Numerical Linear Algebra
where the algebra stops being the arithmetic
Theme

The thread: Measured, not assumed — page 3

Essays 49 to 72 of the 465 on this theme, in the same order.
1357911131510⁻¹⁸10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹²10⁻⁹10⁻⁶10⁻³1index kσₖ ÷ σ₁σ₁√utwo factorstheir productthe normal equations, againroutes agree to k =6product floors at9.7·10⁻¹⁰σ₁√u2.3·10⁻⁹κ(P)κ(Q)1.8·10³⁶√ of it1.3·10¹⁸do not form the productthe σ below the line are the bound Reduction, and what a model is for

The 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 one number predicts — 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.

 051210241536204810⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴terms consumederror accumulated so farone accumulator8 piecesthe steps are the partial sumspeak partial sum32the answer1.6·10⁻⁵error, one piece7.6·10⁻¹⁴error, 8 pieces2.4·10⁻¹⁴mean at p = 648.1·10⁻¹⁵the walk sets the sizeand nothing sets the value The answer that depends on the machine

Where the disagreement comes from

The error of a reduction is a walk whose step length is the spacing of the running total, not of the answer. That one sentence predicts the size of the disagreement to a factor of two, explains why dividing the work makes it smaller, and explains why the value cannot be predicted at all.

 051015202530354010⁻¹¹10⁻⁹10⁻⁷10⁻⁵10⁻³10⁻¹iteration‖r‖ / ‖b‖plain CGIC(0) CGwhat the preconditioner didκ(A)48κ(L⁻¹AL⁻ᵀ)5.1‖A − LLᵀ‖/‖A‖0.0832D Laplacian, n = 100√κ ratio predicts 3.07× Iterating, instead of factorising

Changing the condition number on purpose

Preconditioning is usually introduced as a trick that makes an iteration converge faster. It is not a trick. It is solving a different system with the same solution and a condition number chosen rather than inherited, and the new condition number is computable.

 0816243240110²10⁴10⁶10⁸10¹⁰10¹²10¹⁴matrix size ngrowth factor max|u| / max|a|the 2ⁿ⁻¹ boundworst of 30 randommedian randomWilkinson's matrix sits on the bound30 Gaussian matrices per sizeat n = 40: bound 5.5·10¹¹, worst 4.8 Elimination, and the swap

The bound that is never attained

Partial pivoting's stability guarantee permits the entries to double at every step — a factor of 5.5·10¹¹ at n = 40. The measured growth on random matrices of that size is about three. The gap is eleven orders of magnitude, and the guarantee is still worth having.

 110¹10²10³10⁴10⁵10⁶10⁷00.250.50.751amplification of the input perturbationfraction of directions at or belowκ = 10·10⁵worst found 7.6·10⁵6×6, 200 directionsmedian reaches 0.29 of κ Two errors, and whose fault they are

The condition number is an amplifier

κ is usually introduced as a definition and then quoted. It is a measurement: perturb the input by a known amount, look at how much the output moves, and the largest ratio you can find is the number.

 10¹10²10³10⁴10⁵10⁶10⁻⁹10⁻⁷10⁻⁵10⁻³10⁻¹number of terms addedrelative error against the exact sumin orderin a treecompensatedbinary32 · terms are 1/icompensated: 3·10⁻⁸ The arithmetic underneath

The order they are added in

Addition is associative in the algebra and is not associative in the arithmetic. The same million numbers, added in a different order, give answers that differ in the third significant figure — and the fix is not a wider float, it is a different order.

 1611162126110¹10²10³degree of the grounded vertexcondition number of what is left1, the best choicea parameter nobody setsvertices tried30best κ1at degree29worst κ898at degree1spread898one row and column deletedand it matters which The matrix that is a graph

The vertex nobody solves for

A Laplacian is singular, so every solve with one has to remove its kernel first. There are three ways, they agree to fourteen digits, and the one everybody uses carries a free parameter that no account of the method mentions and that moves the condition number by nine hundred.

 110¹10²10³10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹110¹10²10³n‖Aₙ − A‖ and the largest term's norm‖Aₙ − A‖the larger of its two termsan infimum that is not attainedn1024‖Aₙ − A‖0.0017largest term1024their product1.7√31.7the distance goes to zeroand nothing reaches it When the index is a tuple

A nearest point that is not there

Eckart and Young guarantee that a matrix has a best rank-k approximation and that the truncated SVD is it. For three indices the guarantee is false in the strongest available way — there are tensors whose distance to the rank-two set is zero and which no rank-two tensor equals.

