precondition-steps
At its defaults it draws lsqr steps to a normal residual of 10⁻¹², with and without a sketched preconditioner. Two curves against κ(A). The unpreconditioned solve takes 15, 22, 32, 59, 150 steps as the conditioning worsens, and at the worst one it does not reach the tolerance inside 150. The preconditioned solve takes 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 — flat across eight decades. Both return the same vector, to the accuracy the problem allows: the preconditioned answer and the direct one differ by about κ(A)·u at every κ, 5.7·10⁻⁶ at the worst. The SAME sketch used as an answer instead of as a preconditioner is 4.5 away.
precondition-steps is one function in lib/figures/precond.js —
a sketch as a preconditioner — the same randomness, spent on the cost instead. 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.
Two curves against κ(A). The unpreconditioned solve takes 15, 22, 32, 59, 150 steps as the conditioning worsens, and at the worst one it does not reach the tolerance inside 150. The preconditioned solve takes 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 — flat across eight decades. Both return the same vector, to the accuracy the problem allows: the preconditioned answer and the direct one differ by about κ(A)·u at every κ, 5.7·10⁻⁶ at the worst. The SAME sketch used as an answer instead of as a preconditioner is 4.5 away.
width: 4
The arguments are the ones Buying the accuracy back passes. A value drawn at the generator's defaults instead would be a picture no essay asked for and no assertion has been run against.
Two curves against κ(A). The unpreconditioned solve takes 15, 22, 32, 59, 150 steps as the conditioning worsens, and at the worst one it does not reach the tolerance inside 150. The preconditioned solve takes 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 — flat across eight decades. Both return the same vector, to the accuracy the problem allows: the preconditioned answer and the direct one differ by about κ(A)·u at every κ, 5.7·10⁻⁶ at the worst. The SAME sketch used as an answer instead of as a preconditioner is 4.5 away.
width: 2
The arguments are the ones The message and the word passes. A value drawn at the generator's defaults instead would be a picture no essay asked for and no assertion has been run against.
Two curves against κ(A). The unpreconditioned solve takes 15, 22, 32, 59, 150 steps as the conditioning worsens, and at the worst one it does not reach the tolerance inside 150. The preconditioned solve takes 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 — flat across eight decades. Both return the same vector, to the accuracy the problem allows: the preconditioned answer and the direct one differ by about κ(A)·u at every κ, 6.5·10⁻⁶ at the worst. The SAME sketch used as an answer instead of as a preconditioner is 10 away.
width: 10
The arguments are the ones The sketch that is not the answer passes. A value drawn at the generator's defaults instead would be a picture no essay asked for and no assertion has been run against.
Two curves against κ(A). The unpreconditioned solve takes 15, 22, 32, 59, 150 steps as the conditioning worsens, and at the worst one it does not reach the tolerance inside 150. The preconditioned solve takes 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 — flat across eight decades. Both return the same vector, to the accuracy the problem allows: the preconditioned answer and the direct one differ by about κ(A)·u at every κ, 6.2·10⁻⁶ at the worst. The SAME sketch used as an answer instead of as a preconditioner is 4.7 away.
What it checked while drawing
Every figure above asserted its own claims on the way to being drawn, and a claim that failed
would have failed the build rather than drawn a wrong picture. Those assertions 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.
23 distinct claims across 4 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 number of columns the sweep can afford
a sketch wider than the problem and narrower than the data
an iteration cap the unpreconditioned solve can be measured against
and its step count is flat across eight decades of κ
and the gap TRACKS κ(A)·u across the whole sweep rather than ignoring it
by a large factor across the sweep
enough rows for the sketch to be a sketch
matmul shapes agree
the preconditioned solve converges at κ = 100
the preconditioned solve converges at κ = 10¹⁰
the preconditioned solve converges at κ = 10⁴
the preconditioned solve converges at κ = 10⁶
the preconditioned solve converges at κ = 10⁸
the two routes agree to κ(A)·u at κ = 100
the two routes agree to κ(A)·u at κ = 10¹⁰
the two routes agree to κ(A)·u at κ = 10⁴
the two routes agree to κ(A)·u at κ = 10⁶
the two routes agree to κ(A)·u at κ = 10⁸
while the same sketch used as an ANSWER is orders of magnitude away
while the unpreconditioned count grows at κ = 10¹⁰
while the unpreconditioned count grows at κ = 10⁴
while the unpreconditioned count grows at κ = 10⁶
while the unpreconditioned count grows at κ = 10⁸
Against the rule
It draws a decomposition and prints its residual. It calls
lstsqQR, sketchAndPrecondition, plainLsqr,
and every figure above carries the badge — which residualcheck verifies by looking
for it in the emitted SVG rather than by finding the call that builds one. A badge that is
constructed and then left out of the body is the failure that check exists for.
Across the library: the rule bites on 90
of 174 generators —
75 print a residual and
15 are exempt with a published reason;
84 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.
Buying the accuracy back
Factorise in single precision, then correct the answer using residuals computed in double, and the result is what a full double-precision solve would have given. Compute those residuals in single instead and the identical algorithm, at identical cost, recovers nothing.
Iterating, instead of factorisingOne sequence and two recurrences
CGLS and LSQR compute the same iterates — the minimiser over a space is unique, so there is nothing to choose between them in the algebra. At κ = 10⁶ they cost 42 steps and 47. At κ = 10¹⁰ they cost 110 and 209, across four seeds, and the quantity that separates them is the orthogonality of a basis neither of them keeps.
Where the flop count stopped predicting the timeThe message and the word
Three factorisations of one matrix on sixteen processors: 48 communication rounds, 4, and 4. The words sent are 1,170, 1,170 and 2,160 — so the method with the fewest rounds sends the most words, and the count that separates the three is the one no operation count can see.
Methods that were designed apartThe part of a solver that may be rounded
A preconditioner computed and applied with a three-bit significand still returns thirteen correct digits — it costs seventeen extra iterations and nothing else. Round the working arithmetic instead and the step count barely moves while the answer loses exactly the digits the format dropped.
Iterating, instead of factorisingThe rate the condition number predicts
Conjugate gradients converge at a rate governed by the square root of the condition number. That is a bound rather than an estimate, it is provable, and it is loose enough that provisioning iterations from it wastes nine out of ten.
Least squares, and the road not to takeThe road that squares the problem
The normal equations are the first method every course teaches and the method no library uses. Forming AᵀA squares the condition number, and below ε = √u it does not degrade — it produces a matrix that is exactly singular, from data that was perfectly usable.
Randomised, and the guarantee that changes kindThe sketch that is not the answer
Sketch-and-solve throws away the original problem and keeps the small one's answer, which is why its answer moves with the seed. Use the same sketch as a preconditioner instead and the condition number the iteration sees is the same number at every κ from a hundred to ten billion — identically the same, to nine digits, because the spectrum cancels out of it.
The arithmetic underneathWhere the hardware went
bfloat16 carries eight mantissa bits, which puts its refinement threshold at a condition number of 256. That is not an exotic matrix. It is an ordinary one, and past it the method still improves the answer by a factor of four hundred while getting nowhere near a usable one.