1: \documentclass{article}

2: 

3: \newif\ifpdf

4: \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined

5:   \pdffalse

6: \else

7:   \pdfoutput=1

8:   \pdftrue

9: \fi

10: 

11: \ifpdf

12:   \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}

13:   \usepackage[pdftex]{color}

14:   \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg}

15: \else

16:   \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

17:   \usepackage[dvips]{color}

18:   \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.eps,.epsi,.ps}

19: \fi

20: 

21: \usepackage{times}

22: \usepackage{amsfonts}

23: \usepackage{latexsym}

24: \usepackage{fullpage}

25: 

26: \title{Qualitative Analysis of Correspondence \\ for Experimental Algorithmics}

27: 

28: \author{

29: Chris Bailey-Kellogg \\

30: 1398 Computer Science Building\\

31: Department of Computer Sciences \\

32: Purdue University, IN 47907\\

33: {\tt cbk@cs.purdue.edu}

34: \and

35: Naren Ramakrishnan \\

36: 629 McBryde Hall \\

37: Department of Computer Science \\

38: Virginia Tech, VA 24061\\

39: {\tt naren@cs.vt.edu}

40: }

41: 

42: \newlength\colwidth \setlength\colwidth{\textwidth}

43: \long\def\todo#1{{\color{red}[#1]}}

44: \long\def\gobble#1{}

45: \def\set#1{{\{#1\}}}

46: \def\R{{\ensuremath\mathbb{R}}}

47: \def\N{{\ensuremath\mathbb{N}}}

48: \def\Bool{\{0,1\}}

49: 

50: \newenvironment{closeitemize}{\begin{list}{-}{\topsep=0in\itemsep=0in\parsep=0in}}{\end{list}}

51: 

52: \begin{document}

53: 

54: \maketitle

55: 

56: \begin{abstract}

57: 

58: Correspondence identifies relationships among objects via similarities

59: among their components; it is ubiquitous in the analysis of spatial

60: datasets, including images, weather maps, and computational

61: simulations.  This paper develops a novel multi-level mechanism for

62: qualitative analysis of correspondence.  Operators leverage domain

63: knowledge to establish correspondence, evaluate implications for model

64: selection, and leverage identified weaknesses to focus additional data

65: collection.  The utility of the mechanism is demonstrated in two

66: applications from experimental algorithmics --- matrix spectral

67: portrait analysis and graphical assessment of Jordan forms of

68: matrices.  Results show that the mechanism efficiently samples

69: computational experiments and successfully uncovers high-level problem

70: properties.  It overcomes noise and data sparsity by leveraging domain

71: knowledge to detect mutually reinforcing interpretations of spatial

72: data.

73: 

74: \end{abstract}

75: 

76: \section{Introduction}

77: 

78: Correspondence is a ubiquitous concept in the interpretation of

79: spatial datasets.  Correspondence establishes analogy, indicating

80: objects that play similar roles with respect to some context.  For

81: example, correspondence between template and image features supports

82: object recognition, correspondence among isobars in a weather map aids

83: identification of pressure troughs and ridges, and, as shown in this

84: paper, correspondence and lack thereof among level curves in datasets

85: like Fig.~\ref{fig:compan} supports characterization of matrix

86: properties for scientific computing applications.

87: 

88: This paper develops a novel qualitative analysis mechanism for

89: extracting and utilizing correspondence in spatial data, with

90: particular focus on model selection in applications with sparse, noisy

91: data.  We develop our mechanism in the context of {\em experimental

92: algorithmics}, an emerging field that designs methodologies for

93: empirically evaluating algorithms on realistic test problems, and

94: interpreting and generalizing the results to guide selection of

95: appropriate mathematical software.  It is the preferred method of

96: analysis in applications where domain knowledge is imperfect and for

97: which our understanding of the factors influencing algorithm

98: applicability is incomplete.  For instance, when solving linear

99: systems associated with finite-difference discretization of elliptic

100: partial differential equations (PDEs), there is little mathematical

101: theory to guide a choice between, say, a direct solver and an

102: iterative Krylov solver plus preconditioner.  An experimental

103: algorithmics approach is to parameterize a suitable family of

104: problems, and mine a database of PDE ``solves'' to gain insight into

105: the likely relative performance of these two

106: approaches~\cite{naren-ribbens}.  Thus experimental algorithmics is

107: data-driven and aims to empirically capture the relationship between

108: problem characteristics and algorithm performance.

