Numerical Linear Algebra
where the algebra stops being the arithmetic
Concept

Reduced stability — where it appears

Whether a reduced model of a stable system is itself stable. Interpolatory projection can return a model with a pole in the right half plane while matching the original exactly at every point it was asked about, and balanced truncation and one-sided projection each carry a reason it cannot.

Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

10⁻¹110¹10²-45-35-25-15-551525s, the smallest of the three interpolation pointsrightmost pole of the reduced modelunstable above this linebalanced truncation, order 3exact, and unusablefull system's pole-3.5placements swept19unstable models4worst pole24their interpolation1.3·10⁻¹⁴balanced truncation-0.84the conditions all holdand the model cannot be run

A model that cannot be run

A stable system, reduced by matching its transfer function at three points exactly, comes back with a pole in the right half plane at four of nineteen placements — and matches at all three points to 1.3·10⁻¹⁴ while doing it. The construction did what it promised.

reduction · Reduced stability 10⁻¹110¹10²s, the smallest interpolation pointrightmost pole of the reduced model−10−10+1+10unstable above zeronumerical range edge, -0.986system's abscissa, -3.49two-sided, order 3one-sided, order 3one-sided, order 6Pe 10, nineteen placementssystem's rightmost eigenvalue-3.5edge of the numerical range-0.99two-sided, order 3: unstable placements4one-sided, order 3: unstable placements0one-sided, order 6: unstable placements0signed logarithmic axisshaded: poles in the right half plane

Half the conditions and a certificate

A two-sided interpolatory reduction of a stable convection–diffusion system came back unstable at four placements of nineteen. The one-sided reduction built from the same kind of solves came back stable at all 152 placements measured across eight Péclet numbers, and not by luck: every pole of a Galerkin model lies inside the numerical range of the operator, whose edge here is exactly the diffusion term's largest eigenvalue, −0.986 at Péclet 10. The price is the slope conditions, and spent as six one-sided shifts instead of three two-sided ones it beats the stable two-sided model at seven placements of ten.

reduction · Reduced stability edge of the numerical rangespectrum, -3.49zero37.9-0.986-3.496.59unstable one-sided models, of nineteen placements051015-3-2-1.5-1-0.500.511.522.53cond 1.4·10⁶cond 112t, the rescaling exponent — the k-th state is multiplied by γ to the power tk; t = 1 symmetrisesorder 1order 2order 3order 6the transfer function is the same at every tonly the inner product changes

A certificate written in coordinates

Every one-sided reduced model of the convection–diffusion system was stable, because its poles cannot leave the numerical range and the range sat in the left half plane. Rescale the state by a diagonal matrix and nothing about the system changes — not its eigenvalues, not its transfer function, not one pole of any two-sided model — but the numerical range moves. At Péclet 40 a rescaling with condition number 260 pushes its edge to +6.6 and ten placements of nineteen return unstable one-sided models. Projecting in the inner product of a Lyapunov solution puts the certificate back in any coordinates.

reduction · Reduced stability

Named alongside it

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

Convection diffusionNon-normalityPetrov–GalerkinTransfer functionBalanced truncationGalerkin projectionMoment matchingNumerical rangeRational krylovLyapunov equationSimilarity transformation

All concepts