1: 

2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

3: 

4: \usepackage{amsmath,amstext,amssymb,amsthm}

5: \usepackage{xspace}

6: \usepackage{url}

7: \usepackage{hyperref}

8: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig}

9: \usepackage{fullpage}

10: %\usepackage{theorem}

11: 

12: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]

13: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

14: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

15: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

16: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}

17: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}

18: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

19: 

20: \newcommand{\Proof}{\noindent{\bfseries Proof.}\xspace}

21: \newcommand{\namedProof}[1]{\noindent{\bfseries Proof of #1.}\xspace}

22: %\newcommand{\qed}{{\hspace{1em} $\boxtimes$}}

23: \newcommand{\so}{{O {\;\!\tilde{}}\,}}

24: 

25: 

26: \newcommand{\rddots}{\mathinner{

27:     \mkern2mu\raise1pt\hbox{.}

28:     \mkern2mu\raise4pt\hbox{.}

29:     \mkern1mu\raise7pt\vbox{\kern7pt\hbox{.}}

30:     \mkern1mu}}

31: 

32: 

33: \newcommand{\QQ}{{\mathbb Q}}

34: \newcommand{\ZZ}{{\mathbb Z}}

35: \newcommand{\RR}{{\mathbb R}}

36: \newcommand{\FF}{{\mathbb F}}

37: 

38: \def\F{{\sf{F}}}

39: 

40: \newcommand{\diag}{\textup{diag}}

41: \newcommand{\rank}{\textup{rank}\,}

42: 

43: \makeatletter

44: \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%

45:                                    {-3.5ex \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%

46:                                    {2.3ex \@plus.2ex}%

47:                                    {\normalfont\large\bfseries}}

48: \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%

49:                                      {-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%

50:                                      {1.5ex \@plus .2ex}%

51:                                      {\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries}}

52: 

53: \makeatother

54: 

55: 

56: 

57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

58: 

59: 

60: 

61: 

62: \begin{document}

63: 

64: \begin{center}

65: {\bf CERTIFICATION OF THE QR FACTOR R, \\[0.1cm] AND OF LATTICE BASIS  REDUCEDNESS}\\[0.3cm]

66: Gilles Villard\\[0.3cm]

67: {\footnotesize

68: Laboratoire LIP (CNRS, ENSL, INRIA, UCBL)\\ \'Ecole Normale

69: Sup\'erieure de Lyon, France\\

70: \url{http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/gilles.villard}\\

71: } 

72: \end{center}

73: 

74: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

75: 

76: \footnotetext{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!This 

77: material is based on work supported

78: in part by the French  National Research Agency, ANR

79: Gecko. \\[-0.3cm]

80: ~~\\

81: {{\em LIP Research Report RR2007-03, \'Ecole Normale

82:     Sup\'erieure de Lyon ---  January, 2007.}}

83: %{\hfill Submitted to ISSAC'07 ---  \today}

84: 

85: 

86: }

87: 

88: 

89: {\abstract  

90: \noindent

91: \hspace*{0.6cm}

92: Given a lattice basis of $n$ vectors in $\ZZ ^n$, 

93: we propose an algorithm using

94: $12n^3+O(n^2)$ floating point

95: operations for checking whether  

96: the basis is LLL-reduced.

97: If the basis is reduced then the algorithm will hopefully answer

98: ``yes''. If the basis is not reduced, or if the precision used is not

99: sufficient with respect to $n$, and to the numerical properties of

100: the basis, the algorithm will answer ``failed''.

101: Hence a positive answer is a rigorous certificate. 

102: For implementing the certificate itself, we propose a floating point

103: algorithm

104: for computing (certified) error bounds for the entries of the $R$ factor of the

105: $QR$ matrix factorization. This algorithm takes into account all possible

106: approximation and rounding errors.\\

107: \hspace*{0.6cm}The cost $12n^3+O(n^2)$ of the certificate is

108: only six times more than the cost of  

109: numerical algorithms for computing the $QR$ factorization itself, and the

110: certificate may be implemented using matrix library routines only.

111: We report experiments 

112: that show that for a reduced basis of 

113: adequate dimension and quality the certificate succeeds, and

114: establish the effectiveness of the certificate. This effectiveness

115: is applied for certifying the output of fastest existing floating point

116: heuristics of LLL reduction, without slowing down the whole process.

117: }

118: 

119: 

120: 

121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% INTRODUCTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% INTRODUCTION

123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

124: 

125: \section{Introduction}

126: 

127: 

128: Our motivation is to develop a  

129: certificate for lattice basis reducedness that may be 

130: used in cooperation with---possibly non certified---numerical

131: reduction heuristics such as those described

132: in~\cite[Ch.\,II-3]{Ste05} and~\cite{NgSt06}.

133: The two main constraints are speed and effectiveness. Indeed, 

134:  the certificate has to be fast enough for not

135: slowing down the whole process, and the answer should be 

136: relevant (``yes'')  on a large class of inputs such as those

137: successfully treated by the heuristic. Hence   

138: our general concern is somehow the compromize between speed 

139: and proven accuracy. 

140: %% preciser avec laconstante pres

141: The certificate will be

142: introduced later below. It relies on error

143: bounds for the $R$ factor of the $QR$

144: factorization of a matrix that we discuss first. \\[-0.2cm]

145: 

146: \noindent

147: {\bf Bounding errors for the factor $R$.}

148: Let $A$ be an $n \times n$ invertible integer matrix. 

149: The $QR$ factorization (see for instance \cite[Ch.\,19]{Hig02})  

150: of $A$ is a factorization $A=QR$ in which the factor $R \in \RR^{n

151:   \times n}$ is an upper triangular matrix, and the factor $Q\in \RR^{n

152:   \times n}$ is orthogonal ($Q^TQ$=I). We take the unique

153: factorization such that the diagonal entries of $R$ are positive.  

154: Let $\FF$ denote a set of floating point numbers such that  

155: the arithmetic operations in  $\FF$

156: satisfy the 

157: IEEE~754 arithmetic standard~\cite{IEEE754}. 

158: Assume that an approximate floating point and upper triangular  factor $\widetilde{R}\in \FF^{n

159:   \times n}$ % triangulaire

160: is given. 

161: In Section~\ref{sec-errorR}

162: we propose 

163: an algorithm for computing a componentwise error bound for

164: $|\widetilde{R}-R|$ using operations   

165: in $\FF$ only. For a matrix 

166: $A=(a_{i,j})$, 

167: $|A|$ denotes $(|a_{i,j}|)$.

168: Our error bound for 

169: $|\widetilde{R}-R|$ is given by  

170: a matrix $H\in \FF^{n

171:   \times n}$ with positive entries such   

172: that (see~(\ref{eq-errorH}) on page~\pageref{eq-errorH}):

173: \begin{equation} \label{eq-defE}

174: |\widetilde{R}-R| \leq H |\widetilde{R}|.

175: \end{equation}

176: Since floating point numbers are rational numbers, 

177: when $\widetilde{R}$ and $E$ are known, (\ref{eq-defE}) provides  

178: a rigourous mathematical bound for the error with respect to the unkown matrix $R$. 

179: 

180: For understanding the behaviour

181: of the error bounding algorithm better, 

182: we recall in Section~\ref{sec-errorQR} some existing  

183: numerical pertubation analyses for the $QR$ factorization. 

184: The necessary background material may be found in Higham's

185: book~\cite{Hig02}. Then in Sections~\ref{sec-sun} and~\ref{sec-tow},

186: we give the mathematical foundations of our approach. We 

187: focus 

188: on the componentwise bounds of~\cite{Sun92} that allow

189: us to derive an algorithm 

190: based on the principles of verification (self-validating)

191: methods. On the latter methods we refer to the rich surveys of

192: Rump~\cite{Rum03,Rum05},

193: see also the short discussion in

194: Section~\ref{sec-verif}.

195: As numerical experiments of Section~\ref{subsec-comput} will demonstrate,

196: the error bounding algorithm is effective in practice. 

197: Its cost is only $5$ times more than a numerical

198: $QR$ factorization, we mean $10n^3+O(n^2)$ operations in~$\FF$.

199: For efficiency, the error bounds are themselves calculated using

200: floating point operations, nevertheless, they take into account all

201: possible numerical and rounding errors. The reducedness

202: certificate will require $2n^3+O(n^2)$ additional operations.

203: Most of the $12n^3$ operations actually correspond to the evaluation of

204: matrix expressions. An efficient implementation may thus rely on 

205: fast matrix routines such as the BLAS~\cite{Blas90}. 

206: 

207: At a given precision, the error bounding algorithm  

208: provides relevant bounds for input matrices with appropriate 

209: numerical properties. 

210: In particular, the dimension and related condition numbers  

211: should be considered in relation with the precision (see Section~\ref{subsec-comput}). 

212: %Basic facts about condition numbers, essentially taken from Higham's

213: %book~\cite{Hig02}, are given in

214: %Section~\ref{sec-errorQR}. 

215: However, the power of the verification

216: approach~\cite{Rum03,Rum05}

217: is to be effective on many inputs for which the numerical

218: approach itself is effective---here the numerical $QR$ factorization.

219: For example, we report experiments using $64$~bits floating point numbers, 

220: and $\widetilde{R}$ computed by the modified 

221: Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization (see~\cite[Alg.\,19.12]{Hig02}).

222: On integer matrices of dimension $n=1500$ with 

223: condition number around $10^5$, we certify 

224: that the relative error on the entries of 

225: $\widetilde{R}$ 

226: has order as small as $10^{-6}$ or $10^{-5}$, 

227: with only $10^{-10}$ or $10^{-9}$ on the diagonal.

228: We refer here to the diagonal entries since they play a key role for

229: instance in the LLL Lov\'asz test (see~(\ref{eq:deflovasz})).

230: For large condition numbers (with respect to double precision), say $10^{12}$, 

231: and $n=200$, the algorithm may typically certify relative

232: errors in $10^{-1}$, and  $10^{-4}$ on the diagonal. \\[-0.2cm]

233: 

234: \noindent

235: {\bf The LLL-reducedness certificate.}

236: The effectiveness of the error bound on $|\widetilde{R}-R|$ allows us to

237: address the second topic of the paper. 

238: To an $n\times n$ integer matrix $A$ we associate the Euclidean 

239: lattice ${\mathcal L}$ generated by the columns  

240: $(a_j)$ of $A$ (for definitions and on algorithmic aspects

241: of lattices 

242: we refer for instance to~\cite{Coh95}). 

243: From $(a_j)$, the LLL algorithm computes

244: a reduced basis~\cite{LLL82}, where the reduction is defined via the Gram-Schmidt

245: orthogonalization of $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n \in \ZZ ^n$.

246: The Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization determines the associated orthogonal basis 

247: $a ^*_1, a ^*_2, \ldots, a ^*_n \in \QQ ^n$ by induction,

248: together with factors $\mu _{ij}$, using

249: $a_i ^* = a_i - \sum _{j=1}^{i-1}\mu _{ij}a_j^*$,

250: and

251: $\mu _{ij} = \langle a_i, a_j^* \rangle / \|a_j^*\|^2 _2$, $1

252: \leq j < i$.

253: Vectors $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n$ are said proper

254: for $\eta \geq 1/2$ if their Gram-Schmidt

255: orthogonalization satisfies 

256: \begin{equation} \label{eq:defproper}

257: |\mu_{ij}|\leq \eta,~1

258: \leq j < i \leq n.

259: \end{equation}

260: In general one

261: considers $\eta = 1/2$.

262: The basis $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n$

263: of ${\mathcal L}$ is called LLL-reduced with factors $\delta$ and

264: $\eta$

265: if the vectors are proper, and if they satisfy the Lov\'asz

266: conditions:

267: \begin{equation} \label{eq:deflovasz}

268: (\delta - \mu _{i+1,i} ^2) \|a_i^*\|^2 _2 \leq \|a_{i+1}^*\|^2 _2,

269: ~1\leq i \leq n-1,

270: \end{equation}

271: with $1/4 < \delta \leq 1$ and $1/2 \leq \eta < \sqrt{\delta}$.

272: If $A=QR$ is the $QR$ factorization of $A$ then we have

273: \begin{equation} \label{eq:QRGS}

274: \left\{ \begin{array}{l}

275: \|a_i^*\| _2 = r_{ii},~1 \leq i \leq n,\\

276: \mu _{ij} = r_{ji}/r_{jj},~1

277: \leq j < i \leq n.

278: \end{array}

279: \right.

280: \end{equation}

281: We see from~(\ref{eq:QRGS}) that if an approximation $\widetilde{R}$

282: of $R$ with error bounds on its entries are known,  

283: then (depending on the quality of the bounds) it may be possible

284: to check whether~(\ref{eq:defproper}) and~(\ref{eq:deflovasz})

285: are satisfied. 

