Generator

Four knobs on one problem at 1.0% noise

One function in the compose library, called 15 times across 2 essays. Below: what it draws at its defaults, what it draws at every value an essay asks for, the 27 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 four knobs on one problem at 1.0% noise. Relative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1445, 0.1406, 0.1426, 0.1449 — a spread of 3%. The horizontal line is the best of them.

knob-floor is one function in lib/figures/compose.js — four knobs — one floor under them, and a fifth that is not a knob at all. 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.

Four knobs on one problem at 1.0% noiseRelative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1445, 0.1406, 0.1426, 0.1449 — a spread of 3%. The horizontal line is the best of them.00.250.50.75110⁻¹110¹10²10³fraction of the method's own rangerelative errorfloor 0.141truncation KTikhonov λCGLS steprandomised rankfour methods, one floortruncation K0.14Tikhonov λ0.14CGLS step0.14randomised rank0.14four knobs from four fieldsand one obstruction underneath them

Relative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1445, 0.1406, 0.1426, 0.1449 — a spread of 3%. The horizontal line is the best of them.

noise: 0.01

The arguments are the ones Four knobs and one floor passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

Four knobs on one problem at 1.0% noiseRelative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1445, 0.1406, 0.1426, 0.1449 — a spread of 3%. The horizontal line is the best of them.00.250.50.75110⁻¹110¹10²10³fraction of the method's own rangerelative errorfloor 0.141truncation KTikhonov λCGLS steprandomised rankfour methods, one floortruncation K0.14Tikhonov λ0.14CGLS step0.14randomised rank0.14four knobs from four fieldsand one obstruction underneath them

Relative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1445, 0.1406, 0.1426, 0.1449 — a spread of 3%. The horizontal line is the best of them.

noise: 0.1

The arguments are the ones Four knobs and one floor passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

Four knobs on one problem at 10% noiseRelative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1630, 0.1881, 0.1675, 0.1672 — a spread of 15%. The horizontal line is the best of them.00.250.50.75110⁻¹110¹10²10³fraction of the method's own rangerelative errorfloor 0.163truncation KTikhonov λCGLS steprandomised rankfour methods, one floortruncation K0.16Tikhonov λ0.19CGLS step0.17randomised rank0.17four knobs from four fieldsand one obstruction underneath them

Relative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1630, 0.1881, 0.1675, 0.1672 — a spread of 15%. The horizontal line is the best of them.

noise: 0.001

The arguments are the ones Four knobs and one floor passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

Four knobs on one problem at 0.10% noiseRelative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1058, 0.1052, 0.1050, 0.1058 — a spread of 1%. The horizontal line is the best of them.00.250.50.75110⁻¹110¹10²10³fraction of the method's own rangerelative errorfloor 0.105truncation KTikhonov λCGLS steprandomised rankfour methods, one floortruncation K0.11Tikhonov λ0.11CGLS step0.11randomised rank0.11four knobs from four fieldsand one obstruction underneath them

Relative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1058, 0.1052, 0.1050, 0.1058 — a spread of 1%. The horizontal line is the best of them.

noise: 0.02

The arguments are the ones Four knobs and one floor passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

Four knobs on one problem at 2.0% noiseRelative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1494, 0.1513, 0.1498, 0.1506 — a spread of 1%. The horizontal line is the best of them.00.250.50.75110⁻¹110¹10²10³fraction of the method's own rangerelative errorfloor 0.149truncation KTikhonov λCGLS steprandomised rankfour methods, one floortruncation K0.15Tikhonov λ0.15CGLS step0.15randomised rank0.15four knobs from four fieldsand one obstruction underneath them

Relative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1494, 0.1513, 0.1498, 0.1506 — a spread of 1%. The horizontal line is the best of them.

noise: 0.005

The arguments are the ones Four knobs and one floor passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

Four knobs on one problem at 0.50% noiseRelative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1297, 0.1244, 0.1217, 0.1304 — a spread of 7%. The horizontal line is the best of them.00.250.50.75110⁻¹110¹10²10³fraction of the method's own rangerelative errorfloor 0.122truncation KTikhonov λCGLS steprandomised rankfour methods, one floortruncation K0.13Tikhonov λ0.12CGLS step0.12randomised rank0.13four knobs from four fieldsand one obstruction underneath them

Relative error against the fraction of each method's own range, on a logarithmic vertical axis. A truncation, a Tikhonov parameter, a conjugate gradient step count and a randomised rank each have an interior minimum, and the four minima are 0.1297, 0.1244, 0.1217, 0.1304 — a spread of 7%. The horizontal line is the best of them.

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.

27 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.

and past the qualification the gap widens with ν, at ν = 2 — checked 2 times

iterated2 sits at its ceiling at ν = 4 — checked 2 times

a noise level small enough to be noise

a size every one of the four methods is affordable at

a size the sweeps are affordable at

a size the three sweeps are affordable at

a source condition of a order the arithmetic can hold

a truth this figure knows how to build

and the ceilings are in order

and the four best errors agree

at ν = 0.25 no method has reached a ceiling and the five agree

CGLS step has an interior optimum

matmul shapes agree

on the constructed signal the two stay together

past it Tikhonov's rate stops and the others' do not

past the qualification Tikhonov falls behind the truncation

randomised rank has an interior optimum

smoothness either side of every ceiling drawn

the constructed signal gives cgls almost no rate

the constructed signal gives tikhonov almost no rate

the constructed signal gives truncation almost no rate

tikhonov sits at its ceiling at ν = 4

Tikhonov λ has an interior optimum

truncation K has an interior optimum

truths either side of the qualification

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