An incomplete Cholesky kept while the operator turns anisotropic, against one rebuilt at every member
At its defaults it draws an incomplete cholesky kept while the operator turns anisotropic, against one rebuilt at every member. The five-point operator's two directions stop being equally weighted, ε running from 1 down to 0.0331, with the sparsity pattern unchanged throughout — so the factorisation from the first member stays applicable for the whole run, which is the situation in which it gets kept. The kept one goes from 18 iterations to 52. The rebuilt one goes from 18 to 13, because an anisotropic operator is an easier problem for a factorisation that knows about the anisotropy. The two start at the same point by construction and never meet again.
ichol-ageing 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.
The five-point operator's two directions stop being equally weighted, ε running from 1 down to 0.0331, with the sparsity pattern unchanged throughout — so the factorisation from the first member stays applicable for the whole run, which is the situation in which it gets kept. The kept one goes from 18 iterations to 52. The rebuilt one goes from 18 to 13, because an anisotropic operator is an easier problem for a factorisation that knows about the anisotropy. The two start at the same point by construction and never meet again.
k: 12
The arguments are the ones The penalty for keeping it is a ratio passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.
The five-point operator's two directions stop being equally weighted, ε running from 1 down to 0.0331, with the sparsity pattern unchanged throughout — so the factorisation from the first member stays applicable for the whole run, which is the situation in which it gets kept. The kept one goes from 18 iterations to 52. The rebuilt one goes from 18 to 13, because an anisotropic operator is an easier problem for a factorisation that knows about the anisotropy. The two start at the same point by construction and never meet again.
k: 8
The arguments are the ones The penalty for keeping it is a ratio passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.
The five-point operator's two directions stop being equally weighted, ε running from 1 down to 0.0331, with the sparsity pattern unchanged throughout — so the factorisation from the first member stays applicable for the whole run, which is the situation in which it gets kept. The kept one goes from 14 iterations to 40. The rebuilt one goes from 14 to 10, because an anisotropic operator is an easier problem for a factorisation that knows about the anisotropy. The two start at the same point by construction and never meet again.
k: 10
The arguments are the ones The penalty for keeping it is a ratio passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.
The five-point operator's two directions stop being equally weighted, ε running from 1 down to 0.0331, with the sparsity pattern unchanged throughout — so the factorisation from the first member stays applicable for the whole run, which is the situation in which it gets kept. The kept one goes from 16 iterations to 46. The rebuilt one goes from 16 to 12, because an anisotropic operator is an easier problem for a factorisation that knows about the anisotropy. The two start at the same point by construction and never meet again.
k: 11
The arguments are the ones The penalty for keeping it is a ratio passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.
The five-point operator's two directions stop being equally weighted, ε running from 1 down to 0.0331, with the sparsity pattern unchanged throughout — so the factorisation from the first member stays applicable for the whole run, which is the situation in which it gets kept. The kept one goes from 17 iterations to 50. The rebuilt one goes from 17 to 13, because an anisotropic operator is an easier problem for a factorisation that knows about the anisotropy. The two start at the same point by construction and never meet again.
k: 13
The arguments are the ones The penalty for keeping it is a ratio passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.
The five-point operator's two directions stop being equally weighted, ε running from 1 down to 0.0331, with the sparsity pattern unchanged throughout — so the factorisation from the first member stays applicable for the whole run, which is the situation in which it gets kept. The kept one goes from 20 iterations to 52. The rebuilt one goes from 20 to 15, because an anisotropic operator is an easier problem for a factorisation that knows about the anisotropy. The two start at the same point by construction and never meet again.
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.
5 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.
a grid the dense incomplete factorisation is affordable on
and the two agree exactly at the member the factorisation was built from
every member converges on the kept factorisation
the kept factorisation more than doubles its iteration count over the sequence
while a rebuilt one takes fewer, because the problem itself got easier
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 penalty for keeping it is a ratio
A kept incomplete Cholesky costs 40 iterations against a rebuilt one's 10 on 64 unknowns, and 55 against 17 on 256. Across six grids the difference between the two rises by 27 per cent and the ratio between them falls by 19. Neither quantity is free of the problem's size, and the one a policy is paid in is the one that transfers worse.
When the problem arrives againWhere the drift lands
The standing rule for when a preconditioner has gone stale is to rebuild it once the matrix has changed by more than some fraction of itself. Two drifts of exactly the same relative size cost 19 iterations and 5 on the same matrix, and the quantity that separates them is not in the rule at all — the perturbation is divided by the eigenvalue it lands on.