109: 

110: \begin{figure}

111: \begin{center}

112: \includegraphics[width=3in]{compan} 

113: \end{center}

114: \caption{An example spectral portrait, for a matrix with eigenvalues

115: at 1, 2, 3, and 4.  Qualitative properties of the portait correspond

116: to important characteristics of the underlying problem that must be

117: considered with respect to algorithm selection. For instance, a level

118: curve surrounding multiple eigenvalues indicates a level of precision

119: beyond which the eigenvalues cannot be distinguished.}

120: \label{fig:compan}

121: \end{figure}

122: 

123: Many tasks in experimental algorithmics involve assessing the

124: eigenstructure of a given matrix.  Eigenstructure helps characterize

125: the stability, sensitivity, and accuracy of numerical methods as well

126: as the fundamental tractability of problems.  Recently, the {\em

127: spectral portrait} (e.g.\ Fig.~\ref{fig:compan}) has emerged as a tool

128: for graphically visualizing eigenstructure.  A spectral portait

129: characterizes how the eigenvalues of a matrix change as perturbations

130: (e.g.\ due to numerical error) are introduced in computations

131: involving the matrix.  Level curves in a spectral portait correspond

132: to perturbations, and the region enclosed by a level curve contains

133: all possible eigenvalues that are equivalent with respect to

134: perturbations of a given magnitude.  Analysis of level curves with

135: respect to a class of perturbations reveals information about the

136: matrix (e.g.\ nonnormality and defective eigenvalues) and the effects

137: of different algorithms and numerical approximations.

138: 

139: Experimental algorithmics thus determines {\em high-level properties}

140: from analysis of data from {\em low-level computational experiments};

141: we focus here on the particular case where such properties are

142: extracted from {\em graphical representations} and where it is

143: necessary to minimize the computational experiments performed (owing

144: to the cost and complexity of conducting them).  We pose the

145: extraction of high-level properties as a model selection problem and

146: show that correspondence can be exploited to drive data collection in

147: order to discriminate among possible models.  Each step in our

148: framework is parameterized by domain knowledge of properties such as

149: locality, similarity, and correspondence.  Therefore the

150: framework is generic both with respect to a variety of problems in

151: experimental algorithmics (two case studies are presented here), and

152: to problems in other domains (e.g.\ connections to weather data

153: analysis are discussed).  Furthermore, the approach leads to efficient

154: and explainable data collection motivated directly by the need to

155: disambiguate among high-level models.

156: 

157: \section{Qualitative Analysis of Spatial Data}

158: 

159: Our mechanism for qualitative analysis of correspondence is based on

160: the Spatial Aggregation Language (SAL)~\cite{bailey-kellogg96,yip96a}

161: and the ambiguity-directed sampling

162: framework~\cite{bailey-kellogg-naren01}.  SAL programs apply a set of

163: uniform operators and data types (Fig.~\ref{fig:sal}) in order to

164: extract multi-layer geometric and topological representations of

165: spatial data.  These operators utilize domain knowledge of physical

166: properties such as continuity and locality, specified as metrics,

167: adjacency relations, and equivalence predicates, to uncover regions of

168: uniformity in spatially distributed data.  Ambiguity-directed sampling

169: focuses data collection so as to clarify difficult choice points in an

170: aggregation hierarchy.  It seeks to maximize information content while

171: minimizing the number and expense of data samples.

172: 

173: \begin{figure}

174: \begin{center}

175: \includegraphics[width=3in]{sal}

176: \end{center}

177: \caption{The spatial aggregation language provides a uniform vocabulary of 

178: operators utilizing domain knowledge to build multi-layer structural

179: descriptions of spatial data.}

180: \label{fig:sal}

181: \end{figure}

182: 

183: As an example of aggregation, consider the construction of level

184: curves in the spectral portrait in Fig.~\ref{fig:compan}.  The key

185: steps in such an analysis (after ~\cite{huang99}) are:

186: 

187: \begin{itemize}

188: \item The {\em input field} maps sample locations (e.g.\ on a uniform

189: grid) to perturbation levels, representing allowable imprecision

190: before a point becomes indistinguishable from an eigenvalue

191: (computational details are discussed later).

192: \item {\em Aggregate} points in a {\em neighborhood graph} (e.g.\

193: Delaunay triangulation or regular grid), localizing computation to

194: spatially proximate points.

195: \item {\em Interpolate} values at new locations from

196: values at neighboring samples, in this case determining locations of

197: points with perturbation level belonging to a discrete set (e.g.\

198: $10^{-1}$, $10^{-2}$, $\ldots$).

199: \item {\em Classify} neighboring similar-enough objects into

200: equivalence classes with an {\em equivalence predicate}, in this case

201: testing equality of field value.\footnote{While an implementation such

202: as marching squares might combine interpolation,

203: aggregation, and classification, we view them as conceptually distinct

204: operations.}

205: \item {\em Redescribe} each equivalence class of lower-level objects

206: as a single higher-level object, in this case abstracting connected

207: points into curves.  The curve can be represented more compactly

208: and abstractly (e.g.\ with a spline) than its set of sample points.

