I have a system of dynamic equations that ultimately can be written in the well-known "spring-mass-damper" form:
[M]{q''}+[C]{q'}+[K]{q}={0}
[M], [C], [K]: n-by-n Coefficient Matrices
{q}: n-by-1 Vector of the Degrees of Freedom
(the ' mark represents a time derivative)
I want to find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of this system. Obviously due to the term [C]{q'}, the standard MATLAB function eig() will not be useful.
Does anyone know of a simple MATLAB routine to determine the eigenvalues, eigenvectors of this system? The system is homogeneous so an efficient eigenvalue analysis should be very feasible, but I'm struggling a bit.
Obviously I can use brute force and a symbolic computing software to find the gigantic characteristic polynomial. But this seems inefficient for me, especially because I'm looping this through the other parts of the code to determine frequencies as a function of other varied parameters.
Related
I have a 1047x1047 sparse matrix and am interested in its eigenvectors and eigenvalues. From the mathematical derivation I know that these must be real. scipy eigs finds complex ones though. Unfortunately this destroys everything. There is no possibility to create a minimal example, because for small matrices eigs also calculates real eigenvectors, i.e. complex eigenvectors with imaginary part zero.
Desperate thanks!
I am simulating a physical system, where I need to calculate the eigenvalues and vectors of a very large (~10000x10000) matrix.
So far I have used the in-built Eig algorithm in MATLAB but it is very slow for large matrices. Is there other algorithms in MATLAB that would do a better job or can I somehow improve the performance of Eig? Specifically it turns out that I only need the first ~100 eigenvectors of the matrix starting from the smallest numerical eigenvalue. Is there a way to get the algorithm to calculate only the first N eigenvectors and eigenvalues to save computation time? Of course this would only work if the eigenvectors come out sorted but they seem to do so, because of the symmetry of the Matrix I am using.
Your matrix has mostly zeros, so you should make it a sparse matrix. You'll then be able to use EIGS to calculate a smaller number of eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
http://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/eigs.html
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.
For a spectrum estimation algorithm I need to find the best fitting linear combination of vectors to fit a target spectral distribution. So far, this works relatively well using the lsqlin optimizer in MATLAB.
However, for the final application I would like to approximate/solve this problem for exclusively zeros and ones, meaning Ax=b solved for Boolean x.
Is there any way to parametrize lsqlin or another optimizer function for this purpose?
If the problem is just:
Solve Ax=b for x in {0,1}
then you can use a MIP solver (e.g. Matlab intlinprog). If the problem is over-constrained and you want a least squares solution:
Min w'w
S.t. Ax - b = w
x in {0,1} (binary variable)
w free variable
then you have a MIQP (Mixed Integer Quadratic Programming) problem. There are good solvers for this such as Cplex and Gurobi (callable from Matlab). Also Matlab has a discussion about an approximation scheme using intlinprog. Another idea is to replace the quadratic objective by a sum of absolute values. This can be formulated as linear MIP model.
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.