Numerical Linear Algebra
where the algebra stops being the arithmetic
Theme

The thread: Assertions that reject — page 2

Essays 25 to 48 of the 65 on this theme, in the same order.
10¹10³10⁵10⁷10⁹10¹¹10¹³10¹⁵10⁻¹⁸10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹²10⁻⁹10⁻⁶10⁻³1κ₂(A), the matrix that was updatedrelative forward errorSherman–Morrisondirect solve of A + uvᵀone answer, two routesκ of the answer's matrix1κ of the matrix replaced10·10¹³update formula's error2.5·10⁻⁴direct solve's error1.1·10⁻¹⁶the question's condition number is 1at every point on this axis Least squares, and the road not to take

A correction cheaper than the problem

Sherman and Morrison's formula updates a solved system for a rank-one change to the matrix, at 4n² operations instead of (2/3)n³. It is exact algebra. On a problem whose updated matrix is the identity — condition number one, the easiest system there is — it returns a forward error of 2.5·10⁻⁴ where a direct solve returns 10⁻¹⁶.

 159131721252910⁻¹⁶10⁻¹³10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁷10⁻⁴10⁻¹steprelative error in the orthogonal factorNewtonNewton, scaledNewton–Schulzone fixed point, three costsscaled Newton, steps7Newton–Schulz, steps28Newton at step 657scaled Newton at step 64.4·10⁻¹³a Newton step needs an inverseand a Schulz step needs two products Orthogonality, measured

An iteration that only multiplies

Newton's iteration for the polar factor needs an inverse every step. Newton–Schulz needs only matrix products — nothing that reads an entry, nothing that pivots — and it converges if and only if every singular value is below √3. At 1.73205 it converges and at 1.73206 it returns an orthogonal matrix that is not the answer, with a residual of 5·10⁻¹⁶ and nothing to say so.

 00.250.50.751-1-0.500.51mode frequency θ / πdamping factor per sweeppredicted±0.333measureda coarse grid seestwo routes to one factorsmoothing factor, scanned0.33smoothing factor, closed form0.33worst mode disagreement4.4·10⁻¹⁶63 interior points, one sweepthe left-hand end is what the coarse grid is for Iterating, instead of factorising

The error smoothing cannot reach

One weighted Jacobi sweep multiplies every mode of the error by a number, and the number is a sine. Half the modes are cut by three or better, and the other half come back at 0.999 — which is not a failure of the method but the fact the whole of multigrid is built on.

 the bound211no pivoting127τ = 0.00198τ = 0.003100τ = 0.01106τ = 0.03111τ = 0.1116τ = 0.3117τ = 1138entries in Ua bound, and its slackthe bound, from the graph alone211the worst that occurs138loose by1.5no arithmetic was done to compute the bound — only the pattern of AᵀA and its elimination graphGeorge and Ng: U fits inside chol(AᵀA), whatever the swapsprovable, cheap, and loose Sparsity, and what elimination costs

What the symbolic phase can only bound

Without pivoting, the fill can be computed from the graph and the count is exact — 233 predicted, 233 measured. With pivoting it is 233 predicted and 242 measured, and what survives is a bound that is right at every threshold and loose by 1.7 times at the largest grid drawn.

 3000000120000-21000000-0.5-1.500001.5-0.5000000-2T = ZᵀAZthe highlighted boxes each hold one conjugate pair, and no real rotation removes themthe form, and that it is one‖A − ZTZᵀ‖/‖A‖1.8·10⁻¹⁵‖ZᵀZ − I‖2.5·10⁻¹⁵worst eigenvalue error2.7·10⁻¹⁵surviving subdiagonal26×6, spectrum chosen before the matrix was builtquasi-triangular is as far as the reals go Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

The form a real matrix can reach

A real matrix with complex eigenvalues has no real triangular form, and the reason is one line — a real triangular matrix has a real diagonal, and a similarity does not move the spectrum. What it has instead is triangular except for one two-by-two block per conjugate pair, and the count is decided by the matrix rather than by where the iteration stopped.

 3456789101100.250.50.751bits in the exponent fieldeach curve as a fraction of its own maximumbfloat16fp16rangeprecisionto 617 decadesto 3.9 digitswhat the split buysbfloat16: largest number3.4·10³⁸fp16: largest number6.6·10⁴a bit of exponent doubles the rangea bit of significand adds a third of a digit The arithmetic underneath

The other half of a format

fp16 and tf32 have the same eleven significand bits and their largest numbers are 65,504 and 3.4·10³⁸. For two phases this site simulated the significand alone, so it was obliged to report them as the same format — which is a claim, and a false one.