286: All the above draws the reducedness

287: certificate that we propose in~Section~\ref{sec-reduced}.

288: We also fix a set $\FF$ of floating point numbers, and perform

289: operations in $\FF$ only. 

290: For certifying the reducedness of the column basis associated to $A$

291: the certificate works in three steps:

292: \begin{description}

293: \item {\sc i}: Numerical computation of a $R$ factor $\widetilde{R}$ such that 

294:   $A\approx \widetilde{Q}\widetilde{R}$; 

295: \item {\sc ii}: Certified computation of $F \in \FF ^{n \times n}$

296:   such that $|\widetilde{R}-R| \leq F$ (see (\ref{eq-defE}));

297: \item {\sc iii}: Certified check of properness (\ref{eq:defproper})

298:   and Lov\'asz conditions (\ref{eq:deflovasz}). 

299: \end{description}

300: 

301: Following the principles of verification algorithms~\cite{Rum05},

302: Step~{\sc i} is purely approximation, and we propose an implementation of 

303: Steps~{\sc ii} and~{\sc iii}

304: that is independent of the factorization algorithm used for

305: computing  $\widetilde{R}$. 

306: For taking into account all possible numerical and rounding errors,

307: Steps~{\sc ii} and~{\sc iii} use certified computing

308: techniques (see Section~\ref{subsec:certiftech}). We rely on the fact that the arithmetic

309: operations $+, -, \times, \div, \sqrt{~}$ in $\FF$ are according to

310: the  IEEE~754 standard. We especially use explicit changes of

311: rounding mode for certified bounds. 

312: 

313: Verification algorithms are a powerful

314: alternative between numerical  and computer

315: algebra algorithms, they somehow illustrate the boundary between the

316: two fields. 

317: The reducedness certificate we propose illustrates a cooperation of purely

318: numerical computation  with a certified approach based on  the

319: IEEE~754 

320: standard, in order to provide a computer

321: algebra answer. 

322: Our progress in linear algebra is in the line of previous works on 

323: error bounds for linear

324: systems~\cite{Rum94,OiRu02,RuOg07}, on 

325: certifying the sign of the determinant~\cite{Pan01,KaVi04}, 

326: on verifying positive definiteness~\cite{Rum06}, or on eigenvalues~\cite{May94,Rum01}.

327: Our contribution is to establish the effectiveness of

328: componentwise bounds for a whole matrix,

329: propose a corresponding certified algorithm using fast

330: verification techniques, and derive and test with experiments a certificate 

331: for the LLL reducedness application.\\[-0.2cm]

332: 

333: \noindent 

334: {\bf Absolute value and matrix norms.} We already considered above the absolute value of a

335: matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ defined by  $(|a_{ij}|)$. We write $|A| \leq

336: |B|$ if $|a_{ij}| \leq |b_{ij}|$. It is possible to check that 

337: if $A=BC$ then $|A| \leq

338: |B||C|$. We will use several matrix norms

339: (see~\cite[Ch.\,6]{Hig02}) such as the Frobenius norm

340: $\|\cdot\|_{F}$ or the $2$-norm $\|\cdot\|_2$.

341: We will also especially use the infinity norm

342: $\|\cdot\|_{\infty}=\max_{1\leq i \leq n} \sum _{j=1}^n |a_{ij}|$.

343: For $A=BC$ we have $\|A\|_{\infty} \leq

344: \|B\|_{\infty}\|C\|_{\infty}$, and if $h=\|A\|_{\infty}$ then 

345: $|A| \leq H$ with $h_{ij}=h$.\\[-0.2cm]

346: 

347: \noindent 

348: {\bf Condition numbers.} For a nonsingular matrix $A$, the matrix

349: condition number is defined by  

350: $\kappa _p (A) = \|A\|_p  \|A ^{-1}\|_p$ with $p=2, F$ or $\infty$~\cite[Th.\,6.4]{Hig02}.

351: With the infinity norm we will also use the Bauer-Skeel condition number

352: $\text{cond}(A)=

353: \||A ^{-1}||A|\|_{\infty} \leq \kappa _{\infty}(A)$~\cite[\S\,7.2]{Hig02}.

354: 

355: 

356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%  VERIFICATION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%  VERIFICATION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

358: 

359: 

360: \section{Error bounds computation and verification algorithms} \label{sec-verif}

361: 

362: In linear algebra, few things are known

363: about the complexity of computing certified and effective error bounds. 

364: The problem is somewhere between the one of computing approximate

365: solutions, and the one of computing multi-precision or exact 

366:  solutions. A main result in~\cite{DDM01} 

367: shows  that 

368: the problem of computing 

369: a certified estimation of $\|A ^{-1}\|$ (for a consistent matrix

370: norm) is as difficult as testing whether the product of two matrices

371: is zero. Hence if we consider $O(n ^3)$ operations for

372: multiplying two matrices of dimension $n$, 

373: a deterministic error bound---based on a condition number bound---would

374: cost $O(n ^3)$. 

375: The use of randomization may lead to 

376: error estimations in  $O(n ^2)$ operations, we refer

377: to~\cite[Chap.\,15]{Hig02}

378: and references therein, and to the fact that the matrix product

379: could be verified in  $O(n ^2)$ operations~\cite{Fre79}.  

380: We did not investigate the randomization possibilities yet.

381: 

382: Verification methods have been developped in~\cite{Rum94,OiRu02} for

383: computing certified error bounds 

384: for linear system solution. In~\cite{OiRu02} the error bound

385: (normwise) is computed in twice the time of

386: numerical 

387: Gaussian elimination. 

388: In the same spirit,  a verification approach using $O(n^3)$ 

389: floating point operations is proposed in~\cite{Pan01} for the

390: sign of the determinant (see~\cite{KaVi04} for a survey on

391: this topic). Note that computing the sign of the determinant corresponds to knowing

392: the determinant with a relative error less than $1$.

393: Our error bounding algorithm for $R$ will also use $O(n^3)$ floating

394: point operations. 

395: The verification approach~\cite{Rum03,Rum05}  

396: gives an effective alternative to interval arithmetic whose

397: exponential overestimation of the error would not be appropriate for

398: our problem~\cite[\S10.7]{Rum05}. The general strategy for

399: calculating an error bound 

400: is first to establish a result whose assertion is  a mathematical expression for the

401: bound (see Theorem~\ref{theo-error}), then design an

402: algorithm that verifies the assumptions for  

403: the latter assertion, and computes a certified evaluation of the bound

404: (see Section~\ref{sec-tow}). 

405: 

406: 

407: %prodmat par interv ok 

408: 

409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%  ERROR BOUNDS QR %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%  ERROR BOUNDS QR %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

411: 

412: 

413: \section{Perturbation analyses and bounds for the $QR$

414:   factorization} \label{sec-errorQR}

415: 

416: %% verifier partout a cond and the cond 

417: 

418: 

419: A finite precision computation of the $QR$ factorization of $A$ leads to

420: an approximate factor~$\widetilde{R}$. The errors in $\widetilde{R}$ with

421: respect to $R$ are called the {\em forward errors} (absolute or

422: relative). The matrix $\widetilde{R}$ is not the factor of the $QR$ factorization of $A$,

423: however, it is seen as the $QR$ factor 

424: of a perturbed matrix $\widetilde{A}=A+E$,

425: %\footnote{****************************** To be more precise?}.

426: where $E$ is called the {\em backward error.}

427: The choice of $\widetilde{A}$ is

428: non unique, and one refers for instance for the smallest error norm.

429: The link between backward and forward error is made using

430: the condition number of the problem, hence for us the

431: condition number for the problem of computing  $R$.  

432: The (relative) {\em condition number} of the problem---under some

433: class of perturbations---measures the 

434: relative change in the output for a relative change in the input. 

435: In this context, a useful tool  

436: for estimating the accuracy

437: of the solution to a problem, is the rule of thumb~\cite[p.\,9]{Hig02}:

438: \begin{equation} \label{thumb}

439: \text{forward error} 

440: \begin{array}{c}~\\[-0.36cm]<\\[-0.28cm] \sim\end{array}

441: \text{condition number} \times \text{backward error}.

442: \end{equation}

443: We survey below some more precise

444: instantiations of~(\ref{thumb}) for the $QR$ 

445: factorization. 

446: Known results are, in general, approximate inequalities (first order

447: results), but could be extended   

448: for giving strict bounds on the forward error. 

449: The rule of thumb therefore gives a first possible direction 

450: for deriving an error bounding algorithm for $|\widetilde{R}-R|$ (the

451: forward absolute error).

452: However, most of corresponding bounds rely

453: on matrix norms, and may thus overestimate  

454: the actual componentwise error in most cases. 

455: 

456: We will investigate an alternative direction in Section~\ref{sec-sun}.

457: Rather than on the rule of thumb, our error bounding 

458: algorithm will be based on the componentwise bounds of Sun~\cite{Sun92}. 

459: This will lead to an algorithm that seems to be naturally more

460: effective than a matrix norm approach for our problem.

461: Another advantage of using Sun's results  is to remain in the spirit of the

462: verification methods. In particular,  we will

463: see that the error bounding algorithm is oblivious of the algorithm that is

464: used for computing the approximate factor $\widetilde{R}$. Our bound computation

465: may be appended to any numerical $QR$ algorithm, and does

466: not rely on backward error bounds that would be have been needed for

467: using (\ref{thumb}). An approximate $\widetilde{Q}$ in not

468: orthogonal in

469: general, the backward error problem is to know  for which matrix $\widetilde{A}$ close to $A$, there

470: exists an orthogonal $\widehat{Q}$ such that  $\widetilde{A}=\widehat{Q} \widetilde{R}$?  

471: Backward error bounds are known for specific $QR$ algorithms such as Householder

472: or Gram-Schmidt ones (see Theorems~19.4 and~19.13 in \cite{Hig02}), but

473: may not be available in the general case. We will circumvent

474: the need of the backward error in Section~\ref{sec-sun} using the correspondence

475: between the $QR$ factorization of $A$, and the Cholesky

476: factorization $R^T R$ of $A ^T A$.   \\[-0.2cm]

477: 

478: \noindent

479: {\bf Sensitivity of the $QR$ factorization.}

480: The condition number of the problem of computing $R$ (the ``rate of

481: change'' of $R$) in the $QR$

482: factorization may be defined theoretically for given classes of

483: perturbations, but it is non trivial  to derive expressions

484: of the condition number that can be used  in practice. Nevertheless, various formulae

485: are proposed in the literature providing quantities that can be thought

486: as a condition number for $R$, we refer for instance to~\cite{ChPa01}.

487: These quantities may be very effective in practice in a matrix norm setting.

488: 

489: Let $A=QR$  and $A \approx \widetilde{A}

490: +E = \widehat{Q} \widetilde{R}$ be $QR$ factorizations. As already noticed, 

491: for a floating point factorization $A \approx \widetilde{Q}\widetilde{R}$, in general 

492: we have $\widehat{Q} \neq \widetilde{Q}$ since $\widetilde{Q}$ is not orthogonal.

493: Let $\widetilde{R} = R+F$.

494: For a sufficiently small backward error $E$, consider the normwise

495: relative error $\epsilon = \|E\|_F / \|A\|_2 =  \|\widetilde{A}-A\|_F / \|A\|_2$. Then

496: Sun's~\cite[Rem.\,3.5]{Sun91} perturbation bounds (see

497: also~\cite{Ste93}) give

498: \begin{equation} \label{eq-sun91}

499: {\|\widetilde{R}-R\|_F}/{\|R\|_2} \leq \sqrt{2} \kappa _2 (A)

500: \epsilon + O(\epsilon ^2). 

501: \end{equation}

502: %

503: An improved bound is given by Zha~[Theorem\,2.1]\cite{Zha93} (see

504: also~\cite[\S\,5]{ChPa01} and~\cite[\S19.9]{Hig02}) under a componentwise model of

505: perturbation that we simplify here.   

506: Let $|\widetilde{A}-A|=|E|=\epsilon |A|$, then for sufficiently small 

507: $\epsilon$ we have:

508: \begin{equation} \label{eq-zha}

509: {\|\widetilde{R}-R\|_{\infty}}/{\|R\|_{\infty}} \leq c_n

510: \text{cond}(R^{-1}) \epsilon + O(\epsilon ^2) 

511: \end{equation}

512: where $c_n$ is a constant depending on $n$.

513: Hence the Bauer-Skeel condition number of $R^{-1}$ can be considered 

514: as a condition number for the problem of calculating $R$.

515: This indicates that 

516: one may potentially loose significant digits (in the result)

517: linearly with respect to the increase of $\log

518: \text{cond}(R^{-1})$. 

519: This typical behaviour is illustrated by Figure~3.1

520: where we have computed $QR$ factorizations of random matrices 

521: (of {\tt randsvd} type~\cite[Ch.\,28]{Hig02}). The algorithm

522: used is the Modified Gram-Schmidt

523: algorithm~\cite[Algo.\,19.12]{Hig02}.