209: \end{itemize}

210: 

211: As a consequence of redescription, the next aggregation level can

212: treat curves as first-class objects, and aggregate, classify, and

213: redescribe them, for example to find curves nested around a single

214: eigenvalue.  This higher-level process uses the same operators, but

215: with different parameters specifying locality, equivalence, and

216: abstraction.  Ambiguity arises when, for example, not enough sample

217: points are available to be confident in a curve's location, or in the

218: separation of two curves.  Ambiguity-directed sampling then optimizes

219: selection of new locations (e.g.\ near the ambiguity) for data

220: collection in order to clarify the decision-making.

221: 

222: As this example illustrates, SAL and ambiguity-directed sampling

223: provide a suitable {\em vocabulary} (e.g.\ distance and similarity

224: metrics) and {\em mechanism} (bottom-up aggregation and top-down

225: sampling) to uncover multi-level structures in spatial data sets.

226: Successful applications include decentralized control

227: design~\cite{bailey-kellogg99,bailey-kellogg01} weather data

228: analysis~\cite{huang99}, analysis of diffusion-reaction

229: morphogenesis~\cite{ordonez00}, and identification of pockets in

230: $n$-dimensional space and decomposition of a field based on control

231: influences~\cite{bailey-kellogg-naren01}.

232: 

233: \section{Qualitative Analysis of Correspondence}

234: 

235: Our correspondence mechanism builds on the relationship between

236: lower-level and higher-level objects in a SAL hierarchy (refer again

237: to Fig.~\ref{fig:sal}).  The mechanism has two key steps: (1)

238: establish {\em analogy} as a relation among lower-level constituents

239: of higher-level objects; (2) establish {\em correspondence} between

240: higher-level objects as an {\em abstraction} of the analogy between

241: their constituents.  For example, in object recognition, analogy might

242: match image and template features, and correspondence might abstract

243: the analogy as a rigid-body transformation.  Similarly, in level curve

244: analysis, analogy might match sample points on neighboring curves by

245: location and local curvature, and correspondence might abstract the

246: match as a parameterized deformation of spline representations of the

247: curves.  The analogy between constituents is well-defined only because

248: of the context of the higher-level objects; higher-level

249: correspondence then captures a more global view of the local matches.

250: 

251: Tab.~\ref{tab:ops} outlines our correspondence mechanism.  Traditional

252: SAL operators collect and abstract groups of lower-level objects into

253: higher-level objects, and establish pairs of higher-level objects for

254: which correspondence is to be considered.  Two pieces of domain

255: knowledge are then applied:

256: 

257: \begin{description}

258: \item[Analogy predicate] indicates pairs (and confidence in the pairs) 

259: of lower-level objects that are analogous with respect to the

260: higher-level objects they comprise.  Examples include testing feature

261: values for each pair of lower-level objects, hashing indices in the

262: higher-level objects' local coordinate systems, or explicitly

263: constructing a spatial relation such as a triangulation.  The

264: predicate can enforce bijective analogy if appropriate.  The {\em

265: analogize} operator in Tab.~\ref{tab:ops} applies a predicate $a$ for

266: the constituent objects $l_1 \in h_1$ and $l_2 \in h_2$ of neighboring

267: (by $g_h$) higher-level object pairs $h_1$ and $h_2$; it returns a

268: graph labeling the confidence of each analogous object pair.

269: 

270: \item[Correspondence abstraction function] abstracts an analogy

271: relation on lower-level objects into a description of higher-level

272: object correspondence.  Examples include redescribing point-wise

273: matches as a rigid-body transformation or a parameterized deformation.

274: The abstraction captures confidence in the overall correspondence, for

275: example computing root-mean squared distance or a Hausdorff metric

276: between locations or features (e.g.\ local curvature) of analogous

277: objects.  Correspondence optimization thus entails adjusting the

278: underlying analogy to maximize the abstracted confidence.  Finally,

279: while nearby constituents of one object often match nearby

280: constituents of another, {\em discontinuity} (e.g.\ when an outer

281: curve envelops two inner ones in Fig.~\ref{fig:compan}) is a

282: noteworthy event detectable with the abstraction mechanism.  The {\em

283: correspond} operator in Tab.~\ref{tab:ops} performs correspondence

284: abstraction from an analogy $g_l$, applying a function $c$ to the

285: subgraph of $g_l$ on the constituent objects $\ell(h_1)$ and

286: $\ell(h_2)$ of neighboring (by $g_h$) higher-level objects $h_1$ and

287: $h_2$; it returns a graph labeling each such higher-level object pair

288: with the resulting correspondence spatial object.

