Generator

trust-region-share

One function in the curvature library, called 3 times across 1 essay. Below: what it draws at its defaults, what it draws at every value an essay asks for, the 9 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 steihaug's model decrease as a share of the exact trust-region answer, against the radius. The quadratic model is ½xᵀAx − bᵀx on the same 40×40 matrix, positive definite apart from one eigenvalue at -0.1. At Δ = 0.25 the truncated conjugate gradient gets 89.2 per cent of what the exact subproblem solution gets, for 2 matrix–vector products against a full symmetric eigendecomposition and a secular equation. The share falls monotonically to 36.9 per cent at Δ = 16. The open marks are the radii at which the step stopped because the curvature turned rather than because it reached the boundary; the crossover is at Δ = 4.

trust-region-share is one function in lib/figures/curvature.js — negative curvature — the division that cannot be done, as an output. 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.

Steihaug's model decrease as a share of the exact trust-region answer, against the radiusThe quadratic model is ½xᵀAx − bᵀx on the same 40×40 matrix, positive definite apart from one eigenvalue at -0.1. At Δ = 0.25 the truncated conjugate gradient gets 89.2 per cent of what the exact subproblem solution gets, for 2 matrix–vector products against a full symmetric eigendecomposition and a secular equation. The share falls monotonically to 36.9 per cent at Δ = 16. The open marks are the radii at which the step stopped because the curvature turned rather than because it reached the boundary; the crossover is at Δ = 4.110¹00.30.60.91.2trust-region radius Δshare of the exact model decreasethe exact subproblem7 radii, n = 40share at the smallest radius0.89share at the largest0.37products, at most6radii stopped by the curvature3a few products against an eigendecompositionand most of the decrease

The quadratic model is ½xᵀAx − bᵀx on the same 40×40 matrix, positive definite apart from one eigenvalue at -0.1. At Δ = 0.25 the truncated conjugate gradient gets 89.2 per cent of what the exact subproblem solution gets, for 2 matrix–vector products against a full symmetric eigendecomposition and a secular equation. The share falls monotonically to 36.9 per cent at Δ = 16. The open marks are the radii at which the step stopped because the curvature turned rather than because it reached the boundary; the crossover is at Δ = 4.

logLambda: -1

The arguments are the ones The division that cannot be done 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.

Steihaug's model decrease as a share of the exact trust-region answer, against the radiusThe quadratic model is ½xᵀAx − bᵀx on the same 40×40 matrix, positive definite apart from one eigenvalue at -0.1. At Δ = 0.25 the truncated conjugate gradient gets 89.2 per cent of what the exact subproblem solution gets, for 2 matrix–vector products against a full symmetric eigendecomposition and a secular equation. The share falls monotonically to 36.9 per cent at Δ = 16. The open marks are the radii at which the step stopped because the curvature turned rather than because it reached the boundary; the crossover is at Δ = 4.110¹00.30.60.91.2trust-region radius Δshare of the exact model decreasethe exact subproblem7 radii, n = 40share at the smallest radius0.89share at the largest0.37products, at most6radii stopped by the curvature3a few products against an eigendecompositionand most of the decrease

The quadratic model is ½xᵀAx − bᵀx on the same 40×40 matrix, positive definite apart from one eigenvalue at -0.1. At Δ = 0.25 the truncated conjugate gradient gets 89.2 per cent of what the exact subproblem solution gets, for 2 matrix–vector products against a full symmetric eigendecomposition and a secular equation. The share falls monotonically to 36.9 per cent at Δ = 16. The open marks are the radii at which the step stopped because the curvature turned rather than because it reached the boundary; the crossover is at Δ = 4.

logLambda: 1

The arguments are the ones The division that cannot be done 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.

Steihaug's model decrease as a share of the exact trust-region answer, against the radiusThe quadratic model is ½xᵀAx − bᵀx on the same 40×40 matrix, positive definite apart from one eigenvalue at -10. At Δ = 0.25 the truncated conjugate gradient gets 39.6 per cent of what the exact subproblem solution gets, for 2 matrix–vector products against a full symmetric eigendecomposition and a secular equation. The share falls monotonically to 35.2 per cent at Δ = 16. The open marks are the radii at which the step stopped because the curvature turned rather than because it reached the boundary; the crossover is at Δ = 0.25.110¹00.30.60.91.2trust-region radius Δshare of the exact model decreasethe exact subproblem7 radii, n = 40share at the smallest radius0.4share at the largest0.35products, at most2radii stopped by the curvature7a few products against an eigendecompositionand most of the decrease

The quadratic model is ½xᵀAx − bᵀx on the same 40×40 matrix, positive definite apart from one eigenvalue at -10. At Δ = 0.25 the truncated conjugate gradient gets 39.6 per cent of what the exact subproblem solution gets, for 2 matrix–vector products against a full symmetric eigendecomposition and a secular equation. The share falls monotonically to 35.2 per cent at Δ = 16. The open marks are the radii at which the step stopped because the curvature turned rather than because it reached the boundary; the crossover is at Δ = 0.25.

logLambda: -3

The arguments are the ones The division that cannot be done 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.

Steihaug's model decrease as a share of the exact trust-region answer, against the radiusThe quadratic model is ½xᵀAx − bᵀx on the same 40×40 matrix, positive definite apart from one eigenvalue at -0.001. At Δ = 0.25 the truncated conjugate gradient gets 89.8 per cent of what the exact subproblem solution gets, for 2 matrix–vector products against a full symmetric eigendecomposition and a secular equation. The share falls monotonically to 68.3 per cent at Δ = 16. The open marks are the radii at which the step stopped because the curvature turned rather than because it reached the boundary; the crossover is at Δ = —.110¹00.30.60.91.2trust-region radius Δshare of the exact model decreasethe exact subproblem7 radii, n = 40share at the smallest radius0.9share at the largest0.68products, at most8radii stopped by the curvature0a few products against an eigendecompositionand most of the decrease

The quadratic model is ½xᵀAx − bᵀx on the same 40×40 matrix, positive definite apart from one eigenvalue at -0.001. At Δ = 0.25 the truncated conjugate gradient gets 89.8 per cent of what the exact subproblem solution gets, for 2 matrix–vector products against a full symmetric eigendecomposition and a secular equation. The share falls monotonically to 68.3 per cent at Δ = 16. The open marks are the radii at which the step stopped because the curvature turned rather than because it reached the boundary; the crossover is at Δ = —.

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.

9 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 negative eigenvalue inside the range the sweep covers

a power of ten rather than an exponent literal

and is well down by the largest radius

and Steihaug's step decreases it by a share of that, never more

at a handful of products against a full eigendecomposition

Jacobi needs a symmetric matrix

the exact subproblem decreases the model at every radius

the share falls as the region grows, at every radius but at most one

with the curvature stopping every step, the share is nearly flat

Against the rule

It draws a decomposition and prints its residual. It calls trustRegionSweep, 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 113 of 219 generators — 98 print a residual and 15 are exempt with a published reason; 106 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