524: \begin{center}

525: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{linear.eps} 

526: {\footnotesize

527: ~\\

528: \begin{minipage}{13.4cm}\begin{center}

529: {\footnotesize Figure 3.1: Maximum

530:   relative diagonal error in $R$ (Modified Gram-Schmidt algorithm) with

531:   respect to cond($R^{-1}$)

532: for random matrices $A$ ($n=200$).}\end{center}

533: \end{minipage}

534: }

535: \end{center}Identities~(\ref{eq-sun91}) and~(\ref{eq-zha})

536: provide first order estimations of the errors. They are essential

537: for an idea 

538: of the normwise loss of accuracy. 

539: Nevertheless, the loss of accuracy on 

540: individual entries  (needed for the reducedness certificate)

541:  may not be deduced from these identities.  

542: Consider for instance the case of Figure~3.1 where the ratios of the $r_{ij}$ 

543: may be as large as $10^{11}$. The normwise bound of~(\ref{eq-zha}),

544: that involves the max row sum $\|R\|_{\infty}$, cannot provide relevant informations

545: for every $|\tilde{r}_{ij}-r_{ij}|$. 

546: Note also that the 

547: loss of accuracy would certainly be amplified by the implementation of the 

548: error estimation itself in finite precision (Figure~3.1

549: is a mathematical representation of the error). Normwise 

550: bounds much sharper than~(\ref{eq-sun91}) and~(\ref{eq-zha})

551: may be found, especially in~\cite{CPS97,ChPa01}, 

552: it remains to know how well the corresponding proposed estimations approximate the

553: true condition number~\cite[\S10]{ChPa01}. 

554: It would also be interesting to investigate how the new techniques 

555: of~\cite{CPS97,ChPa01} could lead to practical componentwise

556: bounds. 

557: 

558: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  STRICT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  STRICT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

560: 

561: \section{Strict componentwise bounds for the $R$ factor} \label{sec-sun}

562: 

563: We now present the mathematical view and justification of the error

564: bounding algorithm of Section~\ref{sec-errorR}.

565: Given $A \in \RR ^{n \times n}$ invertible, 

566: and an upper triangular matrix $\widetilde{R} \in \RR ^{n \times n}$, 

567: the problem is to bound $|\widetilde{R}-R|$ where $R$ is the unknown 

568: $QR$ factor of $A$. In practice  we will have $A,\widetilde{R} \in \FF ^{n \times n}$.

569: 

570: 

571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

572: \subsection{$QR$ and Cholesky factorization}

573: 

574: The strict componentwise analysis of Sun~\cite[\S\,4]{Sun92}

575: for $QR$ uses the matrix $\widetilde{A}$ such that 

576: $\widetilde{A}=\widehat{Q}\widetilde{R}$ is a $QR$ factorization.

577: Note that, because of the loss of orthogonality,

578:  if $\widetilde{Q}$ is a numerical approximation of $Q$ then 

579: $\widetilde{A}$ is not in general the 

580: matrix $\widetilde{Q}\widetilde{R}$. 

581: Informations on $\widetilde{A}$ may be available by taking into

582: account the algorithm that has produced $\widetilde{R}$. 

583: We refer for instance to~\cite[Eq.\,(5.8)]{ChPa01}

584: and~\cite[\S19.9\,]{Hig02}

585: where properties of Householder transformations are used for

586: bounding the backward error.

587: This is not sufficient for our problem since we are given only $A$ and

588: $\widetilde{R}$, and since one of our goal is to be oblivious of the method

589: used for $\widetilde{R}$.

590: 

591: For not relying on $\widetilde{A}$, we propose to rather resort to

592: Sun's study of 

593: the Cholesky factorization~\cite[\S\,4]{Sun92}. 

594: If $B \in \RR ^{n \times n}$ is symmetric positive definite, then there is a unique upper

595: triangular $R \in \RR ^{n \times n}$

596: with positive diagonal entries,  such that $B=R^TR$. This

597: factorization is called the Cholesky factorization~\cite[Th.\,10.1]{Hig02}.

598: It holds that $A=QR$ is a $QR$ factorization if and only if 

599: $B=A ^T A =R^T R$ is a Cholesky factorization.

600: It may not be a good idea to use the

601: Cholesky factorization for computing $R$ numerically. The condition

602: number 

603: of the problem may indeed increase too much, especially $\kappa _2 (A

604: ^T A) = (\kappa _2 (A)) ^2$. For avoiding this drawback,  

605: our point is to implement the 

606: reduceness certificate of Section~\ref{sec-reduced} using  $QR$

607: for computing $\widetilde{R}$, and to use

608: the Cholesky point of view only for computing the error bound. 

609: 

610: 

611: 

612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

613: \subsection{The bound on $|\widetilde{R}-R|$}

614: 

615: For a matrix $A \in \RR ^{n \times n}$, 

616: the spectral radius 

617: $\rho (A)$ is the maximum of the eigenvalue modules. 

618: We denote by $\text{\rm triu} (A)$ the upper triangular 

619: part of $A$, we mean that $\text{\rm triu} (A) = (t_{ij})$ with 

620: $t_{ij}=a_{ij}$ if $i\leq j$, and $t_{ij}=0$ otherwise.

621: The following Theorem is~\cite[Th.\,2.1]{Sun92}.

622: 

623: \begin{theorem} \label{theo-errorsun}

624: For $B, \widetilde{B} \in  \RR ^{n \times n}$ symmetric positive

625: definite matrices, let $R$ and $\widetilde{R}$ be the 

626: Cholesky factors of  $B$ and $\widetilde{B}$. Let 

627: $E= \widetilde{B}-B$,

628: and 

629: \begin{equation} \label{eq-defG}

630: G = |\widetilde{R}^{-T} E  \widetilde{R}^{-1}|.

631: \end{equation}

632: Then if 

633: $\rho (G) < 1$

634: we have 

635: \begin{equation} \label{eq-errorH}

636: |\widetilde{R}-R| \leq \text{\rm triu} (G (I-G)^{-1}) |\widetilde{R}|.

637: \end{equation}

638: \end{theorem}

639: Inequality~(\ref{eq-errorH}) is what we announced

640: with~(\ref{eq-defE}).

641: Let us apply Theorem~\ref{theo-errorsun} 

642: with $B=A ^TA$  and

643: $\widetilde{B}=\widetilde{A}^T \widetilde{A}$.

644: Using $\widetilde{A} = \widehat{Q}\widetilde{R}$ and 

645: $\widehat{Q}^T\widehat{Q}=I$,

646: we get from~(\ref{eq-defG}):

647: $$\begin{array}{ll}

648: G  &= |\widetilde{R}^{-T} E  \widetilde{R}^{-1}|

649: = |\widetilde{R}^{-T} (\widetilde{B}-B) 

650: \widetilde{R}^{-1}|

651: = |\widetilde{R}^{-T} (\widetilde{A}^T\widetilde{A} - A ^T A) 

652: \widetilde{R}^{-1}|\\

653: &= |\widetilde{R}^{-T} \widetilde{A}^T\widetilde{A}

654: \widetilde{R}^{-1}

655: - \widetilde{R}^{-T} A ^T A 

656: \widetilde{R}^{-1}| = 

657: |\widehat{Q}^{T} \widehat{Q}  

658: - \widetilde{R}^{-T} A ^T A 

659: \widetilde{R}^{-1}|

660: = |\widetilde{R}^{-T} A ^T A 

661: \widetilde{R}^{-1} - I|.

662: \end{array}

663: $$

664: Going back to the $R$ factor of the $QR$ factorization we then have

665: the following corollary to Theorem~\ref{theo-errorsun}

666: \begin{theorem}\label{theo-error}

667: For $A \in  \RR ^{n \times n}$ an invertible matrix, let $R$ 

668: be the $QR$ factor of $A$. Let $\widetilde{R}\in  \RR ^{n \times n}$

669: be upper triangular and invertible, and 

670: \begin{equation} \label{neq-defG}

671: G = |\widetilde{R}^{-T} A ^T A 

672: \widetilde{R}^{-1} - I|.

673: \end{equation}

674: Then if 

675: \begin{equation} \label{neq-testrho}

676: \rho (G) < 1,

677: \end{equation}

678: we have 

679: \begin{equation} \label{neq-errorH}

680: |\widetilde{R}-R| \leq \text{\rm triu} (G (I-G)^{-1}) |\widetilde{R}|.

681: \end{equation}

682: \end{theorem}

683: \begin{proof}

684: Since $\widetilde{R}$ is invertible,

685: $\widetilde{B}=\widetilde{R}^T\widetilde{R}$ is positive

686: definite, the same holds for $B=A ^T A$. By construction  

687: $R$ and $\widetilde{R}$ are the Cholesky factors of 

688: $B$ and $\widetilde{B}$. It suffices to apply

689: Theorem~\ref{theo-errorsun} for concluding.

690: \end{proof}

691: 

692: Few things are known about the (mathematical) quality of   

693: Bound~(\ref{neq-errorH}) over~$\RR$.

694: Furthermore, both additional method and arithmetic errors will be introduced for the finite

695: precision evaluation of the bound. Additional method errors will be 

696: introduced especially for calculating certified bounds for

697: $\widetilde{R}^{-1}$ and 

698: $\text{\rm triu}(G (I-G)^{-1})$

699: (see Section~\ref{sec-tow}). Additional arithmetic errors 

700: will be introduced by the finite precision itself.

701: All together we produce an error bounding algorithm that is not

702: fully 

703: analyzed, the experiments of

704: Section~\ref{subsec-comput}

705: will however give a precise idea of its practical behaviour and effectiveness. 

706: For illustrating Bound~(\ref{neq-errorH}) over~$\RR$,

707: let us consider some examples that show that  

708: Theorem~\ref{theo-error} leads to accurate bounds. The calculations

709: have been done in Maple~\cite{Maple10}, either exactly or with high precision,

710: then rounded for the presentation. 

711: Let $H = \text{\rm triu} (G (I-G)^{-1})$ such

712: that~(\ref{neq-errorH}) is  

713: $|\widetilde{R}-R| \leq H |\widetilde{R}|$.

714: 

715: On the matrices used for 

716: Figure~3.1  ({\tt randsvd}, $n=200$),

717: with $\widetilde{R}$ computed using 64~bits floating point

718: numbers via the Modified Gram-Schmidt

719: algorithm,   we typically get the following. 

720: For $A$ with $\text{cond}(R^{-1}) \approx 10^5$, 

721: the infinity norm of the error matrix is 

722: $\|H\|_{\infty} \approx 2 \times 10^{-9}$.

723: This leads to the knowledge that 

724: $\widetilde{R}$ approximates $R$ with (relative) accuracy $\approx

725: 10^{-10}$.

726: The accuracy of $\widetilde{R}$ is about  

727: $10^{-13}$ for the diagonal entries, and the 

728: diagonal error estimation is only in a factor of $2$ from the

729: true diagonal error.    

730: If $\text{cond}(R^{-1}) \approx 4 \times 10^{13}$

731: then $\|H\|_{\infty} \approx 3 \times 10^{-3}$, and  $R$ is known 

732: with accuracy about $10^{-2}$ ($2 \times 10^{-5}$ on the diagonal). 

733: The ratio between the estimation and the true error is less than $4$

734: on the diagonal. 

735: Again, we will certainly loose accuracy with  our finite precision 

736: implementation, but keep a very satisfying overall

737: behaviour.  

738: Consider also the matrix quoted from~\cite[Eq.\,5.4]{ChPa01}:

739: $$

740: A_1 = \left[ \begin {array}{cc}  1& 1-10^{-10} 

741: \\\noalign{\medskip} 1& 1 + 10^{-10}\end {array} \right],

742: $$

743: with $\text{cond}(R^{-1}) \approx 2 \times 10^{10}$.  We compute the matrix 

744: $\widetilde{R}$ in Matlab~\cite{matlab06}, and obtain over $\RR$ the

745: error bound:

746: \begin{equation}\label{theoA1}

747: |\widetilde{R}-R| \approx 

748: \left[ \begin {array}{cc} { 9.7\times 10^{-17}}&-{

749:  1.3\times 10^{-16}}\\\noalign{\medskip} 0&{ 3.7

750: \times 10^{-17}}\end {array} \right]

751: \leq 

752:  \left[ \begin {array}{cc} { 3.5\times 10^{-12}}&{ 3.5

753: \times 10^{-12}}\\\noalign{\medskip} 0&{ 7.4\times 10^{-17}}

754: \end {array} \right].

