A numerical Approach toward Approximate Algebraic Computatition. Zhonggang Zeng Northeastern Illinois University, USA. Oct. 18, 2006, Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. What would happen when we try numerical computation on algebraic problems?.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
A numerical Approachtoward
Approximate Algebraic Computatition
Zhonggang Zeng
Northeastern Illinois University, USA
Oct. 18, 2006, Institute of Mathematicsand its Applications
when we try numerical computation
on algebraic problems?
A numerical analyst got a surprise 50 years ago on a deceptively simple problem.
1
Completed: 1950
Add time: 1.8 microseconds
Input/output: cards
Memory size: 352 32digit words
Memory type: delay lines
Technology: 800 vacuum tubes
Floor space: 12 square feet
Project leader: J. H. Wilkinson
Britain’s Pilot Ace
James H. Wilkinson (19191986)
2
p(x) = (x1)(x2)...(x20)
= x20  210 x19 + 20615 x18 + ...
Wilkinson wrote in 1984:
Speaking for myself I regard it as the most traumatic
experience in my career as a numerical analyst.
3
Translation: There are two 1dimensional solution set:
Solving polynomial systems:
Example: A distorted cyclic four system:
7
Isolated solutions
1dimensional solution set
Distorted Cyclic Four system in floating point form:
8
What could happen in approximate algebraic computation?
10
or
So, why bother with approximation in algebra?
All subsequent computations become approximate
11
blurred image
true image
Application: Image restoration (Pillai & Liang)
So, why bother with approximation solutions?
blurred image
restored image
Application: Image restoration (Pillai & Liang)
true image
Approximate solution is better than exact solution!
13
by Bertini
(Courtesy of Bates, Hauenstein,
Sommese, Wampler)
Perturbed Cyclic 4
Exact solutions by Maple: 16 isolated (codim 4) solutions
Exact solutions by Maple: 16 isolated (codim 4) solutions
Or, by an experimental approximate elimination combined with approximate GCD
Approximate solutions are better than exact ones
, arguably
15
Example: JCF computation
Maple takes 2 hours
On a similar 8x8 matrix, Maple and Mathematica run out of memory
So, why bother with approximation solutions?
16
Pioneer works in numerical algebraic computation (incomplete list)
17
approximate solution
using 8digits precision
forward error
backward error
axact solution



=
2
4
2
(
x
1
)
(
10
)
0
What is an “approximate solution”?
To solve
with 8 digits precision:
backward error: 0.00000001  method is good
forward error: 0.0001  problem is bad
18
From numerical method
The condition number
[Forward error] < [Condition number] [Backward error]
A large condition number
<=> The problem is sensitive or, illconditioned
An infinite condition number <=> The problem is illposed
19
Wilkinson’s Turing Award contribution:
Backward error analysis
20
Illposed problems are common in applications
An illposed problem is infinitely sensitive to perturbation
tiny perturbation huge error
21
 Polynomial GCD
 Factorization of multivariate polynomials
 The Jordan Canonical Form
 Multiplicity structure/zeros of polynomial systems
 Matrix rank
Illposed problems are common
in algebraic computing
22
are infinitely sensitive
to data perturbation
A numerical algorithm
seeks the exact solution
of a nearby problem
If the answer is highly sensitive to perturbations, you have probably asked the wrong question.
Maxims about numerical mathematics, computers,
science and life, L. N. Trefethen. SIAM News
Does that mean:
(Most) algebraic problems are wrong problems?
Conclusion: Numerical computation is incompatible
with illposed problems.
Solution: Formulate the right problem.
23
P
P
Data
P
Challenge in solving illposed problems:
Can we recover the lost solution
when the problem is inexact?
P:Data Solution
24
This is a misconception
Are illposed problems really sensitive to perturbations?
Kahan’s discovery in 1972:
Illposed problems are sensitive to arbitrary perturbation,
but insensitive to structure preserving perturbation.
25
Plot of pejorative manifolds of degree 3 polynomials with multiple roots
Why are illposed problems infinitely sensitive?
26
Geometry of illposed algebraic problems
Similar manifold stratification exists for problems like
factorization, JCF, multiple roots …
27
Manifolds of 4x4 matrices defined by Jordan structures
(Edelman, Elmroth and Kagstrom 1997)
e.g. {2,1} {1} is the structure of 2 eigenvalues in 3 Jordan blocks of sizes 2, 1 and 1
28
B
A
?
perturbation
Problem A
Problem B
Illustration of pejorative manifolds
The “nearest” manifold may not be the answer
The right manifold is of highest codimension within a certain distance
29
Finding approximate solution is (likely) a wellposed problem
Approximate solution is a generalization of exact solution.
