Generator

Preconditioned iterations against the size of the drift, for a drift on each half of the spectrum

One function in the reuse library, called 6 times across 1 essay. Below: what it draws at its defaults, what it draws at every value an essay asks for, the 20 claims it put to the test while drawing them, and where it stands against the rule this site is named for.

At its defaults it draws preconditioned iterations against the size of the drift, for a drift on each half of the spectrum. The preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 38 and 9 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 10⁴.

drift-ends is one function in lib/figures/reuse.js — reuse — what a kept factorisation or preconditioner is worth, and for how long. Everything below came out of it during this build, at arguments taken from the essays rather than invented for this page. A figure here is the figure a reader meets in an essay, and if the generator changes, this page changes with it.

At its defaults

Drawn even though every essay passes arguments — which on this site is every essay, at 100% of placements since the standard pass. A default nothing exercises is a trap for the next essay to call this with none, and this is the page where a default that has drifted from the figures around it becomes visible.

Preconditioned iterations against the size of the drift, for a drift on each half of the spectrumThe preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 38 and 9 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 10⁴.10⁻⁶10⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹10112233445566relative drift ‖E‖ / ‖A₀‖preconditioned conjugate gradient iterationson the small eigenvalueson the large onessame drift, two placessmall end at 10⁻²38large end at 10⁻²9κ(M⁻¹A), small end36κ(M⁻¹A), large end1.3‖E‖/‖A₀‖, both0.01how much the matrix changedis not what the preconditioner cares about

The preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 38 and 9 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 10⁴.

logKappa: 4

The arguments are the ones Where the drift lands passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

Preconditioned iterations against the size of the drift, for a drift on each half of the spectrumThe preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 38 and 9 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 10⁴.10⁻⁶10⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹10112233445566relative drift ‖E‖ / ‖A₀‖preconditioned conjugate gradient iterationson the small eigenvalueson the large onessame drift, two placessmall end at 10⁻²38large end at 10⁻²9κ(M⁻¹A), small end36κ(M⁻¹A), large end1.3‖E‖/‖A₀‖, both0.01how much the matrix changedis not what the preconditioner cares about

The preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 38 and 9 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 10⁴.

logKappa: 2

The arguments are the ones Where the drift lands passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

Preconditioned iterations against the size of the drift, for a drift on each half of the spectrumThe preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 10 and 6 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 100.10⁻⁶10⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹1061218243036relative drift ‖E‖ / ‖A₀‖preconditioned conjugate gradient iterationson the small eigenvalueson the large onessame drift, two placessmall end at 10⁻²10large end at 10⁻²6κ(M⁻¹A), small end1.5κ(M⁻¹A), large end1‖E‖/‖A₀‖, both0.01how much the matrix changedis not what the preconditioner cares about

The preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 10 and 6 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 100.

logKappa: 5

The arguments are the ones Where the drift lands passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

Preconditioned iterations against the size of the drift, for a drift on each half of the spectrumThe preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 64 and 12 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 10⁵.10⁻⁶10⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹10132639526578relative drift ‖E‖ / ‖A₀‖preconditioned conjugate gradient iterationson the small eigenvalueson the large onessame drift, two placessmall end at 10⁻²64large end at 10⁻²12κ(M⁻¹A), small end315κ(M⁻¹A), large end1.9‖E‖/‖A₀‖, both0.01how much the matrix changedis not what the preconditioner cares about

The preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 64 and 12 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 10⁵.

logKappa: 6

The arguments are the ones Where the drift lands passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

Preconditioned iterations against the size of the drift, for a drift on each half of the spectrumThe preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 82 and 16 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 10⁶.10⁻⁶10⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹101632486480relative drift ‖E‖ / ‖A₀‖preconditioned conjugate gradient iterationson the small eigenvalueson the large onessame drift, two placessmall end at 10⁻²82large end at 10⁻²16κ(M⁻¹A), small end2911κ(M⁻¹A), large end3.7‖E‖/‖A₀‖, both0.01how much the matrix changedis not what the preconditioner cares about

The preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 82 and 16 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 10⁶.

logKappa: 3

The arguments are the ones Where the drift lands passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

Preconditioned iterations against the size of the drift, for a drift on each half of the spectrumThe preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 21 and 7 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 1000.10⁻⁶10⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹10918273645relative drift ‖E‖ / ‖A₀‖preconditioned conjugate gradient iterationson the small eigenvalueson the large onessame drift, two placessmall end at 10⁻²21large end at 10⁻²7κ(M⁻¹A), small end4.9κ(M⁻¹A), large end1.1‖E‖/‖A₀‖, both0.01how much the matrix changedis not what the preconditioner cares about

The preconditioner is the exact Cholesky factorisation of the first matrix, so it solves that matrix in one step and every iteration counted here is bought by the drift. Both curves are drifts of the same relative Frobenius norm; the upper one sits on the half of the spectrum with the small eigenvalues and the lower on the half with the large. At a relative drift of 10⁻² they cost 21 and 7 iterations, because the drift is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on: the preconditioned matrix has eigenvalues 1 + w/λ, and λ runs over 1000.

What it checked while drawing

Every figure above checked its own claims on the way to being drawn, and a claim that failed would have stopped the picture rather than shipped a wrong one. Those checks used to leave no trace at all: a passing one returned true and the only evidence the figure had checked anything was that nothing crashed. The list below is what they actually said, collected by running this generator with an observer installed — not a description of what it is believed to check.

20 distinct claims across 6 sets of arguments, grouped below by shape — because most of them are one sentence with a different number in it, and how many separate times that sentence was put to the test is the informative part.

the two drifts at 0.001 have the same relative Frobenius norm — checked 4 times

and at a relative drift of 0.001 the small end never costs less than the large one — checked 3 times

a conditioning the construction holds exactly

a half of the spectrum to place the drift in

a relative drift inside the range the figures use

a size the dense eigendecomposition is affordable at

and the gap between them grows with the condition number, which is the quantity the norm cannot see

Jacobi needs a symmetric matrix

matmul shapes agree

the preconditioner solves its own matrix in one step, so the sweep measures the drift alone

the same drifts at both ends

the spectrum spans the condition number it was asked for

the two drifts at 10⁻⁴ have the same relative Frobenius norm

the two drifts at 10⁻⁵ have the same relative Frobenius norm

the two drifts at 10⁻⁶ have the same relative Frobenius norm

Against the rule

The rule does not apply to it. It factorises nothing, so there is no residual it could be withholding. That is worth stating rather than leaving blank: a site that reported the rule as satisfied by every generator would be counting mostly generators the rule never reached.

Across the library: the rule bites on 217 of 397 generators — 199 print a residual and 18 are exempt with a published reason; 180 factorise nothing. Read from lib/residual-rule.js, which is the same body the gate enforces from, and the gate's last check fails the build if this page and it disagree about any generator.

Where it is called

Changing this generator changes every figure on this list. That is what makes the list worth publishing rather than keeping in a check script.

The whole library · All essays · What must fail