 10²110¹10²size niterations to 10⁻¹⁰λₘᵢₙ(C) changes signno preconditionerStrang's circulantthe preconditioner's own spectrumλₘᵢₙ(C) at n = 16-0.4λₘᵢₙ(C) at n = 32-0.14λₘᵢₙ(C) at n = 640.016λₘᵢₙ(C) at n = 1280.051λₘᵢₙ(C) at n = 2560.053left of the line the repair costs stepsright of it, the count stops counting n Structure, and the solver that cannot see it

A preconditioner that changes sign

Strang's circulant preconditioner takes Toeplitz conjugate gradients from 179 steps to 10 at n = 256. At n = 64 on the same family it takes 66 steps to 109 — worse than doing nothing. Between those rows the preconditioner's smallest eigenvalue crosses zero, and nothing in the published account of the method mentions that it can be negative.

 classical Gram–Schmidt4.62·10⁻¹⁰modified Gram–Schmidt1.49·10⁻¹²Householder, one sweep2.03·10⁻¹⁴reduction tree, 16 leaves1.48·10⁻¹⁵departure from orthogonality, logarithmicthe tree, at four depths‖AᵀA − RᵀR‖/‖AᵀA‖, depth 13.4·10⁻¹⁵‖AᵀA − RᵀR‖/‖AᵀA‖, depth 24.3·10⁻¹⁵‖AᵀA − RᵀR‖/‖AᵀA‖, depth 31.7·10⁻¹⁵‖AᵀA − RᵀR‖/‖AᵀA‖, depth 41.5·10⁻¹⁵the same algebra, four timestwo of them are products of reflections Where the flop count stopped predicting the time

A reduction that changes the order

A tall-skinny QR computed as a tree of independent block factorisations touches a 512×12 matrix once instead of twelve times, computes a completely different sequence of roundings from the sweep it replaces, and returns ‖AᵀA − RᵀR‖/‖AᵀA‖ = 1.65·10⁻¹⁵ against the sweep's 9.95·10⁻¹⁵. On the same matrix classical Gram–Schmidt returns 4.6·10⁻¹⁰.

 10⁻²10⁻¹110¹10²10³10⁴‖Ax − b‖‖x‖the oraclediscrepancyL-curvegeneralisedscored against a truth none hasoracle, relative error0.11discrepancy principle, as a multiple1.1L-curve corner, as a multiple2.3generalised cross-validation, as a multiple1the oracle needs the exact answer and is not a methodit is the reference the others are scored on Regularisation, and the answer that is chosen

Choosing without knowing

Three published rules for choosing a regularisation parameter, scored against an oracle that requires the exact answer and is therefore not a method. Generalised cross-validation lands on the oracle's λ exactly; the discrepancy principle costs 6%; the L-curve costs 129%. And told a noise level ten times too small, the discrepancy principle's error goes from 0.112 to 10,449.

 04812162010⁻¹10⁻⁰.⁵1target rank k‖A − Aₖ‖₂published boundrandomisedσₖ₊₁, optimalhow far apart the three areworst seed spread1.1bound / median at k = 1211median / optimum at k = 12160×60, 6 seeds, oversampling p = 5band is best to worst Randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind

Randomisation does not create structure

On a matrix whose singular values are all equal, a rank-ten randomised approximation has error 1.0 — and so does the optimal deterministic one. Neither achieved anything, and only one of them is usually sold with the implication that it might.

 H13 x = b, b formed exactly so that x = (1, 2, …, 13)12345678910111213exact1.00002.00003.00133.97865.18864.993010.46720.048921.2657-2.575319.21478.906013.5113computed6.6 correct digits4.8 correct digits3.4 correct digits2.3 correct digits1.4 correct digit0.8 correct digitno correct digitsno correct digitsno correct digitsno correct digitsno correct digits0.6 correct digit1.4 correct digitbackward error2.2·10⁻¹⁷κ = 1.7·10¹⁸The algorithm solved a neighbouring problem perfectly. That problem's answer is this one.right-hand side built in BigInt rationalsthe truth is known Two errors, and whose fault they are

An answer that is known

Almost every demonstration of numerical error estimates the error by computing the same thing more carefully. The Hilbert matrix does not need that: its inverse is a closed form in integers, so the true answer is available exactly and the error is measured rather than approximated.

 10¹10²10³10⁴00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.50.550.60.650.70.750.80.850.90.951drawsshare with real rank twoπ/4 = 0.78539815,705 of 19,953 have rank twoa probability with a closed formdraws2·10⁴rank two1.6·10⁴share0.79π/40.79standard errors out0.59two typical ranksand the split is π/4 When the index is a tuple

A rank that is not a property of the tensor

The same eight real numbers have rank three over the reals and rank two over the complexes, and a random 2 × 2 × 2 tensor has rank two with probability exactly π/4. Neither sentence has an analogue for matrices, where the rank is one number and a random matrix has the largest one.

 the matrix105 entriescorner first — sparsest227 entries, growth 1.9·10¹¹largest first — safe242 entries, growth 1.19the middle factor is the smaller one, and its answer has no correct digitsboth factorisations reproduce the matrix‖PA − LU‖/‖A‖, sparsest3.8·10⁻¹⁷‖PA − LU‖/‖A‖, pivoted5.4·10⁻¹⁷forward error, sparsest3·10⁻⁵forward error, pivoted4.8·10⁻¹⁶red marks are entries elimination createdthe fill argument and the stability argument disagree Sparsity, and what elimination costs

Structure and stability stop being separable

The sparsest variable to eliminate on this matrix has a diagonal entry of 10⁻¹². Eliminating it produces the smaller factor, reproduces the matrix to 3.8·10⁻¹⁷ — better than pivoting does — and returns an answer wrong in the fifth digit.