755: \end{equation}

756: The matrix $R$ is known with (relative) accuracy about $2.5 \times

757: 10^{-12}$ on the first row, and $5.25 \times

758: 10^{-7}$ for $r_{22}$. On the first row the error is overestimated

759: by a factor about $3.6 \times 10^4$. Notwithstanding

760: the fact that the accuracy of

761: the bound produced by Theorem~\ref{theo-errorsun}

762:  is penalized by the particular form of the matrix,

763: the estimation of the accuracy of $\widetilde{R}$ remains very good. 

764: Now let $A$ be the random $3 \times 3$ integer matrix 

765: $$

766: A_2 = \left[ \begin {array}{ccc} - 60& 28& 51\\\noalign{\medskip}-

767:  24&- 35&- 89\\\noalign{\medskip} 37& 51&- 23\end {array}

768:  \right].

769: $$ 

770: We look at Bound~(\ref{neq-errorH}) when perturbing only the second

771: row of the exact $R$ and get: 

772: \begin{equation}\label{theoA2}

773: |\widetilde{R}-R| = 

774: \left|\left[ \begin {array}{ccc}  0 & 0& 0\\\noalign{\medskip}0&

775:  0.0071& -0.0052\\\noalign{\medskip}0&0& 0

776: \end {array} \right]\right| \leq  \left[ \begin {array}{ccc}  0 &

777:  0 & 0

778: \\\noalign{\medskip} 0& 0.014204 & 0.023087 

779: \\\noalign{\medskip} 0& 0& 2.9 \times 10 ^{-6}\end {array} \right].

780: \end{equation}

781: The estimator computes the errors very well on the first and the

782: second row. We think that the dummy error estimated for $r_{33}$ 

783: is a repercussion of the perturbation of row two. 

784: In next section we review the different quantities that are involved 

785: in Theorem~\ref{theo-error} with the aim of looking at first 

786: implementation aspects. 

787: 

788: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

789: %%%% TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION

790: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

791: 

792: \section{Toward an implementation}   \label{sec-tow}

793: 

794: Theorem~\ref{theo-error} is the foundation of our error bounding

795: algorithm. It involves several quantities that need further

796: study before deriving an implementation in Section~\ref{sec-errorR}. 

797: We decompose the computation of  

798: the bound on $|\widetilde{R}-R|$ into four principal tasks. 

799: We need to: 1) check  that $\widetilde{R}$ is invertible; 2) compute

800: a bound on $G$; 3) check that $\rho (G) < 1$; and 4) 

801: bound $H=\text{\rm triu}(G (I-G)^{-1})$. 

802: We recall that at this point, only $A$ and $\widetilde{R}$ are

803: known. 

804: 

805: %%%%%%%

806: \subsection{Invertibility check of $\widetilde{R}$} \label{subsec-checkR}

807: For dealing with $\widetilde{R} ^{-1}$ in a certified way, which is clearly  a

808: non trivial question in finite precision, we use the verification solution of Oishi and

809: Rump~\cite{OiRu02}. 

810: We compute 

811: a purely numerical approximate inverse $V \approx  \widetilde{R}

812: ^{-1}$ (by numerical triangular inversion). 

813: Then we know from~\cite{OiRu02} that, if 

814: \begin{equation} \label{eq-testR}

815: \|\widetilde{R}V-I\|_{\infty} < 1,

816: \end{equation}

817: then $\widetilde{R}$ is invertible. 

818: 

819: 

820: %%%%%%%%%%

821: \subsection{Bounding $G$}\label{subsec-boundG}

822: 

823: For bounding $G$, and dealing with the unknown inverse of

824: $\widetilde{R}$, 

825: we are also inspired by~\cite{OiRu02}, and introduce 

826: $W=\widetilde{R}V$ ($\approx I$). We have  

827: $$

828: \begin{array}{ll}

829: G & = |\widetilde{R}^{-T} A ^T A 

830: \widetilde{R}^{-1} - I| \\

831: &=  |(W ^{-T} W ^T) \widetilde{R}^{-T} A ^T A 

832: \widetilde{R}^{-1} (W W ^{-1}) -  (W ^{-T} W ^T)(W W ^{-1})|\\

833: &= |W ^{-T}( V^T A ^T A V -   W ^TW) W ^{-1})|

834: \leq |W ^{-T}|\cdot|V^T A ^T A V -   W ^TW|\cdot| W ^{-1}|.

835: \end{array} 

836: $$

837: In the inequality above, if $\widetilde{R}$ is close to $R$ and $V$

838: is close to $\widetilde{R}^{-1}$, then both $V^T A ^T A V$ and $W

839: ^TW$ are close to identity. Hence it is natural to pursue with:

840: $$

841: \begin{array}{ll}

842: G & \leq |W ^{-T}|\cdot|V^T A ^T A V - I + I -   W ^TW|\cdot| W ^{-1}|\\

843: &\leq |W ^{-T}|\cdot|(V^T A ^T A V -I) - (W ^TW-I) |\cdot| W

844: ^{-1}|

845: \end{array} 

846: $$

847: which gives

848: \begin{equation} \label{eq-computG}

849: G \leq |W ^{-T}|\cdot(|(V^T A ^T A V -I)|+|(W ^TW-I)|)\cdot| W

850: ^{-1}|.

851: \end{equation}

852: We will use~(\ref{eq-computG}) for computing a certified bound for

853: $G$. 

854: The products involving $A$, $\widetilde{R}$, $V$, 

855: and $W =  \widetilde{R}V$ will be bounded directly by interval

856: techniques. It remains to bound 

857: $| W

858: ^{-1}|$. We expect $W$ to be close to $I$, and may use a

859: specific approximation.  

860: We have $|W^{-1}|= | (I-(I-W))^{-1}|$ (see~\cite[Intro.]{OiRu02}).

861: Then, when $\widetilde{R}$ is invertible,

862: $$

863: \begin{array}{ll}

864: |W^{-1}| & = | I + (I-W) + (I-W)^2 + \ldots |\\

865: & = | 2 I - W + (I-W)^2( I + (I-W) + (I-W)^2 + \ldots )|\\

866: & \leq | 2 I - W| + |(I-W)^2|\cdot |I + (I-W) + (I-W)^2 + \ldots|\\

867: & \leq | 2 I - W| + {\mathcal M}(\|I-W\|^2_{\infty}/(1-\|I-W\|_{\infty}))

868: \end{array} 

869: $$

870: where ${\mathcal M}(x)$ for $x \in \RR$ denotes the matrix whose all

871: entries are equal to $x$.

872: Here we have used the fact that the entries

873: of $|I-W|^2\cdot|I + (I-W) + (I-W)^2 + \ldots|$ are bounded by the

874: infinity norm. Since $W$ is triangular,  

875: it follows that 

876: \begin{equation} \label{eq-computabsinv}

877: |W^{-1}| \leq | 2 I - W| + \frac{\|I-W\|^2}{1-\|I-W\|_{\infty}}\cdot

878: \text{\rm triu}(\text{\rm 1}_n \cdot\text{\rm 1}^T_n)

879: \end{equation}

880: where $\text{\rm 1}_n$ is the column vector with all entries equal

881: to $1$. Note that the invertibility check~(\ref{eq-testR})

882: ensures that  $1-\|I-W\|_{\infty} >0$.

883: The absolute value $|W^{-1}|$ could have been bounded directly using

884: $1/(1-\|I-W\|_{\infty})$, but introducing the infinity norm only in

885: the second order terms leads to a much better bound 

886: in our experiments. 

887: 

888: The matrix manipulations we have done for obtaining~(\ref{eq-computG})

889: and~(\ref{eq-computabsinv}) follow some keys to the design

890: of verification methods. We especially refer

891: to~\cite[p.\,211]{Rum05} where the introduction of small factors is recommended.   

892: We have introduced  

893: the matrices $V^T A ^T A V-I$ and $W

894: ^TW-I$ 

895: whose absolute bounds are expected to be small 

896: when  $\widetilde{R} \approx R$ and $W \approx I$. 

897: On the other hand, in~(\ref{eq-computabsinv}), $|2I-W|$ is expected

898: to be close to $I$, and remaining terms are second order terms (see also the analysis for 

899: $\alpha$ in~\cite[\S5]{OiRu02}). 

900: 

901:   

902: 

903: %%%%%%%%%%

904: \subsection{Bounding the spectral radius of $G$}\label{subsec-boundrhoG}

905: 

906: For any consistent matrix norm we have $\rho(A) \leq \|A\|$. With

907: the above 

908: bound on $G$, 

909: we will simply test whether  

910: \begin{equation} \label{eq-computrho}

911: \|G\|_{\infty} < 1  

912: \end{equation}

913: for asserting that $\rho(G) <1$ in Theorem~\ref{theo-error}. This

914: test corresponds to the Gershg\"orin disks. It could certainly 

915: be sharpened in future versions of the certificate, 

916: see for instance the Cassini ovals in~\cite{BrMe94},

917: or the iterative estimation in~\cite{Rum06}. 

918: 

919: 

920: %%%%%%%%%%

921: \subsection{Bounding $|\widetilde{R}-R|$}\label{subsec-boundH}

922: 

923: Once a bound on $G$ is known it remains to bound $H=\text{\rm

924:   triu}(G (I-G)^{-1})$.

925: We have 

926: $$

927: G(I-G)^{-1}  =  G + G^2 + G^3 + \ldots = G + G^2 (I + G + G^2 + \ldots) \\

928: $$

929: and 

930: \begin{equation} \label{eq-computH}

931: \text{\rm

932:   triu}(G (I-G)^{-1}) 

933: \leq \text{\rm

934:   triu}(G) +  \text{\rm

935:   triu}\left(\frac{\|G\|_{\infty}^2}{1-\|G\|_{\infty}}\cdot 

936: \text{\rm 1}_n \cdot\text{\rm 1}^T_n \right).

937: \end{equation}

938: Since $G$ is expected to be small, $H = \text{\rm

939:   triu}(G (I-G)^{-1})$ is expected to be close to   $\text{\rm

940:   triu}(G)$.

941: Note that using the spectral radius check~(\ref{eq-computrho})

942: ensures that ${1-\|G\|_{\infty}}>0$.

943: 

944: 

945: 

946: 

947: 

948: 

949: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%  ALGORITHM R %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

950: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%  ALGORITHM R %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

951: 

952: 

953: \section{Error bounding algorithm for the $QR$ factor $R$} \label{sec-errorR}

954: 

955: Let $\FF$ be a set of floating point numbers such that the arithmetic

956: operations in~$\FF$ satisfy the IEEE~754 standard. 

957: $A$ and $\widetilde{R}$ are now matrices in

958: $\FF ^{n \times n}$. Since (finite) floating point numbers 

959: are rational numbers, $A$ and $\widetilde{R}$ can be seen as rational

960: matrices. Let $R \in \RR ^{n \times n}$ be the unknown $QR$ factor of $A$

961: (in general, the entries of $R$ are not in~$\FF$).

962: We carry the approach of  Section~\ref{sec-tow}

963: over to the floating point case for computing 

964: a floating point matrix $H$ such that $|\widetilde{R}-R| \leq H

965: |\widetilde{R}|$. 

966: The error matrix $H$ provided by Theorem~\ref{theo-error}

967: can be computed modulo the two checks~(\ref{eq-testR})

968: and~(\ref{eq-computrho}), and using the inequalities~(\ref{eq-computG}), (\ref{eq-computabsinv}),

969: and~(\ref{eq-computH}).

970: These checks and inequalities only involve matrix multiplications,

971: additions, subtractions, and divisions by a scalar. 

972: After explaining the basic techniques we use for computing certified

973: bounds in floating point arithmetic, we present the error bounding

974: algorithm and demonstrate its effectiveness on various examples. 

975: 

976: 

977: %%%%%%%%%%%%  MID POINT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

978: \subsection{Certified bounds for floating point matrix expressions} \label{subsec:certiftech}

979: 

980: We denote by $\text{\rm fl}(x)$ the value of an arithmetic

981: expression $x$ computed by floating point arithmetic in $\FF$.

982: For instance, for $a,b \in \FF$, $\text{\rm fl}(a+b\times c)$ denotes the 

983: result in $\FF$ with the addition and the mutiplication performed in

984: floating point arithmetic.  In the text, an arithmetic

985: expression on floating point numbers denotes the exact value in

986: $\RR$. For instance $a+b \in \RR$ is the result of the addition in $\RR$.

987: The abolute value, the max, and the negation are exact operations: for $a,b \in

988: \FF$, $\text{\rm

989:   fl}(|a|)= |a|$, $\text{\rm

990:   fl}(\max\{a,b\}) = \max\{a,b\}$, $\text{\rm

991:   fl}(-a)= -a$.

992: 

993: Thanks to the IEEE~754 standard, we can use the

994: possibility of changing the rounding mode for computing certified

995: bounds. We essentially follow Rump's approach for implementing 

996: verified matrix operations~\cite{Rum05}, and Oishi and Rump~\cite{OiRu02}.

