what a solver actually has, says it at step 62: a fit of its logarithm over the last ten steps turns positive there and stays positive, while the minimum's is negative from step 10. Across five regularisations the verdict comes at an eighth of the doubling time.
The right-hand side that hides the saddle
Refinement against an unregularised saddle-point matrix gives the second-order verdict the pivot signs cannot, from step 62 on the shallowest saddle — for one right-hand side. The verdict depends on how much of the growing direction the right-hand side contains, and it can contain none. Each decade removed delays the verdict by a fixed number of steps, 147 on the shallowest saddle, set by the growth against the minimum's slowest contraction rather than by the growth alone, which predicted 1,611. Rounding stops the hiding at about 2,700 steps — but by then refinement has solved the system to a residual of 2.6 times ten to the minus thirteen, and any stopping test has already accepted it. A random kick to the starting point costs nothing and finds it.
One hyperplane hides nothing
Iterative refinement against a saddle-point matrix gives its verdict when the growing direction overtakes the minimum's slowest decay, and a right-hand side with that direction removed delays it by a fixed number of steps a decade. With two negative curvatures, the prediction was that hiding both is paid for by the faster, and that hiding only the faster leaves the slower one's race to run. The first half holds to half a per cent on three pairs, and to one and a half on two whose curvatures differ by a factor of two and of 1.2. The second does not: hiding either direction alone moves the verdict by a fixed handful of steps, the same at two decades as at sixteen, because the direction left in view is already growing. Only the intersection of the two hyperplanes hides anything — and it hides less than either curvature can alone, 1,127 steps at worst against 2,907, with random right-hand sides' slowest at 79 against 417.
Long loops pay before the factor starts
The least-resistance spanning tree makes a network's loop equations well conditioned and its loops long, and the question left was what a direct solver pays for the length, and whether a tree reading the resistances only coarsely buys the conditioning back for less. Counted symbolically under minimum-degree ordering, the least tree's factor costs a median 1.2 to 2.0 times the breadth-first tree's on grids of 4 to 12 points a side, and the loop formulation goes from cheaper than the node equations at 4 × 4 to 3.8 times dearer at 12 × 12, for a conditioning two to three orders better. The price is paid in the loop matrix itself: on every network measured its factor fills in fewer entries than the breadth-first tree's. And no tree between them is a bargain. Kruskal on resistances rounded into bands pays nearly all the extra work until one band holds three quarters of the spread, and by then the conditioning has gone too.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Saddle-point systemsCondition numberCertificateInertiaNull space methodIndefinite matrixLDLᵀ factorisationQuasi-definite matrixConstrained minimisationIterative refinementNull spaceSchur complement