Numerical Linear Algebra
where the algebra stops being the arithmetic
Theme

The thread: Measured, not assumed — page 4

Essays 73 to 96 of the 465 on this theme, in the same order.
024681012141618202210⁶10⁷10⁸members served by one factorisationmultiplications for the whole sequencedoes not convergethe contraction ruledrift 0.01 a memberevery member1.6·10⁷every 5 members9.3·10⁶contraction rule9.2·10⁶its factorisations4cliff at a period of20a factorisation has a shelf lifeand the cliff is past the optimum When the problem arrives again

A factorisation kept past its date

One Cholesky factor can serve five members of a drifting sequence and save 44 per cent of the work. Kept for twenty it does not lose accuracy — it stops converging altogether. The optimum and the cliff are four members apart, both move with the drift, and a rule written in a ratio the iteration has already computed finds them without being told what the drift is.

 012345610⁻¹⁶10⁻¹³10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁷10⁻⁴10⁻¹refinement step‖x − x*‖ / ‖x*‖a full double-precision solveresidual in24-bitresidual indoubleone argument apartκ·u of the factorisation6·10⁻⁴double residual, final3.2·10⁻¹³same-precision, final1.3·10⁻⁴30×30, κ = 10⁴, same factors in both runsidentical cost The arithmetic underneath

Buying the accuracy back

Factorise in single precision, then correct the answer using residuals computed in double, and the result is what a full double-precision solve would have given. Compute those residuals in single instead and the identical algorithm, at identical cost, recovers nothing.

 1112131415193111.365129.731148.096166.461probes takenrunning estimate of the tracenormal±1one probe, no errorthe exact trace99±1 variance, this matrix0±1 variance, rotated57normal variance545the same spectrum in a general basiscosts the ±1 probe its whole advantage Randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind

Counting what cannot be looked at

The trace is n additions and one of the most expensive quantities in the subject to estimate, because the matrices whose trace is wanted are never stored. Hutchinson's estimator is unbiased with one line of algebra — and its variance depends on which random vector is used, by a factor that is a property of the matrix, and on a diagonal matrix one choice is exact from the first probe and the other is not.

 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

The circulant that cannot be indefinite

The previous essay found a preconditioner taking 117 steps against an unpreconditioned 59, because its smallest eigenvalue was −0.173. Average the two diagonals instead of choosing between them and the count is 7, 8, 9, 10, 10 across a factor of sixteen in size.

 how far is it from A to an orthogonal matrix?smaller is nearer · the polar factor minimises this in every unitarily invariant normpolar factor U1.8554QR, signs fixed2.1265QR as returned3.8226200 drawn at randomκ = 10polar factor1.9QR, signs fixed2.1QR as returned3.8best of 200 random2.7‖A − QR‖ is the same either wayand ‖A − Q‖ is not Orthogonality, measured

The nearest orthogonal matrix

Every field that has to clean up a drifted rotation reaches for QR, and QR does not answer the question. The nearest orthogonal matrix is the orthogonal factor of the polar decomposition — nearer by about a tenth, and, more to the point, the same matrix whatever order the columns were written in. QR's answer changes completely.

 forward error, relative to a solution of exactly (1, 1)no pivoting · as given1 0 interchangesno pivoting · rows scaled1 0 interchangespartial · as given0 1 interchangepartial · rows scaled1 0 interchangesscaled partial · as given0 1 interchangescaled partial · rows scaled0 1 interchangecomplete · as given0 1 interchangecomplete · rows scaled0 1 interchangethe same problem twicepartial, as given10⁻¹⁸partial, rows scaled1its relative residual10⁻¹⁷complete, rows scaled10⁻¹⁸the two systems have the same solutionand one pivot rule cannot see it Elimination, and the swap

The pivot that reads the units

Partial pivoting compares the entries of a column and takes the largest. Those entries carry units, so the comparison depends on them — and there is a row scaling, on the standard two-by-two that pivoting exists to fix, which makes partial pivoting perform the identical catastrophic elimination it was introduced to prevent, with no interchange at all.

 02468101210⁻¹⁴10⁻¹²10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁸10⁻⁶10⁻⁴10⁻²1iteration‖r‖ / ‖b‖Laplaciancyclic shiftno progress at allevery eigenvalue of the shift is on the unit circleand it predicts nothing Iterating, instead of factorising

The spectrum that predicts nothing

For a symmetric matrix the eigenvalues govern how fast an iteration converges. Drop symmetry and they stop governing anything — there is a matrix whose eigenvalues are as evenly spread as eigenvalues can be, on which GMRES makes no progress at all until the last possible step.

 0481216202410⁻²10⁻¹1vertices on the smaller sideconductance of the prefix cut0.00752, the best prefixthe rounding stepλ₂0.14cuts considered23best conductance0.0075at k =12worst prefix1the dashed curve is the eigenvectorthe solid one is what it costs The matrix that is a graph

The vector that has to be rounded

A spectral partition is an eigenvector, and an eigenvector is a real vector. The answer wanted is a subset. Something has to turn one into the other, and the something is a heuristic applied after the linear algebra has finished.