997: We use the statements ``setround(down)'' and

998: ``setround(up)''\footnote{

999: {\tt  fesetround(FE\_DOWNWARD)} and {\tt fesetround(FE\_UPWARD)}

1000: in C language.}.

1001:  All operations after a statement ``setround(down)'' or ``setround(up)''  are rounded

1002:  downwards or upwards, respectively, until the 

1003: next call to setround. For two floating point numbers $a$ and $b$, a

1004: bound $r$ on 

1005: $|a~op~b|$ for $op \in \{+,-,\times,\div\}$

1006: may be computed as follows. The program 

1007: \begin{equation}\label{eq-roundmax}

1008: \begin{array}{ll}

1009: \text{setround(down)};

1010: &\underline{r}=\text{\rm fl}(a~op~b)\\

1011: \text{setround(up)};

1012: &\overline{r}=\text{\rm fl}(a~op~b); ~~r = \max \{|\underline{r}|,|\overline{r}|\}

1013: \end{array}

1014: \end{equation}

1015: leads to $\underline{r}$ and $\overline{r}$ such that 

1016: $

1017: \underline{r} \leq a~op~b \leq \overline{r},

1018: $

1019: and to $r \in \FF$ such that 

1020: $

1021: |a~op~b| \leq r, 

1022: $ 

1023: for any $a$ and $b$, and any $op$. 

1024: The IEEE standard ensures that $\underline{r}$ and $\overline{r}$

1025: are the best possible bounds in $\FF$.

1026: This may be extended to the matrix operation 

1027: $A \times B - C$ with  $A,B,C \in \FF ^{n \times n}$. If $A \times B$  

1028: is implemented using only additions and multiplications, then the

1029: program 

1030: \begin{equation}\label{eq-ABC}

1031: \begin{array}{ll}

1032: \text{setround(down)}; 

1033: &\underline{R}=\text{\rm fl}(A\times B-C)\\

1034: \text{setround(up)}; 

1035: &\overline{R}=\text{\rm fl}(A \times B -C); ~~R = \max \{|\underline{R}|,|\overline{R}|\}

1036: \end{array}

1037: \end{equation}

1038: where the maximum is taken componentwise, provides $\underline{R}

1039: \leq A \times B -C \leq \overline{R}$, and $R \in \FF ^{n

1040:   \times n}$ such that 

1041: $|A\times B-C| \leq R$.

1042: For bounding more general matrix expressions we will use a

1043: midpoint-radius matrix representation (we refer

1044: to~\cite[\S10.9]{Rum05}).

1045: Assume that $M$ and $N$ are two matrices known 

1046: to be in intervals $[\underline{M},\overline{M}]$

1047: and $[\underline{N},\overline{N}]$, respectively.

1048: The intervals are for instance obtained by a computation of

1049: type~(\ref{eq-ABC}).

1050: Then the program~\cite[Fig.\,10.22]{Rum05}:

1051: \begin{equation}\label{eq-MN}

1052: \begin{array}{ll}

1053: \text{setround(up)};&  \text{\rm m}_M = \text{\rm fl} ((\overline{M}

1054: -\underline{M})/2);~~\text{\rm r}_M = \text{\rm fl} (\text{\rm m}_M -

1055: \underline{M})\\

1056: &\text{\rm m}_N = \text{\rm fl} ((\overline{N}

1057: -\underline{N})/2);~~\text{\rm r}_N = \text{\rm fl} (\text{\rm m}_N -

1058: \underline{N})\\

1059: \text{setround(down)};& \underline{R} = \text{\rm fl} (\text{\rm m}_M \times

1060: \text{\rm m}_N-I)\\

1061: \text{setround(up)};& \overline{R} = \text{\rm fl} (\text{\rm m}_M \times

1062: \text{\rm m}_N-I)\\

1063: & R = \text{\rm fl} \left(\max \{|\underline{R}|,|\overline{R}|\} + |\text{\rm

1064:   m}_M|\times \text{\rm r}_N + \text{\rm r}_M \times \left(

1065: |\text{\rm

1066:   m}_N| + \text{\rm r}_N

1067:  \right)\right)

1068: \end{array}

1069: \end{equation}

1070: computes $R$ such that $|M\times N-I| \leq R$.

1071: Both~(\ref{eq-ABC}) and~(\ref{eq-MN}) allow to use fast matrix

1072: routines such as the BLAS ones (see the general

1073: discussion in~\cite[\S10.9]{Rum05})

1074: The number of operations in $\FF$ needed is  

1075: $2$ and $4$ matrix products, respectively.

1076: 

1077: Other matrix operations that we will perform  are additions,

1078: products, and divisions by scalars for matrices with positive

1079: entries (absolute values essentially). We   

1080: also compute infinity norms. With no subtraction involved, certified

1081: bounds can be computed using

1082: directed rounding. From~(\ref{eq-roundmax}), upper bounds for

1083: these computations are obtained 

1084: by evaluating the floating point expressions 

1085: after a ``setround(up)'' statement. 

1086: For upper bounds on divisions by a floating point number $1-g$, we first compute  

1087: upper bounds for $-(g-1)$ and $1/(g-1)$. 

1088: 

1089: Other approaches for certified matrix computations could be

1090: considered. We refer to Rump~\cite{Rum05} for a general discussion

1091: on this topic, and for the efficiency of the approach chosen here. 

1092: 

1093: 

1094: %%%%%%%%%%%%  ALGO  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1095: \subsection{Computing an error bound}

1096: 

1097: For $A$ and $\widetilde{R}$ in

1098: $\FF ^{n \times n}$, $\widetilde{R}$ upper triangular, 

1099: we follow Section~\ref{sec-tow} for computing 

1100: a floating point matrix $H$ such that $|\widetilde{R}-R| \leq H

1101: |\widetilde{R}|$. All operations are done in the given floating

1102: point number set $\FF$. For simplifying the presentation we often forget

1103: the costs in $O(n^2)$. 

1104: 

1105: 

1106: The first step is the 

1107: computation of $V \approx \widetilde{R}^{-1}$. Such a triangular

1108: matrix inversion is done in $n^3/3$

1109: operations~\cite[Ch.\,14]{Hig02}. We then compute $\underline{W}$ and

1110: $\overline{W}$ for $W=\widetilde{R}V$ by two triangular matrix

1111: products, this is done in $2n^3/3$ operations. 

1112: This dominates the cost for checking that $\widetilde{R}$ is

1113: invertible by bounding $|W-I|$

1114: using~(\ref{eq-ABC}), and by the infinity norm test~(\ref{eq-testR}). 

1115: Re-using $\underline{W}$ and

1116: $\overline{W}$,

1117: a bound on $|W ^{-1}|$ is then computed

1118: using~(\ref{eq-computabsinv}) in $O(n^2)$ operations.

1119: The latter uses~(\ref{eq-ABC}) 

1120: for $|W-2I|$, and computes a bound with positive matrices using

1121: directed upwards

1122: rounding.

1123: We now look at bounding $G$ using~(\ref{eq-computG}).

1124: Since $G$ is symmetric we restrict ourselves to counting the

1125: operations for calculating 

1126:  the upper triangular part. 

1127: With $W \in [\underline{W},\overline{W}]$  one can

1128: bound $|W^TW-I|$ using~(\ref{eq-MN}) in four matrix

1129: products. Since $W$ is upper triangular, and $W^T$ is lower triangular,

1130: the bound is obtained in $4n^3/3$

1131: operations. 

1132: We then use~(\ref{eq-ABC})

1133: and~(\ref{eq-MN}) for computing an interval for $AV$ in $2n^3$

1134: operations (two dense $\times$ triangular matrix products), and for 

1135: bounding  $|V^TA ^T A V^T-I|$ in $4n^3$ operations (four dense

1136: products resulting in a symmetric matrix). A bound on $G$ is deduced by

1137: operations on matrices with positive entries in $4n^3/3$ operations. 

1138: The latter is  essentially two   

1139: dense $\times$ triangular matrix products with a symmetric result. 

1140: Once a bound on $G$ is known, testing its spectral radius

1141: by~(\ref{eq-computrho}) costs $O(n^2)$ operations. 

1142: $G$ has positive entries,  a bound on the

1143: error matrix $H$ can then be computed by directed towards rounding

1144: using~(\ref{eq-computH}) also in  $O(n^2)$ operations. 

1145: 

1146: We summarize this analysis, and take into account the final matrix product $H

1147: |\widetilde{R}|$ in the following result. 

1148: 

1149: \begin{theorem} \label{theo-maincost} 

1150: Let $A \in \FF ^{n \times n}$, and $\widetilde{R} \in \FF ^{n \times

1151:   n}$ upper triangular be given. 

1152: The error bounding algorithm computes a matrix 

1153: $F\in \FF ^{n \times

1154:   n}$ such that $|\widetilde{R}-R| \leq F$, where $R$ is the unknown $QR$ 

1155: factor of $A$, in $10n^3+O(n^2)$ floating point

1156: operations. %The entries of $F$ may be infinite. 

1157: \end{theorem}

1158: 

1159: A $QR$ factorization typically costs $2n^3 +O(n^2)$

1160: (Gram-Schmidt or Householder approaches) or $3n^3 +O(n^2)$ (using

1161: Givens rotations). Hence we are able to compute a certified 

1162: error bound $|\widetilde{R}-R|$ at the cost of only five

1163: approximate factorizations. 

1164: We have implemented the algorithm in C language. 

1165: The error bounding program 

1166: takes in input  two floating point matrices $A$ and

1167: $\widetilde{R}$

1168: and always returns a matrix $F$.

1169: The entries of $F$ are finite (positive) floating 

1170: numbers if the program is able to certify that $\widetilde{R}$

1171: is invertible, that the spectral radius of $G$ is less than

1172: one, and if no overflow is produced. 

1173: Otherwise, the entries of $F$ may be equal to infinity. 

1174: %subtraction

1175: 

1176: %%%%%%%%%%%% COMPUT RESULTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1177: 

1178: \subsection{Computational results}\label{subsec-comput}

1179: 

1180: The results we present here correspond

1181: to the application  of Theorem\ref{theo-maincost} with $64$~bits

1182: floating point numbers. 

1183: In this section and in~Section~\ref{sec-reduced} the condition

1184: numbers and the ``true errors''

1185: have been computed with high precision 

1186: using Mpfr~\cite{mpfr06}.

1187: For several types of matrices, 

1188: we study the behaviour of the certified error bound by looking at

1189: its value and its accuracy (with respect to the

1190: true error), especially when the dimension and the condition number

1191: increase. 

1192: We mainly focus on the exponent $k$ such that relative error is in 

1193: $10^{-k}$, $k$ expresses the number of significant decimal

1194: digits we certify for the entries of $\widetilde{R}$.  

1195: Let us first come back on the examples of Section~\ref{sec-sun}. 

1196: On the matrix $A_1$, and $\widetilde{R}$ from Matlab, we compute the bound 

1197: $$

1198: |\widetilde{R}-R| \leq 

1199:  \left[ \begin {array}{cc} { 6.7\times 10^{-11}}&{ 6.7

1200: \times 10^{-11}}\\\noalign{\medskip} 0&{ 5\times 10^{-16}}

1201: \end {array} \right].

1202: $$

1203: Comparing to~(\ref{theoA1}), we see that the finite precision

1204: estimator we propose is only slightly overestimating the  

1205: best bound that could be obtained by the method. 

1206: On the matrix $A_2$, and the corresponding perturbation of the exact

1207: $R$ we get:

1208: $$

1209: |\widetilde{R}-R| \leq  

1210: \left[ \begin {array}{ccc}  8.8 \times 10^{-6} &  9.52 \times 10^{-6}& 1.96 \times 10^{-6}\\

1211: \noalign{\medskip} 0& 0.014207 & 0.023098 

1212: \\\noalign{\medskip} 0& 0& 1.16 \times 10 ^{-5}\end {array} \right].

1213: $$

1214: The ``large'' perturbation of the second row is detected very

1215: accurately. 

1216: For next results, $\widetilde{R}$ is computed

1217: with the Modified Gram-Schmidt algorithm using $64$~bits numbers 

1218: as for the estimator. Our tests use ten matrix samples.

1219: 

1220: \begin{center}

1221: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Ffctdim.eps} 

1222: {\footnotesize

1223: ~\\

1224: \begin{minipage}{13.4cm}\begin{center}

1225: {\footnotesize Figure 6.1: Certified $\|H\|_{\infty}$  

1226: for random matrices $A$ with  

1227: $\kappa _{2}(A) \approx 10^3$.} \end{center}

1228: \end{minipage}

1229: }

1230: \end{center}

1231: We first illustrate the {\em value of the certified bound with respect to

1232: the dimension}.  

1233: Figures~6.1 and~6.2 are for random input matrices $A$

1234: (of {\tt randsvd} type~\cite[Ch.\,28]{Hig02}). 

