Numerical Linear Algebra
where the algebra stops being the arithmetic
Theme

The thread: Two routes to a number — page 4

Essays 73 to 96 of the 216 on this theme, in the same order.
567891010¹10²10³10⁴10⁵10⁶log₂ nnumbers the construction touchedentries, n²products with the operatoran operator, applied a few hundred timesproducts at n = 512256entries at n = 5122.6·10⁵per doubling48relative compression error4·10⁻⁷excess over the compression7.3no entry of the matrixwas ever read Randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind

Built from products alone

A 512-square hierarchical representation, at a relative error of 4·10⁻⁷, from 256 applications of an operator that is never assembled. The compression route reads 262,144 entries; this one reads none, and pays for it with a factor of seven against the representation the entries would have given.

 15731pointsfinest gridone unknown — the recursion bottoms out in a divisionthe coarse operator, two ways‖RAₕP − A₂ₕ‖/‖A₂ₕ‖10⁻¹⁸unknowns / finest grid1.7cycle cost, in fine sweeps12each coarse point reaches three fine ones½, 1, ½ — and the restriction is its transpose Iterating, instead of factorising

The same problem on a coarser grid

Restriction, the coarse operator and interpolation are three matrices with nine distinct entries between them. Two of the three are each other's transpose, and their product with the fine operator is the coarse discretisation exactly — not approximately, entry for entry, at every level.

 110¹10²10³110¹10²10³off-diagonal entry ccondition number of the eigenvalue√(1 + c²)decoupled: 1measuredthree routes, one number‖A − ZTZᵀ‖/‖A‖1.7·10⁻¹⁵closed form100computed 1/|yᵀx|100worst measured movement46four eigenvalues, two conditioning numbersthe symmetric case has one, and it is 1 Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

A condition number for one eigenvalue

In the symmetric case every eigenvalue has condition number exactly one. In this four-by-four matrix two of them have condition number 100.005 and the other two have exactly 1, and the number belongs to the eigenvalue rather than to the matrix.

 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.

 0173451688510211910⁻⁶10⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹1steps of the walkdistance from stationarya rate read as a timeλ₂ of the walk0.9steps measured122steps predicted131ratio0.93the dashed line is the eigenvaluethe curve is the walk The matrix that is a graph

The rate is the second eigenvalue

A walk forgets where it started at a rate the graph's second eigenvalue names exactly. Across three orders of magnitude in the step count the prediction is five per cent high — and the published rate for PageRank is right for a reason nobody states, which is that a link graph is in pieces.

 the diagonal of the hat matrix, hᵢ = aᵢᵀ(AᵀA)⁻¹aᵢ · dashed: its average p/m = 0.200p/m10the leave-one-out residual: eᵢ/(1 − hᵢ), and forty refitsbars: closed form · dots: refitted without that pointone number, two fieldsΣ hᵢ, exactly p10largest leverage0.5closed form against refits8.9·10⁻¹³1 − h of the first row0.5y appears in the residualand nowhere in the leverage Least squares, and the road not to take

Influence is decided before the data

The diagonal of the hat matrix sums to the number of columns and the response appears nowhere in it, so a fit has exactly p units of influence to hand out among m observations. The same row at h = 0.5 is a ten-fold outlier on one design and a boundary case on another, and which of those it is was settled before a single measurement was taken.

 110¹10²01020304050noise ÷ thicknesstrials mirrored, %a coin: 50%t = 10⁻²t = 10⁻³t = 10⁻⁴per cent mirroredσ/t = 3, mean of three7.7σ/t = 10, mean of three34σ/t = 100, mean of three4720 points, 400 trials a stop, one seed per thicknessthe ratio decides, not the thinness Orthogonality, measured

A rotation that comes back mirrored

Align twenty noisy points and the nearest orthogonal matrix to the answer is a reflection in 7.7 per cent of trials at noise three times the set's thickness and a third of them at ten — at thicknesses of 10⁻², 10⁻³ and 10⁻⁴ alike. The determinant fix is never a small correction. It moves the answer by exactly 2, it costs exactly 4σ₃ of residual, and it leaves the rotation's error at half the noise however thin the set becomes.

 unpreconditionedbest step20best error0.14Tikhonov's best0.14α = 0.001best step1best error0.14eigenvalues sent near one22051015202530354010⁻¹110¹steprelative errorTikhonov's best: 0.1405plain CGLSpreconditioneda better preconditionerarrives at the noise sooner Methods that were designed apart

A preconditioner that arrives past the answer

On a system that is solved to convergence a preconditioner changes how fast the answer arrives and not what it is. On a problem regularised by stopping it changes where every step lands. Conjugate gradients preconditioned by AᵀA + αI reaches its best answer in one step at α = 10⁻³, and at α = 10⁻⁶ its best answer is its first step, with an error of 1.35 against the unpreconditioned run's 0.1426 — while the count of eigenvalues it has clustered at one rises from 22 to 32.

