The thread: Whose fault is it — page 9
More samples take the floor and leave the dip
GCV's catastrophic misses on fine grids were blamed on squareness: on an n × n system the residual and n − t both reach zero as λ does, and their ratio can dip there. With more samples than unknowns neither reaches zero, and the prediction was that the dip would be gone by construction. Half of it is. The minimum at the floor of the scale, 21 draws in 240 on square systems, is gone at every ratio. The interior dip is not — 28, 20, 13, 8 and 4 draws at one to four samples per unknown — and at four per unknown one draw still misses the oracle by 877 times.
Elimination, and the swapA trigger finer than the growth
Threshold pivoting cannot remove the shooting matrix's growth of 1.1·10⁴, because at τ = 1 it is partial pivoting. The proposal was a factorisation that notices growth on a step and searches as rook pivoting does after it, paying for the stricter search only where growth is made. But no step makes much: the largest one-step rise is exactly the growing mode's rate over one shooting interval, 1.284 at a step of 0.3, and 1.133 at 0.15. A trigger finer than that rate holds the growth at 2.00 for about two thirds of rook's extra search; one coarser never fires. And a trigger fine enough searches as rook on a quarter of an ordinary random matrix's steps.
The matrix a constraint makesThe right-hand side that hides the saddle
Refinement against an unregularised saddle-point matrix gives the second-order verdict the pivot signs cannot, from step 62 on the shallowest saddle — for one right-hand side. The verdict depends on how much of the growing direction the right-hand side contains, and it can contain none. Each decade removed delays the verdict by a fixed number of steps, 147 on the shallowest saddle, set by the growth against the minimum's slowest contraction rather than by the growth alone, which predicted 1,611. Rounding stops the hiding at about 2,700 steps — but by then refinement has solved the system to a residual of 2.6 times ten to the minus thirteen, and any stopping test has already accepted it. A random kick to the starting point costs nothing and finds it.
Iterating, instead of factorisingExact along one axis
The tuned diffusion makes the answer exact at every node, and in two dimensions it holds at exactly one flow angle. Five degrees off the grid the relative error goes from 1.2·10⁻¹⁴ to 6.9, and by twenty degrees the scheme is worse than the upwinding it was built to improve on.
The answer that depends on the machineThe reading that never moves
Across thirty runs — five grids from 36 to 196 unknowns, six working precisions from 53 significand bits down to 8 — the residual conjugate gradients stops on stays between 1.10·10⁻¹³ and 9.95·10⁻¹³. Over the same thirty runs the error of the answer spans a factor of 2.39·10¹¹, and the step count more than doubles. The one number the run publishes is the only one that responds to neither axis.
The arithmetic underneathThe well on the far side of the band
Gradual underflow was said to buy a predicate and not an answer, because a quantity that has decayed into the subnormal range is already lost. A quantity that passes through the band on its way somewhere else is not. The stationary distribution of a two-well chain, computed in half precision across a barrier whose top is two to the minus sixteen of the near well, keeps its far well's probability of 0.2454 to three digits with subnormals and returns exactly zero without them. The normwise backward error calls both answers exact.
Two errors, and whose fault they areBalanced is not symmetric
The Sylvester–Kac matrix is made of small integers, so a double holds it exactly, and its eigenvalues are the integers from −(n − 1) to n − 1 in steps of two. Every digit an eigensolver loses on it is therefore the solver's own, and it loses them at exactly the rate first-order perturbation theory predicts: the median error is half the prediction across 1,568 eigenvalues. Balancing, the preprocessing libraries apply for this kind of matrix, divides every condition number by about sixty and leaves their growth untouched, and at order 112 the unbalanced solver returns eighteen complex eigenvalues for a spectrum of integers.
Least squares, and the road not to takeThe degree that is safe to overshoot
The rules that choose a Tikhonov parameter miss by factors of millions on one draw in twenty. Transplanted to the degree of a polynomial fit, in a basis orthonormal on the data, the same rules never cost more than 2.7 times the best degree's error in three hundred draws. The reason is the shape of the valley they search: six degrees too few costs from 44 to 16,000 times the best error, forty degrees too many costs about twice it. The one rule with a tail, the discrepancy principle, has its threshold half a standard deviation above the residual it is waiting for.