1235: \begin{center}

1236: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{diagfctdim.eps} 

1237: {\footnotesize

1238: ~\\

1239: \begin{minipage}{13.4cm}\begin{center}

1240: {\footnotesize Figure 6.2: Certified maximum relative error on ${R}$

1241:   for  random matrices $A$ \\such that 

1242: $\kappa _{2}(A) \approx 10^3$ ($y$ axe with logarithmic scale).} \end{center}

1243: \end{minipage}

1244: }

1245: \end{center}

1246: We keep the condition

1247: number almost constant when the dimension increase. We draw the

1248: infinity norm of $H$ such that $|\widetilde{R}-R| \leq H

1249: |\widetilde{R}|$, and the certified maximum relative error on the

1250: diagonal of $\widetilde{R}$, we mean $\max _i

1251: |\widetilde{r}_{ii}-r_{ii}|/|\widetilde{r}_{ii}|$. We see that

1252: $\|H\|_{\infty}$ increases linearly with $n$. The loss of accuracy

1253: on the diagonal is approximately quadratic in $n$ (we use a logarithmic scale

1254: for the $y$ axe on Figure~6.2). 

1255: Such small increase rates---that are typical of numerical

1256: algorithm forward errors themselves---demonstrate a first aspect of

1257: the effectiveness of our finite precision bounds.   

1258: The certified general maximum error $\max _{ij}

1259: |\widetilde{r}_{ij}-r_{ij}|/|\widetilde{r}_{ij}|$ increases

1260: faster. It typically grows from $10 ^{-7}$ to $10^{-5}$ for

1261: the dimensions considered here. 

1262: We need further investigation for a better understanding of the latter

1263: behaviour, especially of the influence of  

1264: the product $H|\widetilde{R}|$, 

1265: and of the magnitudes in $R$. 

1266: Note also that for the two latter figures, $\text{\rm

1267:   cond}(R^{-1})$ is  sligthly growing, and the growth of the

1268: estimation

1269: depends on the true error itself.  

1270: 

1271: We discuss next the {\em accuracy of the 

1272: certified bound with respect to the exact error} (not the quality of

1273: the $QR$ algorithm itself). 

1274: In addition to above {\tt randsvd} matrices we also consider 

1275: random integer matrices with entries of absolute values less than $1000$.

1276: On these two types of matrices we obtain similar results. 

1277: The condition numbers  $\kappa _{\infty}(A)$ 

1278: are varying from about $10^4$ to $10^6$.  

1279: On random integer matrices of dimension $1500$, the maximum exact

1280:  relative error on

1281:  $R$ 

1282: has order $10^{-10}$

1283: to $10^{-9}$. We are able to certify this error by returning an error bound of

1284: order $10^{-6}$

1285: to $10^{-5}$. 

1286: {\em With respect to the dimension}, we observe 

1287: that the fast certified bound  

1288: overestimates the componentwise error by a factor 

1289: of order about $10^3$ for $n=200$ to 

1290: about $10^5$ for $n=1500$. 

1291: Restricted to the diagonal entries, the overestimation goes from 

1292: about $10^2$ to less than $10^4$. 

1293: This shows that even with condition numbers and dimensions that

1294: can be here quite large,

1295: we are able to certify at least four or five significant decimal digits for

1296: every entries of $R$, and at least $9$ digits on the diagonal

1297: (where the error itself is much smaller in general). 

1298: On matrices with small condition number (generated using Matlab {\tt

1299:   gallery('orthog')}~\cite[Chapter\,28]{Hig02}) the quality of the

1300: certified bound may be remarkably small and stable with respect to the

1301: dimension. For dimensions between $60$ and $500$, and 

1302: $\text{\rm cond}(R ^{-1})\approx 3$ ($\kappa _{\infty} \leq 200$), we most of the time obtain an overestimation

1303: between $15$ and $22$ (and more than $12$ certified significant

1304: decimal digits in $\widetilde{R}$). 

1305: 

1306: 

1307: We may now ask the question of the sensitivity of the {\em quality of the

1308: certified error bound with

1309: respect to the condition number of the input matrix}. 

1310: We first report that 

1311: the quality maybe be very good even for

1312: matrices with  high condition number. 

1313: For Figure~6.4

1314: we use $A=QA_K \in \FF ^{n \times n}$. 

1315: The matrices $Q$ are random orthogonal from the Matlab

1316: {\tt gallery} function~\cite[Chapter\,28]{Hig02}. The matrices $A_K$ are 

1317: Kahan upper triangular matrices with $a_{ii}= (\sin \theta)^{i-1}$, 

1318: $a_{ij}= -(\sin \theta)^{i-1} \cos \theta$ for $j > i$, and $\theta=1.2$.

1319: \begin{center}

1320: \begin{minipage}{16cm}\begin{center}

1321: {\footnotesize

1322: $$

1323: \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline 

1324: \text{\rm Dimension} & 10 & 20 & 30 & 40 & 50 & 60 & 70  \\  

1325: \kappa _{\infty}(A) & 10^2 & 1.3 \times 10^4 & 1.1 \times 10^6 &

1326: 7.8 \times 10^7 & 4.8 \times 10^9 & 

1327: 2.8 \times 10^{11} & 1.5 \times 10^{13}\\\hline  

1328: \text{\rm Bound/error} & 45 & 106 & 281 & 161 & 103 &140 & 152\\

1329: \text{\rm Certified digits in~} \widetilde{R} & 14 & 12 & 10 & 9 & 7 & 5 & 4 

1330: \\\hline 

1331: \end{array}

1332: $$

1333: Figure 6.4: Ratio of the certified relative error bound and the true

1334: error (max) \\on

1335: Kahan matrices, and number of significant decimal digits certified

1336: in $\widetilde{R}$. 

1337: }\end{center}

1338: \end{minipage}

1339: \end{center}

1340: However, in general, the quality of the bound may

1341: depend on the condition number. Consider for instance the 

1342: ratio of the certified relative error bound and the true error (max)

1343: for

1344: small matrices ($n=10$).  

1345: For a Chebyshev Vandermonde-like (nearly orthogonal, $\kappa

1346: _{\infty} \approx 13$), the ratio is about $11$. We have 

1347: a ratio about $14$ for 

1348: Toeplitz and symmetric positive definite matrices 

1349: ($\kappa

1350: _{\infty} \approx 700$). 

1351: On the Pascal matrix ($\kappa

1352: _{\infty} \approx 8 \times 10^9$) we get a ratio about $25$, and

1353: about $1600$ for the Hilbert matrix  ($\kappa

1354: _{\infty} \approx 3.5 \times 10^{13}$).

1355: Figure~6.5 is more general. The overestimation of 

1356: certified error bound seem to increase quite slowly with the

1357: condition number. 

1358: \begin{center}

1359: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fctcond.eps} 

1360: {\footnotesize

1361: ~\\

1362: \begin{minipage}{13.4cm}\begin{center}

1363: {\footnotesize Figure 6.5: Ratio of the certified relative error

1364:   bound and the true error (max)\\

1365: with respect to $\kappa_{\infty}(A)$ on

1366: {\tt randsvd} matrices of dimension $n=200$.} \end{center}

1367: \end{minipage}

1368: }

1369: \end{center}

1370: 

1371: 

1372: We see that the limits of our algorithm, we mean the conditions in

1373: which it is returning finite bounds, are clearly linked 

1374: with the numerical properties of $A$. 

1375: Let us give two examples for the impossibility 

1376: to certify the spectral radius using~(\ref{eq-computrho}). 

1377: We return finite bounds for the error on every entries of

1378: $\widetilde{R}$ for the Pascal matrix of dimension $14$ ($\kappa

1379: _{\infty} \approx 3.8 \times 10^{14}$, $\|G\|_{\infty}\approx

1380: 0.06$). For $n=15$ the algorithm produces infinity bounds. 

1381: On random {\tt randsvd} matrices of dimension $40$, the algorithm

1382: is effective until $\kappa

1383: _{\infty} \approx 3 \times 10^{14}$ with $\|G\|_{\infty}\approx

1384: 0.9$. Note

1385: that in double precision, with relative rounding unit $2^{-53}$ (the

1386: backward error is larger in general),

1387: and for a relative forward error less than $1$,  

1388:  the rule of thumb~(\ref{thumb})

1389: advocates for a condition number less than $10^{16}$.

1390: 

1391: The certified bound is computed with finite precision, hence inherently, 

1392: it overestimates the true error. However, for realistic dimensions

1393: and condition numbers (with respect to the precision), the

1394: overestimation is mastered. It follows that in general, many significant digits are

1395: certified in the approximate $QR$ factor $\widetilde{R}$.   

1396: The latter is a key to the application of the

1397: fast bound to the reducedness certificate. 

1398: 

1399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%  ALGORITHM R %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1400: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%  ALGORITHM R %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1401: 

1402: 

1403: \section{A certificate for LLL reducedness} \label{sec-reduced}

1404: 

1405: To an $n\times n$ integer matrix $A$ we associate the Euclidean 

1406: lattice ${\mathcal L}$ generated by the columns  

1407: $(a_j)$ of $A$. About lattices the reader may refer for instance to

1408: Cohen's book~\cite{Coh95}. 

1409: Since the seminal 

1410: Lenstra-Lenstra-Lov\'asz algorithm~\cite{LLL82}---whose range of

1411: application is exceptional---the lattice basis

1412: reduction problem receives much attention. 

1413: In particular, floating-point variants 

1414: that lead to very fast reduction approaches have been 

1415: invented. See the work of Nguyen and Stehl\'e~\cite{NgSt05,Ste05},

1416: of Schnorr~\cite{Sch06}, and references therein. 

1417: Most of floating point variants 

1418: lead to powerful heuristics, especially \`a la

1419: Schnorr-Euchner~\cite{ScEu94}, that are implemented (often with

1420: improvements) in most of

1421:   computer algebra and number theory systems. 

1422: Our aim here is not to study the basis reduction itself.

1423: We focus on the reducedness. Indeed, 

1424: a fast heuristic may not certify that the output basis 

1425: is reduced (still working very well), and it is 

1426: worthwhile to study the problem of checking {\em a posteriori} 

1427: whether a given basis is reduced or not. 

1428: The notion of reduction we consider is the 

1429: LLL reduction~\cite{LLL82}. 

1430: 

1431: 

1432: We propose here an algorithm that takes in input an invertible  matrix $A \in \ZZ

1433: ^{n \times n}$, and tests the LLL reducedness of the basis formed

1434: by the columns of $A$. 

1435: In the Introduction we have seen that this consists in testing the 

1436: two conditions~(\ref{eq:defproper}) and~(\ref{eq:deflovasz}).

1437: Let $R$ be the $QR$ factor of $A$. 

1438: If the $a_j$ are proper, we mean 

1439: \begin{equation} \label{eq:proper}

1440: |r_{i,j}|/r_{i,i}\leq \eta,~1

1441: \leq i < j \leq n,

1442: \end{equation}

1443: and if the Lov\'asz conditions 

1444: \begin{equation} \label{eq:lovasz}

1445: \sqrt{\delta - \left(r_{i,i+1}/r_{i,i}\right)  ^2} ~r_{i,i} \leq r_{i+1,i+1},

1446: ~1\leq i \leq n-1,

1447: \end{equation}

1448: are satisfied, 

1449: then the basis $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n$ of ${\mathcal L}$ is called LLL reduced with

1450: parameters $(\delta, \eta)$.

1451: The latter satisfy

1452: $1/4 < \delta \leq 1$ and $1/2 \leq \eta < \sqrt{\delta}$.

1453: 

1454: The principle of the algorithm  

1455: is to compute an approximate

1456: $\widetilde{R}$ together with error bounds (using  the floating point

1457: algorithm of Section~\ref{sec-errorR}), then to test~(\ref{eq:proper}) and~(\ref{eq:lovasz}). 

1458: 

1459: The entries of $A$ are integers of arbitrary size (our

1460: implementation relies on Gmp~\cite{gmp06}). Therefore 

1461: the entries of $A$ may not be represented exactly by elements in

1462: $\FF$. Nevertheless, 

1463: for the computation of an approximate 

1464: $\widetilde{R}$ we may take $\widetilde{A}$

1465: by direct conversion to $\FF$. Since the error is very small 

1466: and $\widetilde{R}$ will be  an approximation anyway, 

1467: this

1468: does not really influence the quality of subsequent computations. Then

1469: $\widetilde{R}$ is computed by the Modified Gram-Schmidt algorithm. 

1470: Once $\widetilde{R}$ is known we apply Theorem~\ref{theo-maincost} 

1471: for computing a certified error bound. 

1472: The only expression that has to be bounded with $A$ involved

1473: is in~(\ref{eq-computG}), where 

1474: the computation of $AV$ using the program~(\ref{eq-ABC}) is needed.