 0357010514017521024528010⁻¹⁶10⁻¹³10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁷10⁻⁴10⁻¹iteration|subdiagonal entry|no shiftRayleighWilkinsontwo routes to one raterate, from the spectrum0.9rate, measured0.9iterations, none / Wilkinson45symmetric 4×4, spectrum 8, 4, 2, 1.8the dashed line is the prediction Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

The algorithm the libraries actually run

Factorise, multiply the factors back in the other order, repeat. That description is complete and correct and produces something nobody would use — on a matrix with eigenvalues +1 and −1 it does not converge at all, and the subdiagonal entry does not move by so much as a rounding error.

 036912151821242700.250.50.7511.25index kweight appliedonebidiagonalArnoldiis it a function of σmisfit, even fit1.6·10⁻¹²misfit, general fit0.063‖A − Aᵀ‖/‖A‖0.086one method's weights do not notice the operatorand the other's stop being a function of σ Regularisation, and the answer that is chosen

The basis decides what a filter is

The vocabulary of regularisation is spectral — a method keeps a component or discards it, and the weights are a function of the singular value. Row-normalising a symmetric blur so that it preserves a constant makes it 8.6% asymmetric, and that is enough to move GMRES's weights from 7·10⁻¹⁴ off a function of σ to 4.4·10⁻².

 -1012301020304050log₂ of the segment lengthcolumns above 10⁻⁸cos(κr) ⁄ r at κ = 401 ⁄ r, same pointsthe case with no answerq, held fixed0.51/r at L = 0.561/r at L = 86cos(κr)/r at L = 0.512cos(κr)/r at L = 853the geometry did not moveand the rank did Neither sparse nor dense

The kernel with nothing to compress

Hold the geometry fixed at q = ½, fix the wavelength, and scale the picture up by sixteen. A smooth kernel needs six columns at every scale. An oscillatory one needs twelve, sixteen, twenty-two, thirty-three, fifty-three, and there is no scale at which it stops.

 rounds on the critical pathHouseholder sweep48reduction tree4Cholesky QR4words sentHouseholder sweep1170reduction tree1170Cholesky QR2160two counts, two rankingsrounds, sweep ÷ tree12words, Cholesky ÷ tree1.8arithmetic, tree ÷ sweep1.5the rounds separate the threeand the words do not Where the flop count stopped predicting the time

The 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.

 first · leading5.47·10⁻⁶first · trailing4.62·10⁻⁵second · leading4.27·10⁻⁵second · trailing2.23·10⁻⁴symmetric · leading5.47·10⁻⁶symmetric · trailing4.05·10⁻⁵all six are the same algebrabest route5.5·10⁻⁶worst route2.2·10⁻⁴spread across the six41condition of the linearisation8.3·10¹²the spectra agreeand the arithmetic does not The eigenvalue problem that is not linear

Six routes to one spectrum

Three linearisations of one quadratic, each reduced to a standard eigenvalue problem two ways. All six have exactly the same eigenvalues in exact arithmetic. On a well-scaled problem they differ by noise; on a badly scaled one by a factor of forty; and two of the six are the same matrix.

 10⁻¹110¹10²10³10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵s, on the real axis|H − Hᵣ| ÷ |H|exact where askedpoints4conditions bought8worst at a point5.3·10⁻¹⁶worst away from one8.4·10⁻⁴4 points, 8 conditionsand no bound in between Reduction, and what a model is for

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.

 κ of the suma component of b − Ax1.01·10¹⁷ad − bc, near-degenerate3.6·10¹⁶qᵢᵀqⱼ, an orthogonality check7.39·10¹⁵pᵀAp, a curvature409zᵀAz, a trace probe41.8rᵀr, a residual norm1measured, not assumedhighest10¹⁷lowest1above 10¹⁰3terms64sums of squares are safeand nobody decides anything from one The answer that depends on the machine

The vector that hides it

Every quick demonstration of a parallel sum uses positive numbers, and positive numbers are the one family where the effect is absent. Measured on six inner products this site already computes, the summation condition number runs from exactly 1 to 10¹⁷ — and the safe end is where nobody makes a decision.

 0481216202428321rank keptrelative errormedianthe answer movesspread at rank 81.8spread at rank 241best median error0.14widest where the method is worstand the bound does not say so Methods that were designed apart

An answer that changes with the seed

A randomised rank-k solve is a truncation computed in a random subspace, and it reaches the same floor as the deterministic ones. What it does not do is return the same answer twice — a factor of 1.84 across four seeds at rank 8, and 1.02 at the rank where the method is best.

 34567891011110¹10²nbitsthe budget and what it buysrandom, bound47random, actual33primes needed2Hadamard n = 8, bound13Hadamard n = 8, actual13the count is decided by a theorembefore any arithmetic happens Exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead

How many primes the answer needs

Work modulo a word-sized prime and no intermediate can exceed twenty-six bits, whatever the matrix does. The catch is that the answer must be reassembled from several such computations, and the number of them has to be fixed before the first one runs — by a theorem about how large a determinant can be, not by trying more until it settles.

All themes