I'm trying to compute an inverse of a matrix P, but if I multiply inv(P)*P, the MATLAB does not return the identity matrix. It's almost the identity (non diagonal values in the order of 10^(-12)). However, in my application I need more precision.
What can I do in this situation?
Only if you explicitly need the inverse of a matrix you use inv(), otherwise you just use the backslash operator \.
The documentation on inv() explicitly states:
x = A\b is computed differently than x = inv(A)*b and is recommended for solving systems of linear equations.
This is because the backslash operator, or mldivide() uses whatever method is most suited for your specific matrix:
x = A\B solves the system of linear equations A*x = B. The matrices A and B must have the same number of rows. MATLAB® displays a warning message if A is badly scaled or nearly singular, but performs the calculation regardless.
Just so you know what algorithm MATLAB chooses depending on your input matrices, here's the full algorithm flowchart as provided in their documentation
The versatility of mldivide in solving linear systems stems from its ability to take advantage of symmetries in the problem by dispatching to an appropriate solver. This approach aims to minimize computation time. The first distinction the function makes is between full (also called "dense") and sparse input arrays.
As a side-note about error of order of magnitude 10^(-12), besides the above mentioned inaccuracy of the inv() function, there's floating point accuracy. This post on MATLAB issues on it is rather insightful, with a more general computer science post on it here. Basically, if you are computing numerics, don't worry (too much at least) about errors 12 orders of magnitude smaller.
You have what's called an ill-conditioned matrix. It's risky to try to take the inverse of such a matrix. In general, taking the inverse of anything but the smallest matrices (such as those you see in an introduction to linear algebra textbook) is risky. If you must, you could try taking the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse (see Wikipedia), but even that is not foolproof.
Related
I have a linear equation such as
Ax=b
where A is full rank matrix which its size is 512x512. b is a vector of 512x1. x is unknown vector. I want to find x, hence, I have some options for doing that
1.Using the normal way
inv(A)*b
2.Using SVD ( Singular value decomposition)
[U S V]=svd(A);
x = V*(diag(diag(S).^-1)*(U.'*b))
Both methods give the same result. So, what is benefit of using SVD to solve Ax=b, especially in the case A is a 2D matrix?
Welcome to the world of numerical methods, let me be your guide.
You, as a new person in this world wonders, "Why would I do something this difficult with this SVD stuff instead of the so commonly known inverse?! Im going to try it in Matlab!"
And no answer was found. That is, because you are not looking at the problem itself! The problems arise when you have an ill-conditioned matrix. Then the computing of the inverse is not possible numerically.
example:
A=[1 1 -1;
1 -2 3;
2 -1 2];
try to invert this matrix using inv(A). Youll get infinite.
That is, because the condition number of the matrix is very high (cond(A)).
However, if you try to solve it using SVD method (b=[1;-2;3]) you will get a result. This is still a hot research topic. Solving Ax=b systems with ill condition numbers.
As #Stewie Griffin suggested, the best way to go is mldivide, as it does a couple of things behind it.
(yeah, my example is not very good because the only solution of X is INF, but there is a way better example in this youtube video)
inv(A)*b has several negative sides. The main one is that it explicitly calculates the inverse of A, which is both time demanding, and may result in inaccuracies if values vary by many orders of magnitude.
Although it might be better than inv(A)*b, using svd is not the "correct" approach here. The MATLAB-way to do this is using mldivide, \. Using this, MATLAB chooses the best algorithm to solve the linear system based on its properties (Hermation, upper Hessenberg, real and positive diagonal, symmetric, diagonal, sparse etc.). Often, the solution will be a LU-triangulation with partial permutation, but it varies. You'll have a hard time beating MATLABs implementation of mldivide, but using svd might give you some more insight of the properties of the system if you actually investigates U, S, V. If you don't want to do that, do with mldivide.
Hi I am trying to solve a linear system of the following type:
A*x=b,
where A is the coefficient matrix,
x is the vectors of unknowns and
b is the vector of solution.
The coefficient matrix (A) is a n-by-n sparse matrix, with even zeros in the diagonal. In order to solve this system in an accurate way I am using an iterative method in Matlab called bicgstab (Biconjugate gradients stabilized method).
This coefficient matrix (A) has a
det(A)=-4.1548e-05 and a rcond(A)= 1.1331e-04.
Therefore the matrix is ill-conditioned. I first try to perform a scaling and the results where:
det(A)= -1.2612e+135 but the rcond(A)=5.0808e-07...
Therefore the matrix is still ill-conditioned... I verify and the sum of all absolute value of the non-diagonal elements where 163.60 and the sum of all absolute value of the diagonal elements where 32.49... Therefore the matrix of coefficient is not diagonally dominant and will not converge using my function bicgstab...
I am looking for someone that can help me with performing a pivoting to the coefficient matrix (A) so it can be diagonally dominant. Or any advice to solve this problem....
Thanks for the help.