Elimination, and the swapWhere the multipliers go
Bunch–Kaufman bounds the growth in D and not the entries of L, and the warning attached to that is that everything which later uses the factors inherits the size of L. On a matrix built to make those entries 1.2 over ε, they reach 1.2·10¹⁰ while the solve's backward error stays at 1.6·10⁻¹⁶, |L||D||Lᵀ| stays at 6.7 times ‖A‖, and a step of refinement changes nothing. The large multipliers are where the rule has put the matrix's ill-conditioning. A direction of negative curvature read from those factors finds 7·10⁻¹⁶ of the curvature that is there; the bounded rule's finds 13%.
Randomised, and the guarantee that changes kindA fade made of drops
A one-nonzero sketch's median error fell by about forty per cent for every factor of ten in how far a coherent matrix had been mixed toward an incoherent one, and nothing explained the rate. Followed one draw at a time, no draw fades at that rate. Each holds its coherent error — as large as the singular value of the direction its hash lost — and then drops, within one to three decades of mixing, never faster than one decade of error per decade of mixing. The median's steady slope is where the drops happen to fall. Change the spectrum and they fall elsewhere: at a decay of 0.9 there is no slope, only a cliff.
Regularisation, and the answer that is chosenA third penalty on a flat floor
Two penalties at once were worth three per cent at most, and the explanation offered was that one penalty already does the work — which predicts that a third buys less still and that the best choice sits on a face of the parameter cube. The third buys a median of exactly nothing on all five signals and 0.66% on its best draw. But on twelve draws of forty the best triple does use all three, and on every one of them the nearest point with a penalty switched off is within that same 0.66%. The minimum is not on a face; it is on a floor so flat that where it lands is noise. Choosing the right single penalty is worth a factor of two.
Structure, and the solver that cannot see itWhere one step stops being enough
One step of iterative refinement took the squared Laplacian's circulant-wrap solve to elimination's accuracy at every size, and the account was that each step multiplies the error by the wrap's condition number times the rounding, so one step suffices while that product is small. Raised to higher powers, the band tests the account and half of it holds: each step does contract by about κ(wrap)·u. The other half fails. The fifth power at sixteen points needs three steps with κ(wrap)·u near 10⁻⁶, where the third power at 128 points needs one with thirty times more, because the first solve starts up to a thousand times further from the answer than κ(wrap)·u says.
Orthogonality, measuredThe factor nobody forms
A blocked Householder factorisation's orthogonal factor, multiplied out, departs from orthogonality half as far in blocks of sixteen as one reflector at a time, and that was read as blocking buying a factor of two. Libraries do not multiply it out. Applied to vectors through its stored blocks — which is how every caller uses it — the same factor departs by 3.1 to 4.0·10⁻¹⁵ at every block size from one to sixty-four, and stops growing after about twenty reflectors instead of adding them up. The factor of two was the price of forming the product, and a factor that is never formed never pays it.
Sparsity, and what elimination costsPieces ordered blind
One level of nested dissection followed by minimum degree lengthened the factorisation's critical path, and the blame moved from the separator to the halves: minimum degree's path through a 12 × 24 half was longer than through the whole 24 × 24 grid. A 12 × 24 grid on its own has a path of 12,913, a third of the square's. What made the half expensive is that it was ordered as if the separator were not there. Count the separator's vertices in every degree and number them last, and the depth-one path falls from 53,508 to 41,050 — minimum degree's own — while the pieces' own arithmetic does not change at all. At depth two the same ordering beats full dissection.
Methods that were designed apartThe first step's filter, kept for the whole run
Conjugate gradients' first step applies a ramp — Tikhonov's slope up to a corner, then one — and the essay that found it proposed the ramp as a fixed method, predicting that it would match the iteration below half the answer better than any sharpened Tikhonov and lose the match near the answer. The first half holds by more than predicted: 0.044 from the iteration below half, where the best member of the family was 0.106. The second does not: near the answer the ramp is within 0.016, closer than any filter measured. And two numbers read off the iteration's own Ritz values — its tail's slope and its smallest Ritz value — reproduce it past the top as well, where every fixed filter falls ten to seventeen per cent below it.
Reduction, and what a model is forWhere a ringing mode stops being a pair
A lightly damped mode puts two nearly equal Hankel singular values into balanced truncation, and the reduction error was read as twice the larger of the first pair cut — right to two per cent at damping 0.01, wrong by half at 0.1. Read instead as the pair's two values added, the error is right to within six per cent at every order up to damping 0.05, and the pair's split turns out to be twice the damping. What it cannot do is say when the reading fails. The split predicts nothing: the widest split at damping 0.1 has the best reading. The failures come from somewhere the pair does not look — the other dropped modes' response under the peak, and a cut between two singular values that agree to under one per cent, which left a reduced model with a pole a thousand times closer to the axis than any pole of the system it came from.