 27121722273237424710⁻²10⁻¹110¹subspace size kvalueno answer below 8GCV's traceλ from GCVλ from the residuala denominator that is not the problem'strace at k = 41trace at k = 4827λ range across the run2.2subspace before an answer8the divisor moves by twenty-sevenand the answer does not move Methods that were designed apart

A parameter chosen on a smaller problem

Inside a hybrid method the regularisation parameter is chosen on a 25×24 problem rather than a 64×64 one. The rule that reads a residual transfers exactly; the rule that reads a trace is biased by exactly two grid steps at twenty-four steps and one at forty, at every noise level from 10% to 0.1%.

 10²11.251.51.7522.25processorstraffic saved, as a factorthe √4 the law promisesbreak-evenmeasureda limit is not a sizesaving at p = 640.88saving at p = 5761.4what the law promises2memory, as a factor4a loss at sixty-four processorsand 72% of the law at five hundred Where the flop count stopped predicting the time

Memory bought with messages

Holding four copies of the data instead of one is supposed to cut a matrix multiplication's communication by √4. Measured on a machine of 64 processors it costs 14% more traffic; at 576 it saves 44%, which is 72% of what the law promises. The memory is exactly four times, and that part is not asymptotic.

 D from PAPᵀ = LDLᵀ — the shaded pairs are 2×2 pivots10⁻⁶0.749······0.749·········1.2·10⁻⁶1.4······1.4·········2.1·10⁻⁶0.549······0.549·········3.6·10⁻⁶0.614······0.614·three rules, one matrix‖PAPᵀ − LDLᵀ‖, blocks5.8·10⁻¹⁷‖PAPᵀ − LDLᵀ‖, diagonal3.1·10⁻¹¹growth, blocks1.3growth, diagonal5·10⁵the zero block is what the problem saysand one rule does not need it to be nonzero Elimination, and the swap

When symmetry is not enough

The matrix [[0, 1], [1, 0]] is symmetric, nonsingular and perfectly conditioned, and there is no diagonal entry to pivot on. Every factorisation restricted to symmetric interchanges and one-by-one pivots fails on it, at any depth of searching, because every entry it could search is zero. The repair is to take two variables at once.

 10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹³10⁻¹²10⁻¹¹10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁹10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹²10⁻⁹10⁻⁶10⁻³1relative size of the entrywise perturbationrelative forward errorκ_∞ · εcond(A,x) · εmeasuredboth bounds holdκ_∞(A)1.9·10⁸cond(A, x)4.8ratio of the bounds4·10⁷both curves above the data are boundsand only one of them is a measurement Two errors, and whose fault they are

A condition number scaling cannot move

Skeel's componentwise condition number is invariant under any row scaling — exactly, before any norm is taken, because two diagonal factors cancel entry by entry. It is never larger than the normwise one and can be arbitrarily smaller, and the ratio between them is a diagnostic for which kind of ill-conditioning a matrix has.

 110¹10²10³10⁴10⁵10⁶10⁷10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁶10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹³10⁻¹²10⁻¹¹10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁹10⁻⁸1/(1 − h), the leverage of the removed row‖R̄ᵀR̄ − (G − aaᵀ)‖ / ‖G − aaᵀ‖downdatedrefactorisedat h = 1 − 10⁻⁷κ of the downdated matrix4.3κ of the matrix downdated9.3·10⁶rotation's amplification344downdate residual3.5·10⁻¹⁰a hyperbolic rotation is not orthogonaland that is exactly what it is for Least squares, and the road not to take

The observation that cannot be removed

Removing a rank-one term from a Cholesky factor needs a rotation that is not orthogonal, and the number under its square root is 1 − h, where h is the leverage of the row being removed. The algorithm's breakdown condition and the statistician's warning are the same quantity, arrived at from opposite ends, and neither field states it in the other's language.

 01234567810⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹110¹μ, the entry above the diagonalsep, and the eigenvalue gapmin |λᵢ + μⱼ|sep(A, B)the spectra never moveeigenvalue gap, throughout2sep at μ = 02sep at μ = 89.5·10⁻⁴amplification there1056solvability is the eigenvaluesand conditioning is not Structure, and the solver that cannot see it

An equation whose unknown is a matrix

AX + XB = C is linear in X, so it has a coefficient matrix, and writing it down is the obvious thing to do. At n = 100 that matrix has a hundred million entries for a problem with ten thousand unknowns, and the algorithm everybody uses instead never forms it. Its conditioning is not the eigenvalue gap either, which is the number a reader is invited to consult.