1475: The problem of conversion to $\FF$ is solved here by rounding upwards and

1476: downwards 

1477: during the conversion integer to

1478: floating point. We mean that we introduce a small interval 

1479: such that $A\in [A_{-}, A_+]$ with 

1480: $A_-, A_+ \in \FF ^{n \times n}$

1481:  (see the certified techniques in Section~\ref{subsec:certiftech}),

1482:  and we evaluate 

1483:  $A_-V$ and $A_+V$ in~(\ref{eq-ABC}). 

1484: Therefore the error bound $F \in \FF ^{n \times n}$ 

1485: we compute by Theorem~\ref{theo-maincost} is actually such that 

1486: $|R-\widetilde{R}| \leq F$ for $R$ the $QR$ factor of any $A \in

1487: [A_{-}, A_+]$. 

1488: 

1489: Once $F$ is known, for fixed $i$ and $j$, we test~(\ref{eq:proper})

1490: by resorting to the bounding techniques  of Section~\ref{subsec:certiftech}:

1491: \begin{equation}\label{eq-progprop}

1492: \begin{array}{ll}

1493: \text{setround(down)};

1494: &\underline{\eta}=\text{\rm fl}(\eta); ~~t_i=\text{\rm

1495:   fl}((r_{i,i}-f_{i,i})\times \underline{\eta} )\\

1496: \text{setround(up)};

1497: &t_j=\text{\rm fl}(|r_{i,j}|+f_{i,j})\\

1498: & \text{\rm test} ~ t_j \leq t_i ?

1499: \end{array}

1500: \end{equation}

1501: with temporary variables  $t_i$ and $t_j$.  Recall that the

1502: diagonal entries of $R$ are positive. 

1503: Similarly, for a fixed $i$, we test~(\ref{eq:lovasz}) using:

1504: \begin{equation}\label{eq-proglov}

1505: \begin{array}{ll}

1506: \text{setround(up)}; & {t_i}=\text{\rm fl}(r_{i,i}+ f_{i,i});~ \overline{\delta}=\text{\rm fl}(\delta);\\

1507: \text{setround(down)}; & t_{i+1}=\text{\rm fl}(r_{i+1,i+1}- f_{i+1,i+1}) \\

1508: & t = \text{\rm fl}\left(((|r_{i,i+1}|- f_{i,i+1})/t_i)^2\right) -

1509: \delta; ~t=-t;\\

1510: \text{setround(up)};

1511: &t=\text{\rm fl}(\sqrt{t}\times t_i)\\& \text{\rm test} ~ t \leq t_{i+1}?

1512: \end{array}

1513: \end{equation}

1514: with temporary variables $t$ and $t_i$. 

1515: In practice, for minimizing the cost induced by the changes of

1516: rounding mode, loops are put between the setround instructions. 

1517: In addition to the  $10n^3+O(n^2)$ operations for computing

1518: $F$ using Theorem~\ref{theo-maincost}, the reducedness test 

1519: essentially requires  $2n^3+O(n^2)$ operations

1520: for computing an approximate factor $\widetilde{R}$. This gives the

1521: following.

1522: \begin{theorem} \label{theo-mainreduc} 

1523: Let $A \in \ZZ ^{n \times n}$ invertible and parameters 

1524: $(\delta, \eta)$ be given.

1525: %% inversibletester implicitement apres  

1526: The reducedness certificate certifies  

1527: in $12n^3+O(n^2)$ floating point

1528: operations that the column lattice of $A$ is LLL reduced with parameters 

1529:  $(\delta, \eta)$, or returns  ``failed''.

1530: \end{theorem}

1531: The reducedness is certified when the  error bound computed for 

1532: $|\widetilde{R}-R|$ is finite, when no overflow or underflow occur

1533: during the test, and when the basis is reduced.

1534: %subtractions ? underflow ? 

1535: The cost of the certificate is roughly the

1536: one of six floating point

1537: $QR$ 

1538: factorizations.  Therefore in general, the reducedness test should be much

1539: faster than the reduction process itself,  and may 

1540: be appended  to any reduction heuristic program. 

1541: 

1542: Let us now report some experiments. As previously in the paper all

1543: codes are run using $64$~bits floating point numbers. The effectiveness of the

1544: certificate essentially relies on 

1545: the effectiveness of the error bounding algorithm. 

1546: We have manipulated lattices using Magma~\cite{magma06}, 

1547: the LLL reduction implementation is based on the work of Nguyen and

1548: Stehl\'e~\cite{NgSt05,Ste05}. 

1549: The first family of reduced bases---matrices $A$---we consider are 

1550: obtained by the reduction of $n \times n$ random integer matrices. 

1551: The bases are reduced for the classical LLL parameters

1552: $(\delta,\eta)=(3/4,1/2)$ in Figure~7.1, and $(\delta,\eta)=(0.99,0.5001)$

1553: for a stronger reduction in Figure~7.2.

1554: \begin{center}

1555: \begin{minipage}{13.4cm}\begin{center}

1556: {\footnotesize

1557: $$

1558: \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline 

1559: \text{\rm Dimension} & 40 & 200 & 500 & 1000   \\  \hline 

1560: \kappa _{\infty}(A) & 4.7 \times 10^2 & 2.4 \times 10^4 & 1.8 \times 10^5 &

1561: 9 \times 10^5 \\ 

1562: t_k-t=\min_i \{t_{i+1}-t\} \text{\rm ~in~(\ref{eq-proglov})}& 18 & 10 & 13 & 23\\

1563: \text{\rm Certified~absolute~error~on~} \|a_k ^*\|_2 & 7.5 \times 10^{-12}

1564: &  3 \times 10^{-10} & 1.5 \times 10^{-9}  & 1.2 \times 10^{-8}

1565: \\\hline 

1566: \text{\rm Certified~} \max_{ij} \mu _{ij} & 0.4997 & 0.499994 & 0.49991 & 0.49999\\

1567: \text{\rm Max.~certified~relative~error~on~} |r_{ij}|

1568: & 2.8 \times 10^{-11}& 8.6 \times 10^{-9}& 1.5 \times 10^{-7}& 3 \times 10^{-5}\\\hline

1569: \end{array}

1570: $$

1571: Figure 7.1: Reducedness certificate output on $(3/4,1/2)$-reduced

1572: bases from random integer matrices with entries on $10^3$ bits, 

1573: $\max |a_{ij}| \leq 1000$.

1574: }\end{center}

1575: \end{minipage}

1576: \end{center}

1577: Since the numerical quality of the tested

1578: bases is good ($\kappa _{\infty}(A) \leq 10^6$), the reducedness certificate 

1579: is highly efficient. We mean that the

1580: certified error is very small, and hence  the tests are passed

1581: except in exceptional cases. 

1582: Figures~7.1 and~7.2 for instance look at the smallest difference 

1583: $t_k-t$ whose positiveness has to be certified

1584: in~(\ref{eq-proglov}). The certificate has lots of room since the 

1585: absolute errors on $t$ and $t_k = \|a_k^*\|_2$ are much smaller.  

1586: Exceptional cases will rather occur when testing properness.

1587: Indeed, testing

1588: reducedness may be an ill-posed problem because of the possible equalities 

1589: in~(\ref{eq:proper}) and~(\ref{eq:lovasz}). 

1590: An ill-posed case with say $\eta=1/2$,

1591: is for example a reduced basis with  $\mu _{ij}=1/2$ for some $i,j$.  

1592: Therefore the algorithm will rather be used for certifying that 

1593: a $(\delta,\eta)$-reduced basis is a $(\delta -\epsilon_1,\eta +\epsilon_2)$-reduced basis

1594: for small $\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2$. The latter does really affect  

1595: the relevant certified informations provided by the reduction. 

1596: \begin{center}

1597: \begin{minipage}{14cm}\begin{center}

1598: {\footnotesize

1599: $$

1600: \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline 

1601: \text{\rm Dimension} & 40 & 200 & 500 & 1000   \\  \hline 

1602: t_k-t=\min_i \{t_{i+1}-t\} \text{\rm ~in~(\ref{eq-proglov})}&  4.8 \times 10^{-2}& 7.7 \times 10^{-2}& 5.3 \times 10^{-2}&

1603: 7.3 \times 10^{-2}\\

1604: \text{\rm Certified~absolute~error~on~} \|a_k ^*\|_2 & 9.4 \times 10^{-14}

1605: &  6 \times 10^{-12} & 4 \times 10^{-11}  & 2 \times 10^{-10}

1606: \\\hline 

1607: \end{array}

1608: $$

1609: Figure 7.2: Reducedness certificate output on $(0.99,0.501)$-reduced

1610: bases from random integer matrices with entries on $10$ bits, 

1611: $\max |a_{ij}| \leq 10$.

1612: }\end{center}

1613: \end{minipage}

1614: \end{center}

1615: 

1616: A second type of reduced bases on which we have run the certificate

1617: comes from the problem of computing a good floating point coefficient

1618: polynomial approximation to a function~\cite{BrCh07}. 

1619: We have considered reduced bases with parameters  $(3/4,1/2)$.

1620: These bases may have integer entries as large as $10^{80}$.

1621: The certificate has always succeeded. 

1622: On a $18 \times 18$ example, with $\kappa _{\infty}(A) \approx 4

1623: \times 10^{12}$, the smallest difference $t-t_k$ has been around 

1624: $2.4 \times 10^{76}$

1625: with certified absolute error $1.95 \times 10^{62}$. 

1626: The maximum of the $\mu _{ij}$ has been certified to be less than

1627: $0.493$.

1628: On an example with $n=31$ and $\kappa _{\infty}(A) \approx 8

1629: \times 10^{13}$, 

1630: we have  certified an absolute error $3.2 \times 10^{53}$ for 

1631: $t-t_k \approx 1.7 \times 10^{67}$. 

1632: On the latter example we have also checked that $\max \mu _{ij} \leq 0.4991$,

1633: thanks to a  maximum relative error $|\widetilde{R}-R|$ certified to

1634: be less than $0.2$ (only

1635: $6 \times 10^{-15}$ on the diagonal). 

1636: 

1637: 

1638: The first main source of failure of the 

1639: certificate is the failure of the error bounding algorithm when 

1640: the precision is too small compared to the numerical quality of the 

1641: tested basis. We have run the certificate on a third class of

1642: reduced bases. These bases are obtained by the reduction of ``random'' (knapsack type)

1643:  lattice bases in the  

1644: sense of~\cite[\S3.4]{NgSt06}. In the experiments 

1645: reported here, the non reduced bases have random integers 

1646: of $10^3$ bits in the knapsack weight row. 

1647: The reduced bases in input of the certificate (matrices $A$) are dense with

1648: integers as large as $10^{45}$ for $n=75$, and  $10^{20}$

1649: for $n=300$.

1650: We use the parameters 

1651: $(\delta,\eta)=(3/4,1/2)$ and $(\delta,\eta)=(0.99,0.5001)$.

1652: The choice $(\delta,\eta)=(0.99,0.5001)$ 

1653: produces better reduced bases as shown by $\kappa _{\infty}$

1654: in 

1655: Figure~7.3 (for a same non reduced basis). 

1656: Until dimension $175$ the certificate is very likely to succeed

1657: since the maximum certified relative error is small.    

1658: On several tenths of trials, the certificate never failed, with 

1659: a certified $\max |\mu_{ij}|$ as close to $1/2$ (with $\eta = 1/2$) 

1660: as $0.4999916$. 

1661: \begin{center}

1662: \begin{minipage}{\textwidth}\begin{center}

1663: {\footnotesize

1664: $$

1665: \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline 

1666: \text{\rm Dimension} &  75 & 100 & 125 & 150 & 175  \\  \hline 

1667: (\delta,\eta)=(3/4,1/2), ~~\kappa _{\infty}(A) &  6 \times 10^5 & 5.2 \times 10^6 &

1668: 2.3 \times 10^8 & 1.3 \times 10^{10} & 2 \times 10^{11} \\ 

1669: t_k-t=\min_i \{t_{i+1}-t\} \text{\rm ~in~(\ref{eq-proglov})}& 

1670: 1.3 \times 10^{37}&8.5 \times 10^{26}& 4.2 \times 10^{20}&3  \times 10^{15}& 1.2 \times 10^{12}\\

1671: \text{\rm Max.~certified~relative~error~on~} |r_{ij}|

1672: & 1.3 \times 10^{-9}& 3.4 \times 10^{-8} & 2.2

1673: \times 10^{-6}& 2.1 \times 10^{-5} & 6.3 \times 10^{-3} \\\hline

1674: (\delta,\eta)=(0.99,0.5001), ~~\kappa _{\infty}(A) &  2.4\times 10^4 & 4.6 \times 10^5 &

1675: 4 \times 10^5 & 4 \times 10^{7} & 9 \times 10^{8} \\ 

1676: \text{\rm Max.~certified~relative~error~on~} |r_{ij}|

1677: & 5.1 \times 10^{-10}& 2.5 \times 10^{-9} & 3.9 

1678: \times 10^{-8}& 6 \times 10^{-7} & 9.5 \times 10^{-6} \\\hline

1679: \end{array}

1680: $$

1681: Figure 7.3: Reducedness certificate output on ``random'' reduced

1682: bases from knapsack problems,\\ $\max |a_{ij}|$ goes from $10^{45}$ ($n=50$)

1683: down to $10^{25}$ ($n=175$).