289: \end{description}

290: 

291: \begin{table}

292: \fbox{%

293: \begin{minipage}{\colwidth}

294: \begin{enumerate}

295: \item Given lower-level objects $L$, {\em aggregate}, {\em

296: classify}, and {\em redescribe} them into higher-level objects $H$.

297: 

298: \item {\em Aggregate} higher-level objects $H$ into a

299: neighborhood graph $G_H$ localizing potential correspondence.

300: 

301: \item Apply an {\em analogy predicate} to relate constituent

302: lower-level objects of neighboring higher-level objects. \\

303: {\small

304: {\it analogize} $: G_H \times (L \times L \rightarrow \R)

305: \rightarrow G_L$\\

306: $(g_h,a) \mapsto \set{\set{l_1,l_2,a(l_1,l_2)}\,|\,\set{h_1,h_2} \in g_h, 

307: l_1 \in h_1, l_2 \in h_2}$

308: }

309: where $l_i \in h_i$ represents constituency.

310: 

311: \item Apply a {\em correspondence abstraction function}

312: to establish correspondence between higher-level objects based

313: on the analogy on their constituent lower-level objects.

314: {\small

315: {\it correspond} $: G_H \times G_L \times (G_L \rightarrow SO)

316: \rightarrow G_H'$ \\

317: $(g_h,g_l,c) \mapsto \set{\set{h_1,h_2,c(g_l[\ell(h_1) \cup

318: \ell(h_2)])}\,|\, \set{h_1,h_2} \in g_h}$

319: }

320: where $\ell(\cdot)$ obtains constituents, $g_l[\cdot]$ is the

321: subgraph for the given nodes, and $c$ returns a spatial object ($SO$)

322: representing the abstracted correspondence.

323: \end{enumerate}

324: \end{minipage}

325: }

326: \vspace*{-0.5\baselineskip}

327: \caption{Qualitative correspondence analysis mechanism, including

328: formal definitions of new operators.}

329: \label{tab:ops}

330: \end{table}

331: 

332: An aggregation/correspondence hierarchy establishes a distribution of

333: possible high-level models for an input instance, thereby posing a

334: {\em model selection problem}: choose the one that (e.g.\ in a

335: maximum-likelihood sense) best matches the data.  Our mechanism

336: supports model selection in two key ways. (1) The operators estimate

337: and optimize confidence in correspondence.  Since correspondence

338: implies mutual support among parts of a model, it can allow relatively

339: high-confidence model selection even with sparse, noisy data.  (2) The

340: operators bridge the lower-/higher-level gap.  This allows weaknesses

341: and inconsistencies detected in higher-level correspondence to focus

342: lower-level data collection to be maximally effective for model

343: disambiguation.

344: 

345: \section{Applications in Experimental Algorithmics}

346: 

347: We present two case studies applying our analysis framework to

348: experimental algorithmics problems.  For each we describe the

349: underlying numerical analysis problem, our particular solution

350: approach, and results.  To the best of our knowledge, these are the

351: {\em first} systematic algorithms for performing complete imagistic

352: analyses (as opposed to relying on human visual

353: inspection~\cite{precise}), and which focus data collection and

354: evaluate models until a high-confidence model is obtained.

355: 

356: \subsection{Matrix Spectral Portrait Analysis}

357: 

358: Our first case study focuses on the previously introduced task of

359: matrix spectral portrait analysis (Fig.~\ref{fig:compan}).  Formally,

360: the spectral portrait of a matrix $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as:

361: \begin{equation}\label{eq:portrait}

362: {\mathcal P}(z) = \log {\parallel \mathcal{A} \parallel}_2 \,\, 

363: {\parallel {(\mathcal{A} - zI)}^{-1}\parallel}_2,

364: \end{equation}

365: where $I$ is the identity matrix.  The singularities of this map are

366: located at the eigenvalues of the matrix, and the analysis determines

367: the sensitivity of computation to numerical imprecision by analyzing

368: how the map decreases moving away from the eigenvalues.  As discussed

369: in the introduction, the region enclosed by a level curve of a certain

370: magnitude contains all points that act as ``equivalent'' eigenvalues

371: under perturbations of that magnitude.  For example,

372: Fig.~\ref{fig:compan} illustrates that, under large enough

373: perturbation, eigenvalues at 3 and 4 are indistinguishable; after

374: larger perturbations, their joint contour also surrounds the

375: eigenvalue at 2, and then the eigenvalue at 1.  This illustrates that

376: sensitivity analysis is solved by identifying values at which level

377: curves merge.