 0.46-1.11.5-0.470.2-0.181.90.690.42-0.160.028-0.0160-1.50.160.880.099-0.1100.680.762.30.930.0480-0.250.110.952.11.500001.52.3after reflector 2the highlighted entries are the bulge — the only thing that is not Hessenbergentries below the subdiagonal3reflectors used2reflectors in a whole step5the shifts are never formed — only their sum and productand both of those are real Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

Two shifts that are never formed

The double shift is defined as a factorisation of (A − μI)(A − μ̄I), which nobody computes. What is computed is the first column of that product — three numbers — and the bulge those three numbers create, pushed down the subdiagonal by n − 2 reflectors until it falls off the bottom.

 -47-37-27-17-7313233301234log₁₀ of the vector's normfp1611 bitsbfloat168 bitstf3211 bitsbinary3224 bitspale: the format's range · blue: √(Σ(xᵢ/m)²)·m · red: √(Σxᵢ²)fp16 and tf32 have the same eleven significand bitsand their bars do not overlap The arithmetic underneath

A norm that overflows before it is a norm

The vector of sixteen thousands has a Euclidean norm of 4,000, which fp16 represents exactly. Written as the square root of the sum of squares it returns infinity, because squaring doubles the exponent — and the expression costs half the format's range on the one computation every iterative method performs at every step.

 the estimator maximises this quantity over the columns it visitscolumn 1 ‹visited›12column 2 ‹the answer›114column 311.4column 411.4column 511.4column 611.4column 711.4column 811.4column 911.4column 1011.4column 1111.4column 1211.4estimate 12.0a walk that stopped earlythe estimate returned12the true 1-norm114columns visited1products with the matrix5the walk's own stopping test firedand every column it could see was smaller Two errors, and whose fault they are

An estimate that can be fooled

Nobody computes a condition number, because forming an inverse costs more than the solve did. Every library estimates it instead, from four or five products with a factorisation already in hand. The estimate is exactly right on four random matrices out of five — and there is a matrix, three distinct entries wide, on which it returns a twentieth of the truth.

 10⁻²10⁻¹110¹10²10³10⁴10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹1backward error, in units of ushare of systems above ituCramereliminationCramer, control24-bit arithmeticworst Cramer, in u395worst elimination, in u1.2control, worst Cramer4.9κ of the worst system3.4·10⁶one derivation, two computationsand only one of them is stable Elimination, and the swap

A rule that is correct and unusable

Cramer's rule gives every component of the solution in closed form, in terms of determinants, and it is a theorem. On two-by-two systems whose rows are nearly parallel it returns an answer with a backward error of 458 units of roundoff where elimination returns 1.3 — on a matrix whose condition number is 32,000 and which elimination solved perfectly.

 10¹10¹.³10¹.⁶10¹.⁹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰¹10².²00.250.50.751grid points nresidual reduction per stepJacobiGauss–SeidelV-cycleV-cycle spread, 8× in size0.003Jacobi at n = 1270.99work exponent, fitted0.079the dashed curve is cos(πh), Jacobi's closed formthe flat line is the whole method Iterating, instead of factorising

A rate that does not notice the size

The V-cycle reduces the residual by a factor of ten a cycle at fifteen points and at a hundred and twenty-seven. Jacobi on the same four problems goes from 0.981 to 0.9978, climbing towards one. One of those is a constant and the other is an exponent, and that is the whole distinction the field turns on.

 10⁻⁷10⁻⁵10⁻³10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁸10⁻⁶magnitudespacing to the next numberthe smallest normalgradualflush to zerosmallest normal6.1·10⁻⁵smallest subnormal6·10⁻⁸octaves of subnormals10pairs that lie under FTZ10the spacing stops halving and stays putwhich is what makes x − y = 0 mean x = y The arithmetic underneath

The numbers below the smallest one

Below the smallest normal number the spacing stops halving and stays put, all the way to zero. That is what gradual underflow is, and the thing it buys is the sentence every algorithm assumes without being told — x minus y is zero only when x equals y.

