truncation-bound
At its defaults it draws the error a reduced model has, and the bound computed before it existed. ‖H − Hᵣ‖∞ for balanced truncation of a 20-state model, against 2Σ_{k>r}σₖ — a number available from two Lyapunov solves before any reduced model is formed — and against σᵣ₊₁, which is a lower bound no reduced model of that order can beat. The measured error and the upper bound are the same curve: the ratio is 1.0000 to 1.0000 across the sweep, spread 1.0000. The bound is attained rather than approached, because on a spectrum falling this fast the tail sum is its own first term and removing one state costs exactly twice it. The measured error sits at 2.03 times the lower bound, so the whole question of what order to truncate at is answered by a curve nobody has to compute a model to see.
truncation-bound is one function in lib/figures/gramian.js —
the bound known before the computation — hankel singular values, and the product that halves them. 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.
‖H − Hᵣ‖∞ for balanced truncation of a 20-state model, against 2Σ_{k>r}σₖ — a number available from two Lyapunov solves before any reduced model is formed — and against σᵣ₊₁, which is a lower bound no reduced model of that order can beat. The measured error and the upper bound are the same curve: the ratio is 1.0000 to 1.0000 across the sweep, spread 1.0000. The bound is attained rather than approached, because on a spectrum falling this fast the tail sum is its own first term and removing one state costs exactly twice it. The measured error sits at 2.03 times the lower bound, so the whole question of what order to truncate at is answered by a curve nobody has to compute a model to see.
upTo: 7
The arguments are the ones Exact at the points that were named 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.
‖H − Hᵣ‖∞ for balanced truncation of a 20-state model, against 2Σ_{k>r}σₖ — a number available from two Lyapunov solves before any reduced model is formed — and against σᵣ₊₁, which is a lower bound no reduced model of that order can beat. The measured error and the upper bound are the same curve: the ratio is 1.0000 to 1.0000 across the sweep, spread 1.0000. The bound is attained rather than approached, because on a spectrum falling this fast the tail sum is its own first term and removing one state costs exactly twice it. The measured error sits at 2.03 times the lower bound, so the whole question of what order to truncate at is answered by a curve nobody has to compute a model to see.
upTo: 3
The arguments are the ones The bound that is known in advance 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.
‖H − Hᵣ‖∞ for balanced truncation of a 20-state model, against 2Σ_{k>r}σₖ — a number available from two Lyapunov solves before any reduced model is formed — and against σᵣ₊₁, which is a lower bound no reduced model of that order can beat. The measured error and the upper bound are the same curve: the ratio is 1.0000 to 1.0000 across the sweep, spread 1.0000. The bound is attained rather than approached, because on a spectrum falling this fast the tail sum is its own first term and removing one state costs exactly twice it. The measured error sits at 2.11 times the lower bound, so the whole question of what order to truncate at is answered by a curve nobody has to compute a model to see.
upTo: 5
The arguments are the ones The bound that is known in advance 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.
‖H − Hᵣ‖∞ for balanced truncation of a 20-state model, against 2Σ_{k>r}σₖ — a number available from two Lyapunov solves before any reduced model is formed — and against σᵣ₊₁, which is a lower bound no reduced model of that order can beat. The measured error and the upper bound are the same curve: the ratio is 1.0000 to 1.0000 across the sweep, spread 1.0000. The bound is attained rather than approached, because on a spectrum falling this fast the tail sum is its own first term and removing one state costs exactly twice it. The measured error sits at 2.07 times the lower bound, so the whole question of what order to truncate at is answered by a curve nobody has to compute a model to see.
upTo: 9
The arguments are the ones The bound that is known in advance 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.
‖H − Hᵣ‖∞ for balanced truncation of a 20-state model, against 2Σ_{k>r}σₖ — a number available from two Lyapunov solves before any reduced model is formed — and against σᵣ₊₁, which is a lower bound no reduced model of that order can beat. The measured error and the upper bound are the same curve: the ratio is 1.0000 to 1.0000 across the sweep, spread 1.0000. The bound is attained rather than approached, because on a spectrum falling this fast the tail sum is its own first term and removing one state costs exactly twice it. The measured error sits at 2.03 times the lower bound, so the whole question of what order to truncate at is answered by a curve nobody has to compute a model to see.
upTo: 7, n: 14
The arguments are the ones The bound that is known in advance 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.
‖H − Hᵣ‖∞ for balanced truncation of a 14-state model, against 2Σ_{k>r}σₖ — a number available from two Lyapunov solves before any reduced model is formed — and against σᵣ₊₁, which is a lower bound no reduced model of that order can beat. The measured error and the upper bound are the same curve: the ratio is 1.0000 to 1.0000 across the sweep, spread 1.0000. The bound is attained rather than approached, because on a spectrum falling this fast the tail sum is its own first term and removing one state costs exactly twice it. The measured error sits at 2.02 times the lower bound, so the whole question of what order to truncate at is answered by a curve nobody has to compute a model to see.
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.
14 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 degree the state dimension can carry
a grid fine enough to have modes and coarse enough to draw
a Lyapunov equation with a solution
a reduction that removes something and keeps something
a state dimension the sweep can afford
a sweep long enough to be one
a sweep with something in it
a truncation above the numerical rank of the Gramians
an actuator and a sensor on the grid
and every error is above the σ it neglected
Jacobi needs a symmetric matrix
LU is for square matrices
matmul shapes agree
the bound is attained at every order on this family
Against the rule
It draws a decomposition and prints its residual. It calls
hankelSingularValues, balancedTruncation, reductionError,
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 192
of 346 generators —
174 print a residual and
18 are exempt with a published reason;
154 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.
Exact at the points that were named
Balanced truncation asks for nothing and bounds everything, at a cost no large model can pay. The other kind of reduction asks for r numbers, costs r solves, is exact at every one of them — and bounds nothing anywhere else. That trade is the whole of large-scale model reduction.
Reduction, and what a model is forInterpolating at the model’s own poles
One choice of interpolation points is not arbitrary — the mirrored poles of the model about to be built. It is a fixed point rather than a guess, and when it is reached it beats a method costing O(n³) — by 0.4 per cent, which is the honest size of the whole contest.
Reduction, and what a model is forThe bound that is known in advance
Almost every error on this site is measured after the fact. Balanced truncation has one that is computable before the reduced model exists, in a norm of a function rather than of a residual — and on ordinary problems it is not an upper bound that is loose. It is attained.
Reduction, and what a model is forThe product nobody had to form
The Hankel singular values are the square roots of the eigenvalues of PQ. Form that product and half of them stop existing, at a floor this site can predict from one number — and the fix is the one the least-squares field has had since its first essay, arriving in a place with no least-squares problem in it.
Two errors, and whose fault they areThree errors and one number
This site's identity has two factors and a division of blame between them. Two fields have now added a third party and a fourth, and only one of the four is a property of anything — the others are decisions, made before the arithmetic, reported by nothing.
Reduction, and what a model is forWhere to put the poles of a rational function
Three times in one field the same question arrives from different directions — ADI shifts, rational approximation of a square root, the decay of a Gramian — and it has one answer. Cluster them geometrically towards wherever the function is difficult, and the alternative that looks reasonable costs orders.
Reduction, and what a model is forWhy a Gramian can be truncated at all
Every method in this field rests on one fact nobody states the reason for — the eigenvalues of a Gramian fall off a cliff. The equation defining it has a rank-one right-hand side and no low-rank structure anywhere — and the answer's decay is a rational approximation problem with a closed-form rate.