378: 

379: Tab.~\ref{tab:ellipse-code} describes qualitative correspondence

380: analysis of spectral portraits.  Data are collected by computing

381: Eq.~\ref{eq:portrait}; the analysis determines perturbation

382: equivalence of eigenvalues by detecting curve merges via level curve

383: correspondence.  The first aggregation level generates samples on a

384: coarse regular grid around the known eigenvalue locations, and then

385: interpolates and abstracts level curves as in the spatial aggregation

386: example.  The second aggregation level finds correspondence among

387: these curves from a Delaunay triangulation analogy of their

388: constituent points.  It tracks correspondence outward from the

389: eigenvalues to establish a model of merge events, establishing

390: confidence in such a model by good analogy (most points match) and

391: good curve separation (regularly-spaced samples separate the two

392: curves, providing evidence that contours do not merge at a smaller

393: perturbation).  Ambiguity-directed sampling generates additional data

394: in order to separate curves and to ensure that each eigenvalue pair is

395: merged at some perturbation.

396: 

397: \begin{table}[t]

398: \fbox{%

399: \begin{minipage}{\colwidth}

400: {\bf Input}: matrix ${\mathcal A}$, eigenvalues $E$,

401: perturbation levels $V$. \\

402: {\bf Output}: $\set{(E_i,E_j,v_{ij})}$ such that eigenvalues $E_i$ and

403: $E_j$ are equivalent with respect to perturbation of $v_{ij} \in V$.

404: 

405: \medskip

406: 

407: {\bf Level one}:

408: \begin{closeitemize}

409: \item Data collection: Eq.~\ref{eq:portrait}.

410: \item Initial samples $P$: points on coarse regular grid.

411: \item Output: level curves $C$.

412: \item Aggregation: aggregate grid; interpolate points $I$ at

413: values in $V$; classify by perturbation; redescribe into curves.

414: \item Aggregation 2: $G_I$ = triangulation of points $I$.

415: \end{closeitemize}

416: 

417: \medskip

418: 

419: {\bf Level two}:

420: \begin{closeitemize}

421: \item Input: curves $C$.

422: \item Output: problem output $\set{(E_i,E_j,v_{ij})}$.

423: \item Aggregation: $(C_k,C_l) \in G_C$ iff constituent points are

424: neighbors in $G_I$.

425: \item Correspondence:

426:   \begin{closeitemize}

427:   \item Analogy: cross-curve neighbors in $G_I$.

428:   \item Abstraction: $C_k,C_l \mapsto (m_k,m_l,\theta_{kl})$, for

429: $m_i$\% and $m_j$\% constituent points matched, and samples $P'

430: \subseteq P$ between $C_k$ and $C_l$ separated by no more than

431: $\theta_{kl}$ in angle around the enclosed eigenvalue.

432:   \end{closeitemize}

433: \item Model evaluation: follow correspondence outward from each

434: pair of eigenvalues $(i,j)$; evaluate confidence with respect to

435: $(m_k,m_l,\theta_{kl})$.

436: \item Sampling: 

437:   \begin{closeitemize}

438:   \item When no $(E_i,E_j,v_{ij})$ for some $(i,j)$, expand grid.

439:   \item When some $\theta_{kl}$ too large, subsample on finer grid.

440:   \end{closeitemize}

441: \end{closeitemize}

442: \end{minipage}

443: }

444: \vspace*{-0.5\baselineskip}

445: \caption{Correspondence mechanism instantiation for spectral portrait

446: analysis.}

447: \label{tab:ellipse-code}

448: \end{table}

449: 

450: \begin{figure}

451: \begin{center}

452: \begin{tabular}{cc}

453: \includegraphics[width=3in]{ellipse-trig1} & 

454: \includegraphics[width=3in]{ellipse-trig2} \\

455: \includegraphics[width=3in]{ellipse-corr1} &

456: \includegraphics[width=3in]{ellipse-corr2b} \\

457: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ellipse-tree1} &

458: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ellipse-tree2}

459: \end{tabular}

460: \end{center}

461: \caption{Example of correspondence analysis of spectral

462: portraits for (left) a small, coarse grid, and (right) an extended,

463: subsampled grid.  (top) Delaunay triangulation analogy for

464: interpolated points comprising contours.  (middle) Analogy at an

465: example merge event; separating samples marked with ``+''.  (bottom)

466: Curve-tracking tree: eigenvalues at bottom; node for curves labeled

467: with perturbation level.  Merge events indicate at what perturbation

468: level descendant eigenvalues are indistinguishable.}

469: \label{fig:ellipse-demo}

470: \end{figure}

471: 

472: Fig.~\ref{fig:ellipse-demo} demonstrates the application of the

473: mechanism to the companion matrix of the polynomial $(x-1)^3 (x-2)^3

474: (x-3)^3 (x-4)$~\cite{precise} (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:compan}).  The