 does this matrix look nearly singular?green: the test agrees with the truth · red: it does not · the bar under each number is its magnitude, over sixty-two decades|det A||det A|^(1/n)σ_min1/κ = σ_min/σ_max0.1·I at n = 40perfectly conditioned10⁻⁴⁰0.10.11κ = 10¹⁰, |det| = 1nearly singular1110·10⁻⁶10·10⁻¹¹Hilbert at n = 8nearly singular2.7·10⁻³³8.5·10⁻⁵1.1·10⁻¹⁰6.6·10⁻¹¹the two counterexamplesκ of the scaled identity1its determinant10⁻⁴⁰κ of the normalised matrix10¹⁰its determinant1det(cA) = cⁿ det(A)so a determinant carries the units n times over Two errors, and whose fault they are

The number that decides nothing

The determinant is the first scalar anybody attaches to a matrix and the last one worth consulting. A tenth of the identity has a determinant of 10⁻⁶⁰ and a condition number of exactly one. The Hilbert matrix's determinant stops being right at n = 13 and stops being a number at n = 29, and nothing in between reports either.

 10²10⁴10⁶10⁸10¹⁰10¹²10¹⁴10⁻¹⁸10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹²10⁻⁹10⁻⁶10⁻³1κ₂(A)relative errorforward, A⁻¹bforward, A\bbackward, A⁻¹bbackward, A\bat κ = 10¹⁴η, LU solve2.2·10⁻¹⁷η, via the inverse4.5·10⁻⁵forward, LU solve2.8·10⁻⁴forward, via the inverse0.015one factorisation, two ways to use itand one of them forfeits the backward error Elimination, and the swap

The inverse that is never formed

x = A⁻¹b is how the solution of a linear system is written and it is not how it is computed. The usual reason given is cost — three times the arithmetic. The real reason is that one of the two routes is backward stable and the other is not, and at κ = 10¹⁴ they differ by twelve orders of magnitude in the number that says whose fault a wrong answer is.

 -0.0833-0.167-0.0833-0.1671-0.167-0.0833-0.167-0.0833R · A · P, normalised to a unit centrestored entries per rowlevel 0 · 31×314.87/rowlevel 1 · 15×158.22/rowlevel 2 · 7×77.37/rowlevel 3 · 3×35.44/rowlevel 4 · 1×11.00/rowstill a stencil, still annihilates a constantentries in an interior row9weight outside the 3×30row sum0the isotropic model problemnine, at every level below the first Iterating, instead of factorising

The coarse problem is a different problem

In one dimension the Galerkin coarse operator is the coarse discretisation, entry for entry — this site asserted it. In two dimensions a five-point operator produces a nine-point coarse one, so the recursion solves a different discretisation at every level below the first, and converges at 0.20 a cycle regardless.

 θx (frequency across x)θy0π/2π0π/2πthe coarse grid'sunder 0.2under 0.40under 0.60under 0.80under 0.95under 1.01damping per sweeptwo routessmoothing factor, scanned1closed form130×30 frequency cellsthe marker is the mode nothing removes Iterating, instead of factorising

A direction the smoother cannot see

Give the Laplacian a strong direction and multigrid stops working — from 0.2016 a cycle to 0.9565 — with every component unchanged and the condition number identical to twelve digits. The problem did not get harder. The link between the method's two halves broke.

 the invariant planesolid: beforedashed: aftersame perturbation, two questionsthe vectors turned, radians0.029the plane turned, radians7.6·10⁻⁸what left the plane5.6·10⁻⁸drawn in the unperturbed plane's own basisa radius is not determined; the circle is Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

The plane survives what its vectors do not

At a gap of 10⁻⁹ a perturbation of 10⁻⁶ turns the two eigenvectors through half a radian and turns the plane they span through 7.6·10⁻⁸ — a ratio of six million. Ask for the subspace instead of the vectors and a hopeless computation becomes a well-conditioned one, with no change to the arithmetic.

 λ = 105 timesλ = 9.55 timesλ = 95 timesλ = 8.55 timesλ = 2.952 timesλ = 2.92 timeseigenvalues that arrived more than once — the matrix has 40 distinct onesa spectrum with the wrong multiplicitiesextra copies, no reorthogonalisation25extra copies, full reorthogonalisation0worst relative error among the copies1.9·10⁻⁸steps taken of 80 asked for, full40no arithmetic error was madeevery one of these is right to eight digits Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

An eigenvalue that arrives twice

A matrix with forty distinct eigenvalues, handed to Lanczos for eighty steps, returns twenty-five extra copies of thirteen of them — the largest arriving five times. Every copy is accurate to 1.9·10⁻⁸ relative. No arithmetic error was made, nothing overflowed, and a caller counting eigenvalues gets the wrong multiplicity from a computation in which no individual number is wrong.

All themes