Numerical Linear Algebra
where the algebra stops being the arithmetic
Theme

The thread: Where the algebra stops being the arithmetic — page 4

Essays 73 to 96 of the 257 on this theme, in the same order.
14710131619110¹indexeigenvalue of Lan eigenvalue with no vectorλ₂0.35λ₃0.35gap1.7·10⁻¹⁵partitions found3best conductance0.045worst0.045two eigenvalues, one valueand the answer is not a function of the graph The matrix that is a graph

A partition decided in the last digit

On a graph with a symmetry there is no Fiedler vector — there is a plane, and every vector in it is an exact eigenvector. Twenty-four runs with the edge weights nudged by 10⁻¹² return ten different partitions of a cycle and, on a hypercube, two different qualities of answer.

 smooth97.7%hilbert94.5%wave26.6%noise0.4%share of the core's energy on its 6 superdiagonal entrieskeeping only them: 0.152 against 7.94·10⁻⁶keeping only them: 0.235 against 1.77·10⁻⁶keeping only them: 0.857 against 1.34·10⁻¹⁵keeping only them: 0.998 against 0.842orthogonal, and not diagonalsmooth on-diagonal0.98hilbert on-diagonal0.94wave on-diagonal0.27noise on-diagonal0.0044worst slice pair3.5·10⁻¹⁶the slices are orthogonalthe core is not diagonal When the index is a tuple

The orthogonality that cannot be diagonal

A matrix decomposition hands over orthonormal factors and a diagonal middle at once. For three indices the two come apart, and there is no arrangement that has both — so the question stops being which decomposition to use and becomes which of the two properties the computation needs.

 -18-15-12-9-6-300log₁₀ ‖PKPᵀ − LDLᵀ‖ / ‖K‖share of orderingsbestworstexistence and stabilityfactorise1unregularised0.69worst growth6.4·10⁵growth × γ0.64the ordering is free to chooseand not free of consequence The matrix a constraint makes

The regularisation that legalises every order

Perturb a saddle-point matrix's two blocks in opposite directions and it acquires a factorisation with a diagonal D under every symmetric permutation — not under a good one, under all of them. Five hundred random orderings, five hundred successes, and a growth factor that spans six orders across them.

 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.

 -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.

 10²10³10⁴10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁶10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹³10⁻¹²steps taken‖RᵀR − AᵀA‖ ⁄ ‖AᵀA‖the bound, linear in the steps√k · uevery step safe, the chain notdrift after the run3.9·10⁻¹⁴the bound there3.3·10⁻¹³√k · u there6.1·10⁻¹⁵worst single amplification2.7worst leverage met0.69refreshes1backward stable onceand three thousand times is a different claim When the problem arrives again

Stable once, and three thousand times

A sliding window adds a row and removes one at every step and never looks at the data again. No single step of it amplifies by more than 2.72, no downdate fails, and after three thousand steps the triangular factor in memory is 3.9·10⁻¹⁴ from the matrix it is supposed to be a factor of — six hundred times growth from a per-step bound that says nothing about chains.

 02468101210⁻¹⁸10⁻¹⁶10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹²10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁸member of the sequencebackward error of the solvefresh order · equilibrated kept orderringed: another pivot replaced hereone order, two sets of unitsfresh order, last member9.5·10⁻¹⁷kept order, last member4.8·10⁻⁹equilibrated, last member6.5·10⁻¹⁷pivots replaced, kept2pivots replaced, equilibrated0the perturbation floor √u1.1·10⁻⁸a reused pivot order is safe or notdepending on what the rows are measured in Sparsity, and what elimination costs

The order that was right last time

A pivot order computed once and reused across a sequence saves the symbolic phase, and the price is that a pivot which was large may now be small. Replacing it with √u·‖A‖ costs eight orders of backward error and iterative refinement recovers a factor of 8.8 of them. Divide each row by its largest entry first and the same reuse costs nothing at all.

 numbers stored, 256 × 256clustered, strong27,008clustered, weak24,064the dense matrix65,536shuffled, strong65,536shuffled, weak118,208the same matrix, twiceκ, clustered24κ, shuffled24Frobenius norm, clustered6140Frobenius norm, shuffled6140shuffled weak ⁄ dense1.8the compressibility is in the numberingand the numbering is not in the matrix Neither sparse nor dense

The same matrix, numbered twice

One symmetric permutation. The condition number is 24.3948 either way to eight digits and the Frobenius norm is 6.13996414·10³ either way to twelve. The partition that stored 27,008 numbers now finds no admissible pair anywhere and stores all 65,536, and the format that compresses regardless stores 118,208.

 0246810121410⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹10⁴10⁷10¹⁰log₁₀ τ — the weight on the constraintrelative error against the exact answerτ = 1/√uGram–Schmidtnormal equationsHouseholder QRthe ceiling is the method'sHouseholder, τ = 10¹⁴4.8·10⁻¹⁵normal equations14Gram–Schmidt4.9·10¹⁰1/√u6.7·10⁷a constraint is a weight at infinityand the solver decides how far infinity is Least squares, and the road not to take

A constraint is a weight at infinity

Stack an equality constraint on top of a least-squares problem with a large weight and the answer approaches the constrained one like 1/τ². The limit is takeable to any accuracy — and how far it can be taken is a property of the solver, not of the problem. One of them stops at the square root of the precision, and one of them does not stop.