475: initial grid has at least one sample between each eigenvalue (in the

476: example, a resolution of 0.5) and extends one unit beyond the bounding

477: box of the eigenvalues.  While correspondence is found even with this

478: coarse grid (left of Fig.~\ref{fig:ellipse-demo}), the confidence is

479: not high (only a few samples separate the curves), and no curve

480: surrounds all eigenvalues.  Ambiguity-directed sampling computes

481: additional points on a finer, larger grid (right of

482: Fig.~\ref{fig:ellipse-demo}), yielding the correct results.  We have

483: applied this same mechanism to a variety of polynomial companion

484: matrices with different numbers and spacings of roots; in each case,

485: the correspondence mechanism correctly identifies the correct model

486: with high confidence after 1-3 subsamples and 1-3 grid expansions.

487: 

488: \subsection{Qualitative Computation of Jordan Forms}

489: 

490: Our second case study focuses on analysis of the {\em Jordan

491: decomposition} of a matrix.  Matrix decomposition is an important

492: technique, revealing pertinent features of a matrix and supporting

493: algorithmic techniques in areas including data analysis, PDEs, and

494: linear algebra.  The Jordan decomposition reveals the eigenstructure

495: of a matrix as follows.  Consider a matrix $\mathcal{A}$ that has $r$

496: independent eigenvectors with eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ of multiplicity

497: $\rho_i$.  The Jordan decomposition of $\mathcal{A}$ contains $r$

498: upper triangular ``blocks,'' as revealed by the diagonalization:

499: {\small

500: \[

501: \mathcal{B}^{-1} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{B} = 

502: \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}

503:        {\mathcal{J}}_1 & & & \\

504:        & {\mathcal{J}}_2 & & \\

505:        & & \cdot & \\

506:        & & & {\mathcal{J}}_r\\

507:        \end{array} \right],

508: \,\,

509: {\mathcal{J}}_i = 

510: \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}

511:        \lambda_i & 1 & & \\

512:        & \lambda_i & 1 & \\

513:        & & \cdot & 1 \\

514:        & & & \lambda_i \\

515:        \end{array} \right]

516: \]

517: }

518: 

519: The typical approach to computing the Jordan form leads to a

520: numerically unstable algorithm~\cite{golub-loan}; taking extra care

521: usually requires more work than the original computation!  Recently,

522: however, an experimental algorithmics approach, inferring multiplicity

523: from a geometric analysis of eigenvalue perturbations, has proved

524: successful~\cite{precise}.  It is well known that the {\it

525: computed eigenvalues} corresponding to the actual value $\lambda_i$

526: are given by:

527: \begin{equation}\label{eq:jordan-perturb}

528: \lambda_i + |\delta|^{1\over{\rho_i}} e^{{i\phi}\over{\rho_i}},

529: \end{equation}

530: where $\lambda_i$ is of multiplicity $\rho_i$, and the phase $\phi$ of

531: the perturbation $\delta$ ranges over

532: \set{$2\pi, 4\pi, \ldots, 2\rho_i \pi$} if $\delta$ is positive and

533: over \set{$3\pi, 5\pi, \ldots, 2(\rho_i+1) \pi$} if $\delta$ is

534: negative.  The insight of~\cite{precise} is to graphically {\it

535: superimpose} numerous such perturbed calculations so that the

536: aggregate picture reveals eigenvalue multiplicity.  The phase

537: variations imply that computed eigenvalues lie on the vertices of a

538: regular polygon with $2 \rho_i$ sides, centered on $\lambda_i$, and

539: with diameter influenced by $|\delta|$.  For example,

540: Fig.~\ref{fig:jordan} shows perturbations for the 8-by-8 Brunet matrix

541: with Jordan structure $(-1)^1 (-2)^1 (7)^3 (7)^3$~\cite{precise}, for

542: $\delta \in [2^{-50},2^{-40}]$.  The six ``sticks'' around the

543: eigenvalue at 7 clearly reveal that its Jordan block is of size

544: 3.\footnote{The multiplicity of the second eigenvalue at 7 is revealed

545: at a smaller perturbation level.}  The ``noise'' in

546: Fig.~\ref{fig:jordan} is a consequence of having two Jordan blocks

547: with the same eigenvalue and size, and a ``ring'' phenomenon studied

548: in~\cite{edelman-ma}; we do not attempt to capture these effects in

549: this paper.