Where the flop count stopped predicting the timeThe short leaf belongs at the bottom
A recursive LU that cuts every dimension at a multiple of the cache's edge moves 14 to 21 per cent fewer words than the pure recursion, except where one leaf per dimension has to be short — and the one-column leftovers cost the most. Moving the short leaf to the top, where it becomes a thin strip of a large product, was predicted to cure that. It makes it worse on all twenty-nine sizes that have a leftover, by up to three hundredths. The measurement that matters more is the edge itself: one column under it the aligned cut keeps most of its saving, one column over it every size costs two and a half to three times the pure recursion. Halving to the same base case barely notices either mistake.
Neither sparse nor denseOne build tells the leaf
The rule that picks a hierarchical matrix's cheapest leaf — halve it while the rank at half the leaf is below a quarter of the leaf — reads ranks that exist only after the matrix has been built at every candidate leaf. Fed instead the rank a code can guess from the tolerance alone, one rank per two decades, it names the best leaf on twenty-three cells of thirty, and on the rank-one kernel it cannot see it stores up to seventy-two per cent too much. Doubling the guess for an oscillation, as earlier measurements suggested, makes it worse: eighteen of thirty. Building once, at a single leaf, and holding that build's mean rank fixed names the best leaf on twenty-nine — one more than the rule that builds at all five — and never stores three per cent more than the least.
The matrix a constraint makesOne hyperplane hides nothing
Iterative refinement against a saddle-point matrix gives its verdict when the growing direction overtakes the minimum's slowest decay, and a right-hand side with that direction removed delays it by a fixed number of steps a decade. With two negative curvatures, the prediction was that hiding both is paid for by the faster, and that hiding only the faster leaves the slower one's race to run. The first half holds to half a per cent on three pairs, and to one and a half on two whose curvatures differ by a factor of two and of 1.2. The second does not: hiding either direction alone moves the verdict by a fixed handful of steps, the same at two decades as at sixteen, because the direction left in view is already growing. Only the intersection of the two hyperplanes hides anything — and it hides less than either curvature can alone, 1,127 steps at worst against 2,907, with random right-hand sides' slowest at 79 against 417.
Eigenvalues, singular values, rankTwo matrices and one problem
Ax = λBx is what a finite element model, a structural vibration and a constrained optimisation actually produce, and it is not the one-matrix problem with a change of variables. Everybody is told not to form B⁻¹A because it is not symmetric. That is true, the departure from symmetry is about one, and it is not what decides the accuracy.
Iterating, instead of factorisingThe direction the diffusion does not go
Streamline diffusion adds τbbᵀ, a rank-one tensor that annihilates every direction across the flow. That is the design. The price is 18, 50 and 48 nodes where the computed solution leaves the interval the equation guarantees — and half a coefficient of crosswind diffusion halves the error at every angle while costing exactly nothing where the scheme was exact.
The arithmetic underneathThe far well in a byte
Half precision's subnormals carried a two-well chain's far well ten octaves deeper than flush to zero, and the essay that measured it predicted that on the eight-bit formats the band would be worth almost nothing and starting high almost everything. Measured on nine chains, the band is worth what it always was, two or three octaves; starting at the top of the range is worth ten and fourteen; and at three significant bits the far well is lost on eight chains of nine with no exponent limit at all, because the precision fails before the range does.
Elimination, and the swapA curvature direction the factors cannot refine
A direction of negative curvature read from Bunch–Kaufman's factors held 7·10⁻¹⁶ of the curvature that was there, and the bounded rule's held 14 per cent. The prediction was that a few steps of inverse iteration with the same factors would recover it from either. One step leaves both under a thousandth, and two put both on positive curvature, at the eigenvalue nearest zero — because a solve amplifies the smallest eigenvalue in magnitude, not the most negative. What recovers the curvature is the matrix, not its factors: Lanczos from either direction reaches ninety-nine per cent in six to nine products at every coupling, and power iteration from Bunch–Kaufman's direction has not reached a tenth after sixty.
Least squares, and the road not to takeThe scale that only moved a pivot
Multiply the constraint rows of a saddle-point system until its multipliers are the size of its solution, and the extra error the route was blamed for — 4.6·10⁻⁴ against the null-space route's 1.8·10⁻⁸ — falls to 3.3·10⁻⁸. The prediction holds and its reason does not. A scale of ten does what a scale of 6·10⁵ does; hold the elimination's row order fixed and nine decades of scale move the error by less than a factor of five. What the scale changed was which row partial pivoting took at the second step, and taking the constraint rows first does the same job with no scale at all.