First there should be quite a few things noted here:
Don't use the determinant to estimate the "amount of singularity" of your matrix. The determinant is the product of all the eigenvalues of your matrix, and therefore its scaling can be wildly misleading compared to a much better measure like the condition number, leading to the next point..
your conditioning (according to rcond) isn't that bad, are you working with single or double precision? Large problems can routinely get condition numbers in this range and still be quite solvable, but of course this depends on a very complicated interaction of many factors, of which the condition number plays only a small part. This leads to another complicated point:
Diagonal dominance may not help you at all here. BiCGStab as far as I know does not require diagonal dominance for its convergence, and also I don't think diagonal dominance is known even to help it. Diagonal dominance is usually an assumption made by other iterative methods such as the Jacobi method or Gauss-Seidel. Actually the convergence behavior of BiCGStab is not very well understood at all, and it is usually only used when memory is a very severe problem but conjugate gradients is not applicable.
If you are really interested in using a Krylov method (such as BiCGStab) to solve your problem, then you generally need to have more understanding of where your matrix is coming from so that you can choose a sensible preconditioner.
So this calls for a bit more information. Do you know more about this matrix? Is it arising from some kind of physical problem? Do you know for example if it is symmetric or positive definite (I will assume not both because you are not using CG).
Let me end with some actionable advice which is very generic, and so not necessarily optimal:
If memory is not an issue, consider using restarted GMRES instead of BiCGStab. My experience is that GMRES has much more robust convergence.
Try an approximate factorization preconditioner such as ILU. MATLAB has a function for this built in.
I am trying to run a standard Kalman Filter algorithm to calculate likelihoods, but I keep getting a problema of a non positive definite variance matrix when calculating normal densities.
I've researched a little and seen that there may be in fact some numerical instabitlity; tried some numerical ways to avoid a non-positive definite matrix, using both choleski decomposition and its variant LDL' decomposition.
I am using MatLab.
Does anyone suggest anything?
Thanks.
I have encountered what might be the same problem before when I needed to run a Kalman filter for long periods but over time my covariance matrix would degenerate. It might just be a problem of losing symmetry due to numerical error. One simple way to enforce your covariance matrix (let's call it P) to remain symmetric is to do:
P = (P + P')/2 # where P' is transpose(P)
right after estimating P.
post your code.
As a rule of thumb, if the model is not accurate and the regularization (i.e. the model noise matrix Q) is not sufficiently "large" an underfitting will occur and the covariance matrix of the estimator will be ill-conditioned. Try fine tuning your Q matrix.
The Kalman Filter implemented using the Joseph Form is known to be numerically unstable, as any old timer who once worked with single precision implementation of the filter can tell. This problem was discovered zillions of years ago and prompt a lot of research in implementing the filter in a stable manner. Probably the best well-known implementation is the UD, where the Covariance matrix is factorized as UDU' and the two factors are updated and propagated using special formulas (see Thoronton and Bierman). U is an upper diagonal matrix with "1" in its diagonal, and D is a diagonal matrix.
I'm not too familiar with MATLAB or computational mathematics so I was wondering how I might solve an equation involving the sum of squares, where each term involves two vectors- one known and one unknown. This formula is supposed to represent the error and I need to minimize the error. I think I'm supposed to use least squares but I don't know too much about it and I'm wondering what function is best for doing that and what arguments would represent my equation. My teacher also mentioned something about taking derivatives and he formed a matrix using derivatives which confused me even more- am I required to take derivatives?
The problem that you must be trying to solve is
Min u'u = min \sum_i u_i^2, u=y-Xbeta, where u is the error, y is the vector of dependent variables you are trying to explain, X is a matrix of independent variables and beta is the vector you want to estimate.
Since sum u_i^2 is diferentiable (and convex), you can evaluate the minimal of this expression calculating its derivative and making it equal to zero.
If you do that, you find that beta=inv(X'X)X'y. This maybe calculated using the matlab function regress http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/regress.html or writing this formula in Matlab. However, you should be careful how to evaluate the inverse (X'X) see Most efficient matrix inversion in MATLAB
I have this huge matrix A of dimension 900000x900000. And I have to solve this linear equation
Ax=b where b is a column matrix of size 900000x1.
I used matlab's backslash operator like A\b to try to get x. However, it freezes and I couldn't get x. Mostly I get out of memory issue. Even though I ran it in a computer with higher memory it makes the system very slow and I have to wait to get the answer.
How can I solve this equation. My matrix is pretty sparse. However, it's band is wider but most of the elements are zero. b is a full matrix. Any suggestions?
I did a project, where we also operated with such large but fortunately very sparse matrices.
Using such large matrices, you are pretty lost with direct methods: You can never compute the inverse because it will be a dense matrix, which you can never store. Also methods such as LU or Cholesky factorization are quite expensive because they again create a significant fill-in, i.e. they destroy zeros.
A viable alternative is to use iterative methods. If you know that your matrix is symmetric and positive-definite, try the Conjugate gradient method:
x = pcg(A, b); %# Computes a solution to Ax = b, with A symm. pos-def.
I would just give it a try and have a look, if the method converges. Proofing the assumption of positive-definiteness is not easy, I'm afraid.
If you do not get a solution, there are many more iterative methods. For example:
bicg - BiConjugate Gradient Method
bicgstab - BiConjugate Gradient Method (stabilized)
lsqr - Least Squares QR Method
gmres - Generalized Minimum Residual Method (I like this a lot)