550: 

551: \begin{figure}

552: \begin{center}

553: \begin{tabular}{cc}

554: \includegraphics[width=3in]{example-jordan1}

555: \end{tabular}

556: \end{center}

557: \caption{Superimposed spectra for assessing the Jordan form

558: of the Brunet matrix.}

559: \label{fig:jordan}

560: \end{figure}

561: 

562: Tab.~\ref{tab:star-code} describes qualitative correspondence analysis

563: of Jordan form.  Data are collected by randomly perturbing at a

564: specified magnitude $\delta$; the analysis determines multiplicity by

565: detecting {\em symmetry} correspondence in the samples.  The first

566: aggregation level collects the samples for a given $\delta$ into

567: triangles.  The second aggregation level finds congruent triangles via

568: geometric hashing~\cite{hash}, and uses congruence to establish

569: analogy among triangle vertices.  Correspondence abstracts the analogy

570: into a rotation about a point (the eigenvalue), and evaluates whether

571: each point rotates onto another and whether matches define regular

572: polygons.  Ambiguity-directed sampling collects additional random

573: samples as necessary.  A third level then compares rotations across

574: different perturbations, re-visiting perturbations or choosing new

575: perturbations in order to disambiguate.  Fig.~\ref{fig:star-demo}

576: demonstrates this mechanism on the Brunet matrix discussed above.  The

577: top part uses a small set of sample points, while the bottom two parts

578: use a larger set and illustrate a good vs.\ bad correspondence.

579: 

580: We organized data collection into rounds of 6-8 samples each and

581: experimented with three policies on where next to collect data after

582: completing a round: (1) at the same perturbation level, (2) at a

583: higher perturbation level, or (3) at the same perturbation level

584: unless the number of posited models increased (model

585: ``hallucination,'' as in bottom of Fig.~\ref{fig:star-demo}).  We tested

586: 10 matrices across 4-10 perturbation levels each, as described

587: in~\cite{precise}.  We varied a tolerance parameter for triangle

588: congruence from 0.1 to 0.5 (effectively increasing the number of

589: models posited) and determined the number of rounds needed to

590: determine the Jordan form.  Policy 1 required an average of 1 round at

591: a tolerance of 0.1, up to 2.7 rounds at 0.5.  Even with a large number

592: of models proposed, additional data quickly weeded out bad models.

593: Policy 2 fared better only for cases where policy 1 was focused on

594: lower perturbation levels, and policy 3 was preferable only for the

595: Brunet-type matrices.  In other words, there is no real advantage to

596: moving across perturbation levels!  In retrospect, this is not

597: surprising since our Jordan form computation treats multiple

598: perturbations (irresp.\ of level) as independent estimates of

599: eigenstructure.

600: 

601: \begin{table}[t]

602: \fbox{%

603: \begin{minipage}{\colwidth}

604: {\bf Input}: matrix ${\mathcal A}$, perturbations $\set{\delta_1,

605: \ldots, \delta_m}$, region $R$. \\

606: {\bf Output}: eigenvalue $\lambda$ and multiplicity $\rho$ in region

607: $R$.

608: 

609: \medskip

610: {\bf Level one}:

611: \begin{closeitemize}

612: \item Data collection: for $\delta_i$, compute random normwise

613: perturbation of ${\mathcal A}$ as $a_{ij} \pm 2^{(1 - \delta_i)}

614: {\parallel \mathcal{A} \parallel}_{\infty}$, yielding $P_i$.

615: \item Initial samples: At some level $i$.

616: \item Output: triangles $T_i$.

617: \item Aggregation: triangulate $P_i$ (for efficiency, require 2 vertices 

618: on convex hull).

619: \end{closeitemize}

620: 

621: \medskip

622: {\bf Level two}:

623: \begin{closeitemize}

624: \item Input: Triangles $T_i$.

625: \item Output: set of rotations $(x,y,\theta)$.

626: \item Aggregation: congruent triangles by geom.\ hashing.

627: \item Correspondence:

628:   \begin{closeitemize}

629:   \item Analogy: by triangle congruence.

630:   \item Abstraction: $(t_j,t_k) \mapsto (x,y,\theta,d,r)$,

631: where rotation $(x,y,\theta)$ yields same analogy, with

632: RMSD $d$ between $P_i$ and rotated, and polygon regularity $r

633: = \parallel \parallel p_a-p_b \parallel - \parallel p_b-p_c \parallel

634: \parallel$, where rotation maps $p_a \rightarrow p_b \rightarrow p_c$.

635:   \end{closeitemize}

636: \item Model evaluation: confidence with respect to $d$ and $r$; priors

637: support rotations around $(x,y)$ in convex hull of $P_i$ and by

638: $\theta$ corresponding to ``reasonable'' multiplicity.

639: \item Sampling: for multiple ``good'' models, collect additional

640: random samples at perturbation $\delta_i$.

641: \end{closeitemize}

642: 

643: \medskip

644: {\bf Level three}:

645: \begin{closeitemize}

646: \item Input: $\set{(x_{ij},y_{ij},\theta_{ij})}$ over models ($j$)

647: from chosen perturbation levels ($i$).