 00.250.50.75110⁻¹110¹share of the noise placed in the matrixleast-squares error ÷ total least-squares errorequally accuratetotal leastsquares aheadordinary leastsquares aheadthe model, not the methodadvantage, all noise in b0.28advantage, all noise in A2.5seeds at each share40the same total noise at every pointand only where it sits changes Least squares, and the road not to take

When the matrix is wrong too

Every least-squares problem here has assumed A is exact and b is not, and moved b onto the column space of A. Where both were measured, the smallest correction that makes the system consistent moves the matrix as well — and on the problems where that answer is more accurate, it has the larger residual, by construction rather than by luck.

 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.

 10²10³10⁴10⁵10⁶10⁷10⁸10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²condition number‖QᵀQ − I‖one passsweeptwicetreewhat the second pass removesfitted slope, one pass2fitted slope, two passes0.96rounds, two passes6rounds, the sweep24one pass squares the condition numberand two do not Where the flop count stopped predicting the time

Doing it twice

Cholesky QR squares the condition number — a fitted slope of 1.95 in κ against the Householder sweep's 1.00. Run the identical routine a second time on the Q it returned and the slope is 0.93, the orthogonality is at or below the sweep's at every κ, and the price is one more all-reduce.

 -0.16-0.63-0.493.43-0.025-0.632.3-0.69-0.95-1.70.076-0.49-0.694.3-1.6-1.41.93.4-0.95-1.65.40.0141.63-1.7-1.40.0144.60.055-0.0250.0761.91.60.0553.1A, symmetric→-0.164.600004.65.92.500002.51-1.20000-1.24.90.3800000.385.80.2400000.242H = QᵀAQ, tridiagonal‖A − QHQᵀ‖/‖A‖1.1·10⁻¹⁵below the subdiagonal0worst eigenvalue movement7.1·10⁻¹⁵a similarity, so the spectrum is untouched — and every later step is O(n²) rather than O(n³)one reduction, then every iteration is cheapthe eigenvalues did not move Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

The form that makes it affordable

One Householder reduction, done once, turns every subsequent iteration of the eigenvalue algorithm from cubic to quadratic cost. It changes no answer at all, which is why it is easy to describe as an optimisation and wrong to.

 10²10⁴10⁶10⁸10¹⁰110²10⁴10⁶10⁸10¹⁰condition number of the matrixcondition number seen by the iterationκ(A), unchangedκ(AR⁻¹)a bound with no κ(A) in itκ(AR⁻¹), every κ(A)2.2κ(SU), the other route2.2κ(A), across the sweep10⁸κ(AR⁻¹), across the sweep1the sketch never sees the spectrumand the spectrum cancels out of the answer Randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind

The sketch that is not the answer

Sketch-and-solve throws away the original problem and keeps the small one's answer, which is why its answer moves with the seed. Use the same sketch as a preconditioner instead and the condition number the iteration sees is the same number at every κ from a hundred to ten billion — identically the same, to nine digits, because the spectrum cancels out of it.

 10²020406080100120unknownsiterations2D, no preconditioner2D, preconditioned1D, preconditionedone construction, two dimensions2D steps at 16 unknowns102D steps at 100 unknowns211D steps at 100 unknowns10the same averaging, the same transformand a count that no longer stops growing Structure, and the solver that cannot see it

Two dimensions, and the cluster that thins

The same kernel, the same averaging, the same transform — applied along two axes instead of one. In one dimension the preconditioned step count is 7, 10, 10, 10; on square grids with the same unknown counts it is 10, 18, 20, 21, and the share of the spectrum near one falls from 56% to 17%.

 -14-12-10-8-6-4-2010⁻¹⁷10⁻¹³10⁻⁹10⁻⁵10⁻¹10³10⁷10¹¹10¹⁵log₁₀ μ — the barrier parametercondition number, and relative errorκ₂, condensedκ₂, augmentederror, condensederror, augmentedagainst a BigInt answerκ₂ augmented, μ = 10⁻¹⁴3·10¹⁵its relative error10⁻¹⁵κ₂ condensed2.4·10¹⁶its relative error0.31the same step, written two waysand only one of them is solvable The matrix a constraint makes

A condition number sent to infinity

An interior-point method manufactures an ill-conditioned matrix on every iteration, deliberately, because the separating of a diagonal is how it discovers which constraints are active. Written one way the answer keeps fifteen digits at a condition number of 3·10¹⁵. Written the other way — the way almost every code writes it — it has none left.