A “threestrikes” principle for formulating
an “approximate solution” to an illposed problem:
30
Formulation of the problemapproximate rank /kernel:
Backward nearness:apprank of A is
the exact rank of certain matrix B within q.
The approximate rank of A within q :
Maximum codimension:That matrix B
is on the pejorative manifold P possessing the
highest codimension and intersecting the
qneighborhoodof A.
The approximate kernel of A within q :
with
Minimum distance:That B is the nearest
matrix on the pejorative manifold P.
31
= 4 problem
nullity = 2
= 4
nullityq = 2
After reformulating the rank:
Rank
Rankq
Illposedness is removed successfully.
kernel
Apprank/kernel can be computed by SVD and other rankrevealing algorithms
(e.g. LiZeng, SIMAX, 2005)
basis
+ eE = 6
nullity = 0
+ eE = 4
nullityq = 2
32
The AGCD within probleme :
Formulation of the approximate GCD
33
Similar formulation strikes out illposedness in problems such as
34
after formulating the approximate solution to problem such asP within e
Stage I: Find the pejorative manifold
P of the highest dimension s.t.
P
P
S
Stage II: Find/solve problem Q such that
Q
The twostaged algorithm
Exact solution of Q is the approximate solution of P within e
which approximates the solution of S where P is perturbed from
35
Stage II: solve the (overdetermined) quadratic system such as
for a least squares solution (u,v,w) by GaussNewton iteration
Case study: Univariate approximate GCD:
Stage I: Find the pejorative manifold
(key theorem: The Jacobian of F(u,v,w) is injective.)
36
Maxcodimension such as
k := k1
k := k1
Is AGCD of degree k
possible?
no
no
probably
Refine with
GN Iteration
Successful?
yes
Mindistance
nearness
Output GCD
Start: k = n
Univariate AGCD algorithm
37
Stage II: solve the (overdetermined) quadratic system such as
for a least squares solution (u,v,w) by GaussNewton iteration
(key theorem: The Jacobian of F(u,v,w) is injective.)
Case study: Multivariate approximate GCD:
Stage I: Find the maxcodimension pejorative manifold by
applying univariate AGCD algorithm on each variable xj
38
Stage II: solve the (overdetermined) polynomial system such asF(z1 ,…,zk )=f
(in the form of coefficient vectors)
for a least squares solution (z1 ,…,zk) by GaussNewton iteration
(key theorem: The Jacobian is injective.)
Case study: univariate factorization:
Stage I: Find the maxcodimension pejorative manifold by
applying univariate AGCD algorithm on (f, f’ )
39
A such as ~ J
l 1
l 1
l
J =
Segre characteristic = [3,1]
B
l
A
codim = 1 + 3 + 3(1) = 5
l
l
s13
s23
s14
s24
s34
Wyre characteristic = [2,1,1]
lI+S=
l
l
3
1
2
1
1
Ferrer’s diagram
Case study: Finding the nearest matrix with a Jordan structure
P
Equations determining the manifold
40
A such as ~ J
B
A
For B not on the manifold, we can still solve
for a least squares solution :
When
is minimized, so is
of
is injective.
The crucial requirement: The Jacobian
(Zeng & Li, 2006)
Case study: Finding the nearest matrix with a Jordan structure
Equations determining the manifold
P
41
Project to tangent plane such as
u1 = G(z0)+J(z0)(z1 z0)
~
tangent plane P0 :
u = G(z0)+J(z0)(z z0)
Least squares solution
u*=G(z*)
new iterate
u1=G(z1)
initial iterate
u0=G(z0)
Solving G(z) = a
a
Pejorative manifold
u = G( z )
Solve
G( z ) = a
for nonlinear least squares solutionz=z*
Solve
G(z0)+J(z0)(z  z0 ) = a
for linear least squares solutionz =z1
G(z0)+J(z0)(z  z0 ) = a
J(z0)(z  z0 ) =  [G(z0)  a ]
z1 = z0  [J(z0)+][G(z0)  a]
42
condition number such as
(sensitivity measure)
Stage I: Find the nearby maxcodim manifold
Stage II: Find/solve the nearest problem on the manifold via solving an overdetermined system G(z)=a for a least squares solutionz* s.t . G(z*)a=minz G(z)a
by the GaussNewton iteration
Key requirement: Jacobian J(z*) of G(z) at z* is injective (i.e. the pseudoinverse exists)
43
univariate/multivariate GCD such asmatrix rank/kernel
dual basis for a polynomial ideal
univariate factorization
irreducible factorizationelimination ideal
… …
(to be continued in the workshop
next week)
Summary:
44