648: \item Output: $(\lambda,\rho)$.

649: \item Aggregation: clustering in $(x,y,\theta)$-space.

650: \item Model evaluation: for $\lambda=(x,y),\rho=\pi/\theta$, take

651: joint probability over $i,j$ of $(x_{ij},y_{ij},\theta_{ij}) \approx

652: (x,y,\theta)$.

653: \item Sampling: for high entropy in model evaluation, add samples and

654: re-evaluate at outlier $\delta_j$ or try new $\delta_k$.

655: \end{closeitemize}

656: \end{minipage}

657: }

658: \vspace*{-0.5\baselineskip}

659: \caption{Correspondence mechanism instantiation for Jordan form

660: analysis.}

661: \label{tab:star-code}

662: \end{table}

663: 

664: \begin{figure}

665: \begin{center}

666: \includegraphics[width=3in]{star-trig2a}\hspace*{0.1in}\includegraphics[width=3in]{star-corr2a}

667: \\

668: \vspace*{0.1in}

669: \includegraphics[width=3in]{star-trig4a}\hspace*{0.1in}\includegraphics[width=3in]{star-corr4a}

670: \\

671: \vspace*{0.1in}

672: \includegraphics[width=3in]{star-trig4b}\hspace*{0.1in}\includegraphics[width=3in]{star-corr4b}

673: \end{center}

674: \caption{Example of correspondence analysis of Jordan form, for (top)

675: small sample set; (middle) larger sample set; (bottom) larger sample

676: set but lower-scoring model.  (left) Approximately-congruent

677: triangles.  (right) Evaluation of correspondence in terms of match

678: between original (red dots) and rotated (green circles) samples.}

679: \label{fig:star-demo}

680: \end{figure}

681: 

682: \section{Discussion}

683: 

684: Our general mechanism for uncovering and utilizing correspondence has

685: proved successful on challenging problems from experimental

686: algorithmics.  The mechanism leverages properties such as locality,

687: continuity, and decomposability, which are exhibited by the

688: applications studied here as well as many physical systems.

689: Decomposability and locality allow us to qualify correspondence in a

690: manner that drives data collection.  Contintuity allows correspondence

691: to obtain confidence in a model even with sparse, noisy data:

692: consistent matches among nearby constituents mutually reinforce each

693: other, allowing correspondence abstraction to detect and filter out

694: inconsistent interpretations.

695: 

696: Correspondence can be an appropriate analysis tool for a variety of

697: reasons.  In the spectral portrait application, level curves summarize

698: groups of eigenvalue computations, so their high-level correspondence

699: aids characterization of the underlying computation.  In the Jordan

700: form application, however, the higher-level entity has no significance

701: as a geometric object in numerical analysis terms, but correspondence

702: is applicable due to the semantics of superposition.  This semantics

703: also leads to phenomena such as hallucination (given enough samples,

704: any pattern can be found), requiring a more careful treatment of

705: decomposition.

706: 

707: Our work is similar in spirit to that of~\cite{huang99} for weather

708: data interpretation, and can be seen as a significant generalization,

709: formalization, and application of techniques studied there for finding

710: correspondence in meteorological data.  Similarly, our correspondence

711: framework captures and generalizes the computation required in object

712: recognition, allowing the body of research developed there to be

713: applied to a broader class of applications, such as experimental

714: algorithmics.  Compared to traditional manual analyses of graphical

715: representations in experimental algorithmics, the algorithmic nature

716: of our approach yields advantages such as model evaluation and

717: targeted sampling.  As with compositional modeling~\cite{compo}, we

718: advocate targeted use of domain knowledge, and as with

719: qualitative/quantitative model selection (e.g.~\cite{ironi}), we seek

720: to determine high level models for empirical data.  Our focus is on

721: problems requiring particular forms of domain knowledge to overcome

722: sparsity and noise in spatial datasets. A possible direction of future

723: work is to explore if the inclusion-exclusion methodology popular in

724: grid algorithms~\cite{gallopoulos-portrait} is also useful for

725: tracking correspondence.

726: 

727: Our long-term goal is to study data collection policies and their

728: relationships to qualitative model determination.  The notion of

729: estimating problem-solving performance by collecting data (and vice

730: versa) is reminiscent of reinforcement learning~\cite{boyan00} and

731: active learning~\cite{jordan-jair}.  The decomposable nature of SAL

732: computations promises to (i) support the design of efficient,

733: hierarchical algorithms for model estimation and (ii) provide a deeper

734: understanding of the recurring roles that correspondence plays in

735: spatial data analysis.

736: 

737: \bibliographystyle{plain}

738: \bibliography{corr}

739: 

740: \end{document}

741: