Every essay — page 22
The matrix a constraint makes
Every difficult matrix in the other fields was difficult for a reason the arithmetic supplied: a Hilbert matrix arrives ill conditioned, a Wilkinson matrix grows under elimination, a kernel matrix is dense. Ask a problem to minimise something subject to a constraint and the matrix that results is difficult for a reason the algebra supplies. Its zero block is the second derivative of a Lagrangian with respect to its own multipliers, so no pivot order removes it and no precision changes that; its inertia is known before anything runs; and Cholesky does not fail somewhere on it, it fails at the first constraint row, on a number the problem already contained. Then the field's second surprise, which is the opposite one: an interior-point method drives the condition number of this matrix to 10¹⁵ deliberately, and the answer keeps fifteen digits — because the number that describes the error is not the one every library prints.
An augmentation read in the smallest eigenvalue
An augmented Lagrangian preconditioner's least work sat at γ = 1, 10⁴ and 1 on three systems, and two of the three optima sat where the smallest generalised eigenvalue was about 0.06 — which suggested a rule written in ν rather than γ. On twenty-four systems whose norms are all one, the least-work γ spans seven decades and ν at the optimum spans a factor of thirty, so there is no one ν. There is still a rule: take the smallest γ at which ν reaches 0.03, and the median system pays 7 per cent over its least work and the worst 29, where the best single γ pays 61. Its price is digits — twelve times the best forward error on the median system, 4,561 times on the worst.
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.