 -2-101234-5-3-1135real partimaginary part4 insidea countable spectruminside the contour4drawn12existing∞worst branch residual1.6·10⁻¹⁵there is no last eigenvalueso the question has to change The eigenvalue problem that is not linear

A problem with infinitely many eigenvalues

Let the matrix depend on λ through something that is not a polynomial and three things stop being true at once. There is no linearisation, there is no characteristic polynomial, and "compute the spectrum" is not a request that can be granted — the only finite question is how many eigenvalues are inside this circle.

 02468101210⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²binary64 operations per elementrelative errorruntime orderfixed partitionpre-rounded, one passpre-rounded, two passescompensated (Kahan)exact accumulationwhat determinism costsreproducible policies3cheapest, ops/element3its error0.0024two passes10⁻¹⁷ordinary, 8 pieces3.6·10⁻⁷nothing is cheap and exactthe middle of the figure is the answer The answer that depends on the machine

Accuracy and agreement are different properties

The most accurate policy on this site's summation figure returns 119 different answers, and the one that returns a single answer is four orders less accurate. Neither property implies the other, and the vocabulary has one word for both.

 01428425670849810⁻¹⁶10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹²10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁸10⁻⁶10⁻⁴10⁻²iterationchange between iteratestwo rates, one curveα0.85λ₂(P)0.9predicted rate0.77measured0.77iterations108against the solve10⁻¹⁶the upper dashed line is αᵏthe curve is on the other one The matrix that is a graph

A ranking that is an eigenvector

PageRank is the stationary vector of a walk that follows links with probability α and jumps at random otherwise. The iteration and the elimination agree to 4·10⁻¹⁷. What α is set to changes which pages come third, fourth and fifth.

 ℚ6𝔽24𝔽35𝔽56𝔽76𝔽116𝔽136𝔽1016𝔽655376rank, by the ring the entries are read inthe rank of one matrixover ℚ6over 𝔽24over 𝔽35over 𝔽56over 𝔽76nothing is rounded hereand the answer still is not a property of the matrix Exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead

The rank depends on the ring

A floating-point rank is a decision about a threshold. Remove the arithmetic error entirely and the threshold goes away — and the answer still is not a property of the array of numbers, because one integer matrix has rank six over the rationals, five modulo three and four modulo two, with nothing rounded and nothing decided.

 polar: U₁P − U₂QR: Q₁P − Q₂-3.3·10⁻¹⁶-3.3·10⁻¹⁶2.2·10⁻¹⁶-1.9·10⁻¹⁶5.6·10⁻¹⁷-1.7·10⁻¹⁶6.7·10⁻¹⁶-8.9·10⁻¹⁶2.8·10⁻¹⁶-5.6·10⁻¹⁶-3.6·10⁻¹⁶6.1·10⁻¹⁶-8.3·10⁻¹⁶8.3·10⁻¹⁶-7.2·10⁻¹⁶-10·10⁻¹⁶2.2·10⁻¹⁶4.4·10⁻¹⁶1.7·10⁻¹⁶-4.4·10⁻¹⁶-5.6·10⁻¹⁷5.6·10⁻¹⁷0-7.2·10⁻¹⁶-4.4·10⁻¹⁶3.9·10⁻¹⁶5.6·10⁻¹⁷2.8·10⁻¹⁶-1.1·10⁻¹⁶-3.3·10⁻¹⁶2.2·10⁻¹⁶1.1·10⁻¹⁶-2.8·10⁻¹⁶5.6·10⁻¹⁶-2.8·10⁻¹⁶5.6·10⁻¹⁶0.67-0.35-0.23-0.620.19-0.72-0.770.170.20.290.190.93-0.180.55-0.0290.06-0.460.11-0.17-0.61-0.230.38-0.55-0.380.750.870.661.1-0.36-0.530.42-0.670.180.180.52-0.3Frobenius norms, columns reordered‖U₁P − U₂‖2.8·10⁻¹⁵‖Q₁P − Q₂‖3‖Q‖, for scale2.4κ of the matrix100Frobenius distance between the two answers, on one scale0 to 4polar2.8·10⁻¹⁵QR3.048‖Q‖ = 2.449the column space did not moveand one of the two answers did Orthogonality, measured

A test with no answer in it

A caller with no reference answer can still ask whether a routine answered the right question: reverse the columns, run it again, compare. The polar factor's two answers agree to 10⁻¹⁵ at every conditioning drawn; a QR's differ by 2.353 on matrices whose own norm is 2.449. The test has a floor, and the floor is measurable too.

