Spefifically, the following two kinds of code can get the same S and V idealy. However, the second one's speed is usually faster than the first one in Matlab. Can someone tell me the reason?
Moreover, which method is more numerically stable?
Thanks.
[~,S,V] = svd(B,'econ');
[Qc,Rc] = qr(B',0);
[U,S,~] = svd(Rc,'econ');
V = Qc*U;
The second method does not have to be faster. For almost squared matrices it can be slower. Consider as example the Golub-Reinsch SVD-algorithm:
Its work depends on the output you want to calculate (only S, Sand V or S,V and U).
If you want to calculate Sand V without performing any preprocessing the required work is 4mn^2+8n^3.
If you perform QR-decomposition before this the needed amount of work is: 2/3n^3+n^2+1/3n-2 for the Housholder transformation. Now if your Matrix was almost squared, i.e m=n, you will have gained not much as R is still m x n. However if m is larger than n you can reduce R to an n x n matrix (called thin QR factorization). Now you want to calculate Uand S which will add 12n^3 for your SVD-algorithm.
So only SVD: 4mn^2+8n^3
SVD with QR: (12+2/3)n^3+n^2+1/3n-2
However most SVD-algorithms should inculde some (R-) bidiagonalizations which will reduce the work to: 2mn^2+11n^3
You can also apply QR, the R-bifactorization and then SVD to make it even faster but it all depends on your matrix dimensions.
Matlab uses for SVD the Lapack libraries. You can look up the exact runtimes here. They're approximately the same as above algorithm.
Hope this helps.
Related
I have a linear system of about 2000 sparse equations in Matlab. For my final result, I only really need the value of one of the variables: the other values are irrelevant. While there is no real problem in simply solving the equations and extracting the correct variable, I was wondering whether there was a faster way or Matlab command. For example, as soon as the required variable is calculated, the program could in principle stop running.
Is there anyone who knows whether this is at all possible, or if it would just be easier to keep solving the entire system?
Most of the computation time is spent inverting the matrix, if we can find a way to avoid completely inverting the matrix then we may be able to improve the computation time. Lets assume I'm only interested in the solution for the last variable x(N). Using the standard method we compute
x = A\b;
res = x(N);
Assuming A is full rank, we can instead use LU decomposition of the augmented matrix [A b] to get x(N) which looks like this
[~,U] = lu([A b]);
res = U(end,end-1)/U(end,end);
This is essentially performing Gaussian elimination and then solving for x(N) using back-substitution.
We can extend this to find any value of x by swapping the columns of A before LU decomposition,
x_index = 123; % the index of the solution we are interested in
A(:,[x_index,end]) = A(:,[end,x_index]);
[~,U] = lu([A b]);
res = U(end,end)/U(end,end-1);
Bench-marking performance in MATLAB2017a with 10,000 random 200 dimensional systems we get a slight speed-up
Total time direct method : 4.5401s
Total time LU method : 3.9149s
Note that you may experience some precision issues if A isn't well conditioned.
Also, this approach doesn't take advantage of the sparsity of A. In my experiments even with 2000x2000 sparse matrices everything significantly slowed down and the LU method is significantly slower. That said full matrix representation only requires about 30MB which shouldn't be a problem on most computers.
If you have access to theory manuals on NASTRAN, I believe (from memory) there is coverage of partial solutions of linear systems. Also try looking for iterative or tri diagonal solvers for A*x = b. On this page, review the pqr solution answer by Shantachhani. Another reference.
I have a special algorithm where as one of the lasts steps I need to carry out a multiplication of a 3-D array with a 2-D array such that each matrix-slice of the 3-D array is multiplied wich each column of the 2-D array. In other words, if, say A is an N x N x N matrix and B is an N x N matrix, I need to compute a matrix C of size N x N where C(:,i) = A(:,:,i)*B(:,i);.
