Numerical Linear Algebra
where the algebra stops being the arithmetic
Ladder

Regularisation — the ladder

2 distinct arguments against one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. 081624324048566400.250.50.751index kfilter factor fₖno regularisation: fₖ = 1truncationTikhonovthe same sum, three weightsTikhonov, relative error0.11truncation, relative error0.11no filter at all5.5·10⁸both filters are one expression with a different weightfₖ = 1 is the catastrophe

    When the answer is a choice

    A backward-stable least-squares solve of this problem returns an answer whose relative error is 5.5·10⁸. Nothing went wrong. The singular values decay exponentially with no gap anywhere in them, the data does not determine the answer, and something outside the data has to choose — which is the computation rather than a preliminary to it.

    rung 1 · regularisation
  2. 081624324048566410⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹index kmagnitudethe floor: k = 32best truncation: k = 28σₖ|uₖᵀb| exact|uₖᵀb| with noisetwo different indicesthe crossing, from the data alone32the truncation that is actually best28relative error there0.11the exact coefficients never flattenthe noisy ones stop at ‖e‖/√n

    Where the answer stops being in the data

    The Picard condition finds the index where a noisy right-hand side stops carrying signal, from the data alone, with no knowledge of the answer. It lands at 32 where the truncation that actually minimises the error is 28 — and at 45 where the best is 38. It overshoots at every noise level from 1% to 0.001%, and it overshoots for a reason.

    rung 2 · regularisation

All ladders