For a symmetric sparse square matrix of size 300,000*300,000, what is best way to find 10 smallest Eigenvalues and its corresponding Eigenvectors within an hours or so in any language or packages.
The Lanczos algorithm, which operates on a Hermitian matrix, is one good way to find the lowest and greatest eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors. Note that a real symmetric matrix is by definition Hermitian. Lanczos requires O(N) storage and also roughly O(N) time to evaluate the extreme eigenvalues/eigenvectors. This contrasts with brute force diagonalization which requires O(N^2) storage and O(N^3) running time. For this reason, the Lanczos algorithm made possible approximate solutions to many problems which previously were not computationally feasible.
Here is a useful link to a UC Davis site, which lists implementations of Lanczos in a number of languages/packages, including FORTRAN, C/C++, and MATLAB.
Related
I have a large sparse matrix, for example, 128000×128000 SparseMatrixCSC{Complex{Float64},Int64} with 1376000 stored entries.
How to quickly get all eigenvalues of the sparse matrix ? Is it possible ?
I tried eigs for 128000×128000 with 1376000 stored entries but the kernel was dead.
I use a mac book pro with 16GB memory and Julia 1.3.1 on jupyter notebook.
As far as I'm aware (and I would love to be proven wrong) there is no efficient way to get all the eigenvalues of a general sparse matrix.
The main algorithm to compute the eigenvalues of a matrix is the QR algorithm. The first step of the QR algorithm is to reduce the matrix to a Hessenberg form (in order to do the QR factorisations in O(n) time). The problem is that reducing a matrix to Hessenberg form destroys the sparsity and you just end up with a dense matrix.
There are also other methods to compute the eigenvalues of a matrix like the (inverse) power iteration, that only require matrix vector products and solving linear systems, but these only give you the largest or smallest eigenvalues, and they become expensive when you want to compute all the eigenvalues (they require storing the eigenvectors for the "deflation").
So that was in general, now if your matrix has some special structure there may some better alternatives. For example, if your matrix is symmetric, then its Hessenberg form is tridiagonal and you can compute all the eigenvalues pretty fast.
TLDR: Is it possible ? — in general, no.
P.S: I tried to keep this short but if you're interested I can give you more details on any part of the answer.
I am looking to find the fastest code/algorithm/package for obtaining the singular value decomposition (SVD) of a real, square bidiagonal matrix. The matrices I am working with are fairly small - typically somewhere around 15x15 in size. However, I am performing this SVD thousands (maybe millions) of times, so the computational cost becomes quite large.
I am writing all of my code in C. I assume the fastest codes for performing the SVD will probably come from LAPACK. I have been looking into LAPACK and it seems like I have quite a few different options for performing the SVD of real, bidiagonal matrices:
dbdsqr - uses a zero-shift QR algorithm to get the SVD of a bidiagonal matrix
dbdsdc - uses a divide and conquer algorithm to get the SVD of a bidiagonal matrix
dgesvd - not sure exactly how this one works, but it can handle any arbitrary matrix, so I assume I am better of using dbdsqr or dbdsdc
dgesdd - not quire sure how this one works either, but it can also handle any arbitrary matrix, so I assume I am better of using dbdsqr or dbdsdc
dstemr - estimates eigenvectors/eigenvalues for a tridiagonal matrix; I can use it to estimate the left singular vectors/values by finding the eigenvectors/values of A*A'; I can then estimate the right singular vectors/values by finding the eigenvectors/values of A'*A
dstemr - perhaps there is an even faster way to use dstemr to get the SVD... please enlighten me if you know of a way
I have no idea which of these methods is fastest. Is there an even faster way to get the SVD of a real, bidiagonal matrix that I haven't listed above?
Ideally I am looking for a small example C code to demonstrate the fastest possible SVD for a relatively small real, bidiagonal matrix.
I'm using the GNU Scientific Library in implementing a calculator which needs to be able to raise matrices to powers. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be such a function available in the GSL for even multiplying matrices (the gsl_matrix_mul_elements() function only multiplies using the addition process), and by extension, no raising to powers.
I want to be able to raise to negative powers, which requires the ability to take the inverse. From my searching around, I have not been able to find any sound code for calculating the inverses of arbitrary matrices (only ones with defined dimensions), and the guides I found for doing it by hand use clever "on-paper tricks" that don't really work in code.
Is there a common algorithm that can be used to compute the inverse of a matrix of any size (failing of course when the inverse cannot be calculated)?
As mentioned in the comments, power of matrices can be computed for square matrices for integer exponents. The n power of A is A^n = A*A*...A where A appears n times. If B is the inverse of A, then the -n power of A is A^(-n) = (A^-1)^n = B^n = B*B*...B.
So in order to compute the n power of A I can suggest the following algorithm using GSL:
gsl_matrix_set_identity(); // initialize An as I
for(i=0;i<n;i++) gsl_blas_dgemm(); // compute recursive product of A
For computing B matrix you can use the following routine
gsl_linalg_LU_decomp(); // compute A decomposition
gsl_linalg_complex_LU_invert // comput inverse from decomposition
I recommend reading up about the SVD, which the gsl implements. If your matrix is invertible, then computing it via the SVD is a not bad, though somewhat slow, way to go. If your matrix is not invertible, the SVD allows you to compute the next best thing, the generalised inverse.
In matrix calculations the errors inherent in floating point arithmetic can accumulate alarmingly. One example is the Hilbert matrix, an innocent looking thing with a remarkably large condition number, even for quite moderate dimension. A good test of an inversion routine is to see how big a Hilbert matrix it can invert, and how close the computed inverse times the matrix is to the identity.
Hi I have been trying to code for finding eigenvalues of a n*n matrix. But I'm not able to think what should be the algorithm for it.
Step 1: Finding det(A-(lamda)*I) = 0
What should be the algorithm for a general matrix, for finding lamda?
I have written the code for finding determinant of a matrix, Can this be used in our algorithm.
Please Help. It will be really appreciated.
[Assuming your matrix is hermitian (simply put, symmetric) so the eigenvectors are real numbers]
In computation, you don't solve for the eignenvectors and eigenvalues using the determinant. It's too slow and unstable numerically.
What you do is apply a transformation (the householder reduction) to reduce your matrix to a tri-diagonal form.
After which, you apply what is known as the QL algorithm on that.
As a starting point, look at tred2 and tqli from numerical recipes (www.nr.com). These are the algorithms I've just described.
Note that these routines also recover candidate eigenvectors.
I am working on Fermion and Boson Hubbard Model, in which dimension of Hilbert Space are quite large (~50k). I am currently using the Lapack routine DSYEV to determine the eigenvalues & eigenfunctions of the large (50k x 50k) Hamiltonian matrix, but this takes a long time, about 8 hours on a Xeon workstation.
I would like to reduce this run time on this particular machine. I am looking at the Lanczos method and wondering if this is the best option, or if there is another choice.
Lanczos (or other iterative) method is used to compute extreme (small/big) eigenvalues. It is better than direct DSYEV, if you need eigenvalues and eigenfunctions much less than the system size (50k). Especially, if the matrix you have is sparse then the acceleration you will get is much better.
If you are looking for all eigenvalues and your matrix is dense then the better method is direct DSYEV.