 26101418222630343810⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹stepsizeleast error: 20‖QᵀQ − I‖filter disagreementan identity with an expiry datedisagreement at step 1210⁻¹³disagreement at step 400.014least error at step20exact while the basis is orthogonaland false where the method is best Methods that were designed apart

An expiry date the noise does not move

The polynomial description of conjugate gradients leaves the level of rounding at step 17 or 18 on this operator, at every noise level from 10% to 0.1%. The step worth stopping at moves from 3 to 44 across the same range. They coincide at about 1% noise, which is where the coincidence was first read, and it is a fact about the noise rather than about the method.

 -5-3-11350eigenvalueHZᵀHZK4 negative — Cholesky of H stops at row 30 negative — a minimum on the constraint(10, 4, 0) = In(ZᵀHZ) + (4, 4, 0)one factorisation, no Zpositive, LDLᵀ of K10negative, LDLᵀ of K4negative in H4negative in ZᵀHZ0the count follows the reduced Hessiannot the Hessian The matrix a constraint makes

A minimum the Hessian cannot see

A Hessian with four negative eigenvalues can sit at a constrained minimum, and a Cholesky of it stops at the third row. One symmetric indefinite factorisation of the saddle-point matrix settles the question anyway — ten positive pivots and four negative — without a basis for the null space ever being formed. The count is exact in the algebra and blind in floating point, in a band that grows like κ(A)²; the route through the null space is blind in one that grows like κ(A).

 the smallest perturbation of any kind — 1.89·10⁻¹⁷the smallest Toeplitz one — 2.65·10⁻¹³both exact for the same x̂smallest of any kind1.9·10⁻¹⁷smallest Toeplitz one2.7·10⁻¹³the price of the constraint1.4·10⁴diagonal defect, unconstrained0.97an exact answer to a nearby problemof a kind nobody posed Structure, and the solver that cannot see it

A nearby problem of the wrong kind

A good algorithm returns the exact answer to a nearby problem. A hundred and eighteen essays have measured the distance and not one has asked what the nearby problem looks like. On a Toeplitz system it is a rank-one matrix that is constant along none of its diagonals — and the smallest one that is Toeplitz is two and a half million times larger.

 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.

 123456710¹10²10³10⁴10⁵number of indicesnumbersentries: 6^dstored: 4n(d − 1)exponential against linearentries at d = 64.7·10⁴numbers stored120ratio389slope against d24‖T − Tₜₜ‖ ⁄ ‖T‖1.4·10⁻¹⁵one line is n^dthe other is a constant per index When the index is a tuple

The format that does not notice the dimension

A Tucker core is r^d numbers, so the format that repaired the definition still cannot go past five indices. Cutting between the indices rather than across them gives d − 1 ranks instead of d, storage linear in the number of indices, and a family whose ranks are two everywhere by an addition formula.

 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.

 567891010⁴10⁵10⁶10⁷10⁸10⁹log₂ nmultiplicationsdense factorisation, n³⁄3the recursion, countedwhere the format starts payingratio at n = 641.5ratio at n = 5120.16exponent, first doubling2.1exponent, last doubling1.7backward error1.4·10⁻¹⁰cheaper is a sizenot a property Where the flop count stopped predicting the time

Where the format starts paying

A hierarchical solve costs 1.48 times a dense factorisation at 64 unknowns and 0.16 times it at 512. The crossover is between 64 and 128, it walks right when the accuracy is tightened, and the exponent between consecutive sizes is 2.13, 1.93, 1.74 — falling towards one and never arriving.

 1234567891010⁻¹⁹10⁻¹⁶10⁻¹³10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁷10⁻⁴10⁻¹kλₖ₊₁ ÷ λ₁, and the boundZₖ²the Gramianpredicted from two numbersstates30κ of the spectrum389λ11 ÷ λ₁2.5·10⁻⁸the bound there5.2·10⁻⁴the cliff everything rests onand the reason for it Reduction, and what a model is for

Why a Gramian can be truncated at all

Every method in this field rests on one fact nobody states the reason for — the eigenvalues of a Gramian fall off a cliff. The equation defining it has a rank-one right-hand side and no low-rank structure anywhere — and the answer's decay is a rational approximation problem with a closed-form rate.

 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.

 chain · cheapest1.51·10⁴chain · greedy5.06·10⁴chain · dearest5.13·10⁸train-inner · cheapest3344train-inner · greedy1.51·10⁴train-inner · dearest6.58·10⁹als-step · cheapest1.05·10⁵als-step · greedy1.13·10⁵als-step · dearest1.13·10⁵multiply-adds, on a logarithmic scaleone value, many priceschain, best ⁄ worst3.4·10⁴train, best ⁄ worst2·10⁶als step, best ⁄ worst1.1worst greedy excess4.5no answer changesand the price does Where the flop count stopped predicting the time

The order the products are taken in

The sparsity field's first essay says the elimination order decides the memory. This is the same sentence about arithmetic: a contraction of several tensors over shared indices has one value and many evaluation orders, and on the inner product of two trains they differ by a factor of two million.

All themes