 -1-0.500.511.50eigenvalue of P⁻¹Ktriangular [[H, Aᵀ], [0, −Ŝ]] — 1 valuediagonal blkdiag(H, Ŝ) — 3 valuessteps to a residual of 10⁻¹⁰GMRES, triangular2MINRES, diagonal3‖P⁻¹K − I‖54computed |λ − 1| at c = 18.1·10⁻⁸one copy of each value against twoand the counts follow The matrix a constraint makes

One eigenvalue and two steps

Put the off-diagonal block back into a block-diagonal saddle-point preconditioner and every eigenvalue of the preconditioned matrix becomes exactly one. GMRES still needs two steps, because the matrix is the identity plus a nilpotent part of norm 54, and a computed eigenvalue at one comes back as a ring of radius 8·10⁻⁸ — the square root of the rounding, not the rounding. With an approximate Schur complement the triangular form leaves one copy of each value where the diagonal form leaves two, and the step count halves.

 110¹10²10³10⁻¹⁸10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁶10⁻²10²10⁶numbers that describe the matrixcondition number, and backward errordensetoeplitzsymmetricρ aloneno such problemcondition numberbackward errorone matrix, four descriptionsκ, all n² entries7.9·10⁴as one number, ρ62backward error, unconstrained2·10⁻¹⁷as a symmetric Toeplitz matrix5.6·10⁻¹²fewer numbers, better conditionedand no nearby problem left Structure, and the solver that cannot see it

The condition number of the model

Describe a 40×40 Toeplitz matrix by its 1,600 entries and its condition number is 78,800. Describe it by the one number it actually contains and the condition number is 61.9. The three decades in between are not an approximation or a bound — they are what κ has been over-stating, and the drop is not where the linear algebra is.

 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.

 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)σₘᵢₙ1/κ = σₘᵢₙ/σₘₐₓ0.1·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.

 s10 bitss20 bitss30 bitss40 bitss514 bitsinvariant factors, in bitstwo routes, and a conserved quantitydet A-2.3·10⁴Π invariants2.3·10⁴SNF widest15HNF widest24det of the transform-1an algorithm and a definitionagreeing as integers Exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead

What a determinant does not determine

Two integer matrices can have the same determinant, the same rank and the same size, and define genuinely different maps. What separates them is a list of integers each dividing the next — computed here twice, once by unimodular elimination and once from the gcds of every minor, which share no algorithm at all.

 10⁻⁹10⁻⁷10⁻⁵10⁻³10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²gap between the two eigenvalueshow far it movedthe eigenvectorsthe eigenvaluestheir plane‖E‖ / gapone perturbation, three answerseigenvalue shift, spread over the sweep1plane angle, spread over the sweep1eigenvector angle, spread1.6·10⁵the dashed line is Davis–Kahan's ‖E‖/gaptwo of the three never noticed Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

The gap decides the eigenvector

A symmetric matrix's eigenvalues move by at most the size of the perturbation, whatever the spectrum looks like. Its eigenvectors are governed by a completely different quantity — the distance to the neighbouring eigenvalue — and at a gap of 10⁻⁹ the same perturbation turns them through 27°.

 015304560759010512010⁻²10⁻¹110¹steprelative sizeleast error: 20discrepancy stop: 7errorresidualthe knob is an integerleast error, at step20error there0.14error at step 1206the residual falls at every stepthe error turns and keeps rising Two errors, and whose fault they are

The zero you are allowed to write

A deflation criterion sets a subdiagonal entry to zero because it is small. A drop tolerance discards an entry of a factor because it is small. A truncation discards a singular value because it is small. Three fields, three vocabularies, no shared arithmetic — and plotted as work saved against error accepted, one curve.

 11.31.61.92.210⁻¹⁶10⁻¹³10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁷10⁻⁴10⁻¹10²log₁₀ quadrature pointsdistance from the true counthalf an eigenvaluean integer, eventuallytrue count2at 4 points2at 128 points2finest error1.4·10⁻¹³the integral is an integerand a rounding hides how far it was Where the flop count stopped predicting the time

The last digit is the cheapest

Every cost curve measured here has the same shape: the first digits are cheap and the last ones are not. One method inverts it. Doubling the work buys twice as many digits as the previous doubling did, so the price of a digit halves every time it is paid.