The naive way to implement this is a loop, i.e.,
C = zeros(N,N);
for i = 1:N
C(:,i) = A(:,:,i)*B(:,i);
end
However, loops aren't the fastest in Matlab and should be avoided. I'm looking for faster ways of doing this. Right now, what I do is to use the fact that (now Mathjax would be great!):
[A1 b1, A2 b2, ..., AN bN] = [A1, A2, ..., AN]*blkdiag(b1,b2,...,bN)
This allows to get rid of the loop, however, we have to create a block-diagonal matrix of size N^2 x N. I'm making it via sparse to be efficient, i.e., like this:
A_long = reshape(A,N,N^2);
b_cell = mat2cell(B,N,ones(1,N)); % convert matrix to cell array of vectors
b_cell{1} = sparse(b_cell{1}); % make first element sparse, this is enough to trigger blkdiag into sparse mode
B_blk = blkdiag(b_cell{:});
C = A_long*B_blk;
According to my benchmarks, this approach is faster than the loop by a factor of around two (for large N), despite the necessary preparations (the multiplication alone is 3 to 4-fold faster than the loop).
Here is a quick benchmark I did, varying the problem size N and measuring the time for the loop and the alternative approach (with and without the preparation steps). For large N the speedup is around 2...2.5.
Still, this looks awfully complicated to me. Is there a simpler or better way to achieve this? This looks like it's a quite generic/standard problem so I could imagine that solutions are around, I just don't know what to search for really.
P.S.: blkdiag(A1,...,AN)*B is an obvious alternative but here the block diagonal is already N^2 x N^2 so I don't think it can be better than what I did.
edit: Thanks to everyone for commenting! I have carried out a new benchmark on a Matlab R2016b. Unfortunately, I do not have both versions on the same computer so we cannot compare the absolute numbers but the relative comparison is still interesting, since it has changed a bit. Here it is:
And here is a zoom on the high-N area:
Couple of observations:
SumRepDot is the solution proposed by Divakar, namely, to use squeeze(sum(bsxfun(#times,A,permute(B,[3,1,2])),2)) which on R2016b simplifies to squeeze(sum(A.*permute(B,[3,1,2]),2)). It is faster than the loop for high N by a factor of around 1.2...1.4.
The loop is still "slow" in a sense that the multiplication with the sparse block diagonal matrix is much faster.
For the latter, the preparation overhead seems to become negligible for high N which makes it overall a factor of 3...4 faster than the loop. This is a nice result.
I am using IPOPT in MATLAB to run an optimization and I am running into some issues where it says:
Hessian must be an n x n sparse, symmetric and lower triangular matrix
with row indices in increasing order, where n is the number of variables.
After looking at my Hessian Matrix, I found that the non-symmetric elements it is complaining about are very close, here is an example:
H(k,j) = 2.956404205984938
H(j,k) = 2.956404205984939
Obviously these elements are close enough and there are some numerical round-off issues or something of the like. Also, when I call MATLABs issymmetric function with H as an input, I get false. Is there a way to forget about these very small differences in symmetry?
A little more info:
I am using an optimized matlabFunction to actually calculate the entire hessian (H), then I did some postprocessing before passing it to IPOPT:
H = tril(H);
H = sparse(H);
The tril command generates a lower triangular matrix, so these numeral differences should not come into play. So, the issue might be that it is complaining that the sparse command passes back increasing column indices and not increasing row indices. Is there a way to change this so that it passes back the sparse matrix in increasing row indices?
If H is very close to symmetric but not quite, and you need to force it to be exactly symmetric, a standard way to do this would be to say H = (H+H')./2.
I'm running an optimization algorithm that requires calculation of the inverse of a matrix. The goal of the algorithm is to eliminate negative values from the matrix A and obtain the new matrix B. Basically, I start with known square matrices B and C of the same size.
I start by calculating the matrix A which is equal to:
A = B^-1 * C
Or in Matlab:
A = B\C;
I use this because Matlab told me B\C is more accurate than inv(B)*C.
The negative values in A are then divided by two and A is then normalised so that it's rows have length of 1. Using this new A, I calculate a new B with:
(1/N) * A * C' = B^-1
where N is just a scaling factor (# of columns in A). This new B would then be used again in the first step and these iterations continue until the negatives in A are gone.
My problem is I have to calculate B from the second equation and then normalise it.
invB = (1/N)*A*C';
B = inv(invB);
I've been calculating B using inv(B^-1) but after a few iterations I start getting messages that B^-1 is "close to singular or badly scaled."
This algorithm actually works for smaller matrices (around 70x70) but when it gets up to about 500x500 I start getting these messages.
Are there any better ways to calculate inv(B^-1)?