 2345678110²10⁴10⁶10⁸10¹⁰vectors in the basisκ₂ of the basisas derivedsolves spread outone subspace, two spanning setseight moments at one point7.7·10⁹eight points, spread1growth per vector661/u4.5·10¹⁵the same subspaceand only one of them usable Reduction, and what a model is for

A basis that is the same subspace and not the same thing

The interpolation conditions are conditions on a subspace, so any basis of it will do. The one a derivation writes down reaches a condition number of 7.7·10⁹ by its eighth vector, and the rate at which it gets there is set by a number the user chose with no information.

 distinct answersone accumulator303eight pieces72compensated119pre-rounded1exact1worst error 1.17·10⁻⁸worst error 4.61·10⁻⁹worst error 4.96·10⁻¹⁰worst error 4.91·10⁻⁶worst error 0bitwise, or not at allpermutations400one accumulator303pre-rounded1its error4.9·10⁻⁶compensated error5·10⁻¹⁰accuracy and agreement are different propertiesand the accurate one is not the agreed one The answer that depends on the machine

The sum that cannot be wrong

Snap every addend to a common multiple before adding, and every partial sum is exact — so the order stops mattering, by construction rather than by luck. Four hundred permutations return one value where an ordinary reduction returns three hundred and three.

 10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹1110¹10²10³10⁴pivot threshold τgrowth factor · entries in L+U, ÷ entries in Agrowthfillthe library default‖PA − LU‖/‖A‖ at τ = 0.12.9·10⁻¹⁶growth at τ = 0.138entries in L+U at τ = 0.1372one knob, two measurements, opposite directionsand the default is most of both Sparsity, and what elimination costs

A threshold between fill and growth

One number decides how small a pivot an elimination will accept. At 0.001 the factor holds 172 entries and the matrix grows by 1,330; at 1 it holds 260 and grows by 1.2. The libraries ship 0.1, and the measurement says why.

 10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹110¹12345678910conductance, and the two bounds on itpathcyclegridbarbelltwo blockshypercubepreferentialstarcompletethe bar is the inequalitythe dot is the graph The matrix that is a graph

A bound with a square root in it

Cheeger's inequality brackets a graph's best cut between λ₂/2 and √(2λ₂). The lower bound is attained exactly. The upper one is loose by a factor of fourteen — on the one graph in the census with a real bottleneck, which is the shape it is always quoted about.

 024681010⁻¹¹10⁻⁹10⁻⁷10⁻⁵10⁻³10⁻¹rank kept in every moderelative errordashes above: √(Σ tail²), the upper bounddashes below: max tail, a floor under the bestsolid: what the projection returnssmooth: pinned to the upper boundrank 10 error1.1·10⁻¹¹its upper bound1.1·10⁻¹¹the lower bound6.3·10⁻¹²error ⁄ bound1error ⁄ lower1.7inside the boundand sitting on it When the index is a tuple

A decomposition made only of SVDs

Everything the definition of tensor rank loses comes back if the SVD's algorithm is carried across instead of its definition — take the leading left singular subspace of every unfolding and project onto all of them. It exists, it costs d matrix decompositions, and its error is within √d of the best there is.

 10¹10³10⁵10⁷10⁹10¹¹110¹10²10³10⁴condition number of the matrixgrowth factorbound 2^11partial pivotingCholeskyno pivot to gain fromCholesky growth, every κ1Cholesky interchanges0partial pivoting, worst9the bound, 2^112048both eliminations reach the same growthand only one of them had to swap to get there Elimination, and the swap

A factorisation with nothing to pivot for

Cholesky's growth factor is not bounded by one. It is equal to one, at every size and every condition number, and the two-line reason is why the algorithm needs no pivoting at all — not "usually gets away without it". Its only failure is the square root of a non-positive number, which is exactly the test for definiteness, and in floating point that test moves with the precision.

 015030045060075090010⁻¹³10⁻¹¹10⁻⁹10⁻⁷10⁻⁵10⁻³10⁻¹iteration‖r‖ / ‖b‖JacobiGauss–SeidelSOR ω=1.78closed form vs measuredρ Jacobi, exact0.99ρ measured0.99ρ Gauss–Seidel, exact0.981D Laplacian, n = 24ω optimal = 1.777 Iterating, instead of factorising

A rate that is known in advance

On the model problem, Jacobi contracts by cos(π/(n+1)) per step, Gauss–Seidel by its square, and optimally relaxed SOR by a number given in closed form. Three rates, all known before anything runs, and all measurable against what runs.

 192123252729313335373941434500.10.20.30.40.50.60.7position jweight on the true signal at jthe blur's row, 5.89 widethe kernel, 2.82 widecomputed from A and λ alonekernel width at half height2.8components kept, Σfₖ28width × Σfₖ / n1.2deepest negative lobe-0.075no data and no truth went into this curvethe answer is the truth seen through it Regularisation, and the answer that is chosen

A second blur, narrower than the first

A regularised answer is not the truth with the noise taken out. It is the truth seen through a second blur, V F Vᵀ, which depends on the operator and λ and on nothing that was measured. At the best λ for 0.1% noise its rows are 2.82 points wide against the instrument's 5.89, they dip to −0.075 on either side, and their width times the number of components kept stays between 1.10n and 1.27n across seven decades of λ. Two spikes four points apart come back as two; three apart, as one.

 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.

All themes