 -12-11-10-9-8024681012log₁₀ of how nearly dependent the columns areverdicts that disagreed, of 40724103which one is correctmatrices tested200verdicts disagreed26fused was right9unfused was right17lower part: thefused build was righta sign has no last digitso a verdict has nowhere to hide The answer that depends on the machine

A matrix that is definite on one machine

Two hundred Gram matrices, two conforming builds, and twenty-six of them get different answers to "is this positive definite". The exact verdict, from determinants in BigInt rationals, says the fused build is right nine times and the other one seventeen.

 -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.

 01234510⁻¹⁸10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹²10⁻⁹10⁻⁶10⁻³1correction steprelative errorLU route: η = 2.2·10⁻¹⁷LU route: forward 2.8·10⁻⁴forward errorbackward errorwhat a correction buysη before refinement4.5·10⁻⁵η after four steps2.8·10⁻¹⁷forward, unchanged7.1·10⁻⁴cost of a step, flops1800the residual is repairableand the accuracy floor is the problem's Elimination, and the swap

The gap refinement can close

Multiplying by a computed inverse is not backward stable, and refinement at the working precision repairs it. That much is settled. The claim beside it — that the forward error does not move — was read at one conditioning and four corrections too late. Swept over ten, it moves at every one, and it lands on the LU route's own number after a single correction.

 conjugate gradientsbest step20best error0.1410% window, last/first6.5Landweberbest step1778best error0.1410% window, last/first901110¹10²10³10⁴10⁵10⁶10⁷10⁻¹110¹10²matrix–vector productsrelative errorCGLS best: step 20Landweber best: step 1,778CGLSLandweberthe same answer at two pricesand a window three orders wide Methods that were designed apart

A step that is not a unit of work

Landweber's iteration reaches conjugate gradients' best answer on the same deconvolution — 0.1414 against 0.1426 — at step 1,778 instead of step 20, and at 0.1% noise at step 56,234 instead of 44. Each step costs the same two products. And within 10% of its best it runs from step 7 to step 6,310, where conjugate gradients runs from 4 to 26: the slow method is the one that forgives a late stop.

 the same lattice, twicewhat the reduction may not changedet, before1det, after1defect, before7.1defect, after1LLL steps1the determinant is the invariantand the defect is what is being reduced Exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead

A basis that describes its lattice badly

The same set of points has infinitely many bases, they are all correct, and they are not equally useful. One measurement separates them — the product of the vectors' lengths over the lattice determinant — and the determinant is the invariant the reduction may not change, which is what makes the reduction checkable.

 6 × 6 × 6, rank 3 · 9 ≥ 81.00002 × 2 × 2, rank 3 · 6 < 80.02076 × 6 matrix, rank 3 · no condition0.1089worst agreement between two runs about the factors, 0 to 1every run fits to 3·10⁻¹³every run fits to 1.2·10⁻¹¹every run factorises to 2.4·10⁻¹⁵ and none agrees with anotherthe only thing that improvestensor, Kruskal holds1tensor, Kruskal fails0.021matrix0.11worst residual1.2·10⁻¹¹three successful fitsone recoverable answer When the index is a tuple

A factorisation that is unique for once

A rank-r factorisation of a matrix is never unique — AB is (AM)(M⁻¹B) for any invertible M, so no factor means anything on its own. For three indices a checkable condition on the factors' k-ranks makes the decomposition unique up to permuting and scaling the terms, and it holds generically.

 natural113 predicted · 113 countedminimum-degree63 predicted · 63 countedreverse Cuthill–McKee63 predicted · 63 countedthe shaded entries are fill: zeros of K that the factorisation makes nonzeroallocated before the numbersnatural113minimum-degree63reverse-cuthill-mckee63predicted minus counted0the symbolic phase decides the memoryand nothing later is allowed to argue Sparsity, and what elimination costs

An ordering that does not wait for the numbers

A sparse factorisation's memory is decided by an ordering computed from the graph, and its stability by pivots computed from the values, and the two decisions fight. On one family of matrices they do not — the ordering can be chosen for fill alone, and the fill the symbolic phase predicts is the fill the factorisation produces — exactly, not as a bound.

 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.

All themes