You should definitely head warnings about singular matrices. Results in numerical linear algebra tend to break down as you move toward matrices with high condition numbers. The underlying idea is if
A*b_1 = c
and we're actually solving the problem (because we are using approximate numbers when we use computers)
(A + matrix error)*b_2 = (c + vector error)
how close are b_1 and b_2 as a function of the matrix and vector errors? When A has small condition number b_1 and b_2 are close. When A has large condition number b_1 and b_2 are not close.
There is an informative piece of analysis you could do on your algorithm. At each iteration, after you've found B, find use Matlab to find the condition number of it. This is
cond(B)
You will likely see the number climb rapidly. This indicates that every time you iterate your algorithm, you should trust your result for B less and less.
Problems like this crop up all the time in numerical mathematics. If you'll be working with numerical algorithms frequently you should take some time to familiarize with the role of condition numbers in the field and preconditioning techniques as mentioned above. My preferred text for this is "Numerical Linear Algebra" by Lloyd Trefethen, but any text on Numerical Algebra should address some of these issues.
Best of luck,
Andrew
The main issue is that your matrix has a high condition number (i.e. really small rcond(B) in your case). This is due to the iterative structure in your algorithm, I guess. As you do each iteration your small singular values get smaller and smaller so your condition number grows exponentially. You should check preconditioning to avoid this kind of behavior.
from a simulation problem, I want to calculate complex square matrices on the order of 1000x1000 in MATLAB. Since the values refer to those of Bessel functions, the matrices are not at all sparse.
Since I am interested in the change of the determinant with respect to some parameter (the energy of a searched eigenfunction in my case), I overcome the problem at the moment by first searching a rescaling factor for the studied range and then calculate the determinants,
result(k) = det(pre_factor*Matrix{k});
Now this is a very awkward solution and only works for matrix dimensions of, say, maximum 500x500.
Does anybody know a nice solution to the problem? Interfacing to Mathematica might work in principle but I have my doubts concerning feasibility.
Thank you in advance
Robert
Edit: I did not find a convient solution to the calculation problem since this would require changing to a higher precision. Instead, I used that
ln det M = trace ln M
which is, when I derive it with respect to k
A = trace(inv(M(k))*dM/dk)
So I at least had the change of the logarithm of the determinant with respect to k. From the physical background of the problem I could derive constraints on A which in the end gave me a workaround valid for my problem. Unfortunately I do not know if such a workaround could be generalized.
You should realize that when you multiply a matrix by a constant k, then you scale the determinant of the matrix by k^n, where n is the dimension of the matrix. So for n = 1000, and k = 2, you scale the determinant by
>> 2^1000
ans =
1.07150860718627e+301
This is of course a huge number, so you might expect that it should fail, since in double precision, MATLAB will only represent floating point numbers as large as realmax.
>> realmax
ans =
1.79769313486232e+308
There is no need to do all the work of recomputing that determinant, not that computing the determinant of a huge matrix like that is a terribly well-posed problem anyway.
If speed is not a concern, you may want to use det(e^A) = e^(tr A) and take as A some scaling constant times your matrix (so that A - I has spectral radius less than one).
EDIT: In MatLab, the log of a matrix (logm) is calculated via trigonalization. So it is better for you to compute the eigenvalues of your matrix and multiply them (or better, add their logarithm). You did not specify whether your matrix was symmetric or not: if it is, finding eigenvalues are easier than if it is not.
You said the current value of the determinant is about 10^-300.
Are you trying to get the determinant at a certain value, say 1? If so, rescaling is awkward: the matrix you are considering is ill-conditioned, and, considering the precision of the machine, you should consider the output determinant to be zero. It is impossible to get a reliable inverse in other words.
I would suggest to modify the columns or lines of the matrix rather than rescale it.
I used R to make a small test with a random matrix (random normal values), it seems the determinant should be clearly non-zero.
> n=100
> M=matrix(rnorm(n**2),n,n)
> det(M)
[1] -1.977380e+77
> kappa(M)
[1] 2318.188
This is not strictly a matlab solution, but you might want to consider using Mahout. It's specifically designed for large-scale linear algebra. (1000x1000 is no problem for the scales it's used to.)
You would call into java to pass data to/from Mahout.