1684: }\end{center}

1685: \end{minipage}

1686: \end{center}

1687: 

1688: Beyond dimension $175$ with this type of reduced basis, the certificate 

1689: starts to fail more often. On dimension $200$ with a conditioning about

1690: $10^{12}$

1691: with $(3/4,1/2)$, the error bound on the relative error approaches~$1$. 

1692: The properness with $\eta=1/2$ may become impossible to check, and

1693: ask  for a certificate with  $\eta=1/2 + \epsilon$, say

1694: $\eta=0.5001$. Note that the Lov\'asz test~(\ref{eq-proglov})

1695: seems to fail later thanks to much better error bounds on the

1696: diagonal in general. 

1697: On dimension $300$ for  $(3/4,1/2)$ the quality of the reduced bases

1698: is too deteriorated ($\kappa _{\infty} \approx 10^{19}$), 

1699: and the error bounding algorithm  fails with the impossibility 

1700: of having a small spectral radius in~(\ref{subsec-boundrhoG}).

1701: Nevertheless, on a typical example of dimension $300$ with 

1702: a $(0.99,0.5001)$ reduced basis, 

1703: the error bounding algorithm remains effective ($\kappa _{\infty} \approx

1704: 2.5 \times 10^{13}$, $\|H\|_{\infty} \approx 0.6$). 

1705: The certificate may not be able to certify the actual reducedness of

1706: the basis, for example with $\min_i \{t_{i}-t\} \approx - 4.12 \times 10^8$, and

1707: a too

1708: big absolute error bound $4.42 \times 10^8$. 

1709: By changing the certificate parameters 

1710: to $(\delta - \epsilon_1, \eta + \epsilon_2)=(0.985,0.515)$, 

1711: the certificate succeeds again, and therefore is still able to certify a 

1712: relevant information on the basis. 

1713: 

1714: The numerical limitations of the certificate are close to  

1715: those identified in~\cite[Heuristic~4]{NgSt06} for the reduction

1716: process itself. Indeed, on the knapsack bases,

1717: it is claimed in~\cite{NgSt06} that 

1718: a precision $n/4 +o(n)$ should suffice when using the floating point

1719: reduction of~\cite{NgSt05}.  This means that $n\approx 200$ 

1720: is a barrier with a $53$~bits precision ($64$~bits numbers). 

1721: The eventuality of a link between

1722: both limitations deserves to be further investigated. 

1723: 

1724: 

1725: 

1726: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%  CONCLUSION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1727: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%  CONCLUSION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1728: 

1729: 

1730: \section{Conclusions} \label{sec-conclusion}

1731: 

1732: Between numerical approximation and computer algebra, we propose a

1733: certificate for an (exact) algebraic/geometric property---the LLL

1734: reducedness of a lattice basis.

1735: This work, based on the fast computation of certified error bounds,

1736: inherits from the verification methods approach. In particular,  

1737: thanks to the IEEE arithmetic standard, 

1738: the floating point errors do not put a curb on the objective of

1739: certification. They may rather be mastered

1740: and used for accelerating the programs. 

1741: In error bound computation and property certification, 

1742: the foreground of our study is to understand the 

1743: compromize between the cost and the quality/effectiveness of 

1744: bounds and certificates. In our case for instance, may we hope for an $O(n^2)$ effective

1745: certificate? Various 

1746: computer arithmetics come in the background, where floating

1747: point computation, multi-precision, verification identities, midpoint-radius

1748: intervals, and exact computation are collaborative tools. 

1749: 

1750: We think that our study raises several  

1751: directions that deserve further investigations. 

1752: The error bounding problem for the $R$ factor, and its finite

1753: precision implementation should be better understood and improved, ingredients such as

1754: diagonal scaling and other approximate $QR$ 

1755: factorizations may be introduced. The usefulness of taking into account the

1756: algorithm used for computing $\widetilde{R}$ should be studied 

1757: (in a more restrictive  verification approach). 

1758: A more general question is to know 

1759: whether reducedness could be certified without resorting to the $QR$

1760: factorization?

1761: 

1762: To our knowledge, 

1763: the minimum precision required for a proven LLL variants is 

1764: $1.6n +o(n)$ with the L$^2$ algorithm of~\cite{NgSt05,NgSt06}

1765: (for $\delta$ close to $1$ and $\eta$ close to $1/2$).

1766: Our experiments show we may certify reducedness for dimensions 

1767: much higher than this worst-case limit ($n_{\max} \leq 53/1.6 \approx 33$). The certificate is

1768: therefore very effective for a use complementary to reduction

1769: heuristics in dimension greater than $n_{\max}$ with double

1770: precision.

1771: Noticing the fact that the certificate 

1772: is sensitive to the numerical properties of the input basis, it is

1773: worth studying its extensions to reduction algorithms and

1774: reducedness certificates with adaptative precision, and sensitive

1775: to the numerical quality.    \\

1776: 

1777: 

1778: % length expansions 

1779: % superfast 

1780: %superfast car A ^T A ?

1781: % algorithme dependant ou pas ? 

1782: %more automatic 

1783: %specific for diagonal 

1784: %formal proof 

1785: 

1786: 

1787: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1788: \noindent

1789: {\bf Acknowledgements.} 

1790: We thank Damien Stehl\'e for fruitful discussions around the floating

1791: point reduction algorithms and heuristics, and for his help in

1792: testing reduced bases. 

1793: 

1794: 

1795: 

1796: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% BIBLIO %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1797: 

1798: 

1799: {\small 

1800: \bibliographystyle{plain}

1801: %\bibliography{qr}

1802: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

1803: 

1804: \bibitem{IEEE754}

1805: ANSI/IEEE 754-1985.

1806: \newblock {Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic}, 1985.

1807: 

1808: \bibitem{BrCh07}

1809: N.~Brisebarre and S.~Chevillard.

1810: \newblock Efficient polynomial ${L}^{\infty}$-approximations.

1811: \newblock In {\em Proc. 18th Symposium on Computer Arithmetic, Montpellier,

1812:   France}. IEEE Computer Society Press, 2007.

1813: 

1814: \bibitem{BrMe94}

1815: R.A. Brualdi and S.~Mellendorf.

1816: \newblock {Regions in the complex plane containing the eigenvalues of a

1817:   matrix}.

1818: \newblock {\em Am. Math. Mon.}, 101(10):975--985, 1994.

1819: 

1820: \bibitem{ChPa01}

1821: X.-W. Chang and C.C. Paige.

1822: \newblock {Componentwise perturbation analyses for the QR factorization}.

1823: \newblock {\em Numer. Math.}, 88:319--345, 2001.

1824: 

1825: \bibitem{CPS97}

1826: X.-W. Chang, C.C. Paige, and G.W. Stewart.

1827: \newblock {Perturbation analyses for the QR factorization}.

1828: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.}, 18:775--791, 1997.

1829: 

1830: \bibitem{Coh95}

1831: H.~Cohen.

1832: \newblock {\em A Course in Computational Number Theory}.

1833: \newblock Springer-Verlag, 2nd Edition, 1995.

1834: 

1835: \bibitem{DDM01}

1836: J.~Demmel, B.~Diament, and G.~Malajovich.

1837: \newblock {On the Complexity of Computing Error Bounds}.

1838: \newblock {\em Found. Comput. Math.}, 1(1):101--125, 2000.

1839: 

1840: \bibitem{Blas90}

1841: J.J. Dongarra, J.~Du~Croz, I.S. Duf, and S.~Hammarling.

1842: \newblock {A set of Level 3 Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms}.

1843: \newblock {\em ACM Trans. Math. Software}, 16:1--17, 1990.

1844: 

1845: \bibitem{Fre79}

1846: R.~Freivalds.

1847: \newblock Fast probabilistic algorithms.

1848: \newblock In {\em {Proc. 8th Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer

1849:   Science}}, LNCS 74, pages 57--69. Springer Verlag, 1979.

1850: 

1851: \bibitem{Hig02}

1852: N.J. Higham.

1853: \newblock {\em Accuracy and stability of numerical algorithms}.

1854: \newblock SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2nd Edition, 2002.

1855: 

1856: \bibitem{KaVi04}

1857: E.~Kaltofen and G.~Villard.

1858: \newblock Computing the sign or the value of the determinant of an integer

1859:   matrix, a complexity survey.

1860: \newblock {\em J. Comp. Applied Math}, 162(1):133--146, 2004.

1861: 

1862: \bibitem{LLL82}

1863: A.K. Lenstra, H.W. Lenstra, and L.~Lov\'asz.

1864: \newblock Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients.

1865: \newblock {\em Mathematische Annalen}, 261:515--534, 1982.

1866: 

1867: \bibitem{magma06}

1868: Magma.

1869: \newblock {\em Handbook of Magma Functions, Version 2.13}.

1870: \newblock Computational Algebra Group, University of Sydney, Australia, 2006.

1871: 

1872: \bibitem{matlab06}

1873: Matlab.

1874: \newblock {\em User's Guide, Version 7.2}.

1875: \newblock The MathWorks, Inc., 2006.

1876: 

1877: \bibitem{May94}

1878: G.~Mayer.

1879: \newblock {Result Verification for Eigenvectors and Eigenvalues}.

1880: \newblock In J.~Herzberger, editor, {\em IMACS-GAMM International Workshop,

1881:   Oldenburg, Germany, 1993}, Stud. Comput. Math., pages 209--276. Elsevier,

1882:   1994.

1883: 

1884: \bibitem{Maple10}

1885: Michael~B. Monagan, Keith~O. Geddes, K.~Michael Heal, George Labahn, Stefan~M.

1886:   Vorkoetter, James McCarron, and Paul DeMarco.

1887: \newblock {\em Maple~10 Programming Guide}.

1888: \newblock Maplesoft, Waterloo ON, Canada, 2005.

1889: 

1890: \bibitem{gmp06}

1891: Gnu MP.

1892: \newblock {\em The GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library, Edition 4.2.1,

1893:   \url{http://www.swox.com/gmp}}.

1894: \newblock 2006.

1895: 

1896: \bibitem{mpfr06}

1897: MPFR.

1898: \newblock {\em The Multiple Precision Floating-Point Reliable Library, Edition

1899:   2.2.1, \url{http://www.mpfr.org}}.

1900: \newblock 2006.

1901: 

1902: \bibitem{NgSt05}

1903: P.Q. Nguyen and D.~Stehl\'e.

1904: \newblock {Floating-point LLL revisited}.

1905: \newblock In {\em Proc. Eurocrypt'05}, LNCS 3494, pages 215--233. Springer

1906:   Verlag, 2005.

1907: 

1908: \bibitem{NgSt06}

1909: P.Q. Nguyen and D.~Stehl\'e.

1910: \newblock {LLL on the average}.

1911: \newblock In {\em Proc. ANTS VII}, LNCS 4076, pages 238--256. Springer Verlag,

1912:   2006.

1913: 

1914: \bibitem{OiRu02}

1915: S.~Oishi and M.S. Rump.

1916: \newblock Fast verification of solutions of matrix equations.

1917: \newblock {\em Numer. Math.}, 90(4):755--773, 2002.

1918: 

1919: \bibitem{Pan01}

1920: V.Y. Pan and Y.~Yu.

1921: \newblock {Certification of numerical computation of the sign of the

1922:   determinant of a matrix}.

1923: \newblock {\em Algorithmica}, 30:708--724, 2001.

1924: 

1925: \bibitem{Rum94}

1926: S.M. Rump.

1927: \newblock {Verification Methods for Dense and Sparse Systems of Equations}.

1928: \newblock In J.~Herzberger, editor, {\em Topics in Validated Computations --

1929:   Studies in Computational Mathematics}, pages 63--136. Elsevier, 1994.

1930: 

1931: \bibitem{Rum01}

1932: S.M. Rump.

1933: \newblock {Computational Error Bounds for Multiple or Nearly Multiple

1934:   Eigenvalues}.

1935: \newblock {\em Linear Algebra and its Applications}, 324:209--226, 2001.

1936: 

1937: \bibitem{Rum03}

1938: S.M. Rump.

1939: \newblock {Algorithms for Computing Validated Results}.

1940: \newblock In {J. Grabmeier, E. Kaltofen, and V. Weispfenning}, editor, {\em

1941:   {Computer Algebra Handbook}}, pages 110--112. {Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg,

1942:   Germany}, 2003.

1943: 

1944: \bibitem{Rum05}

1945: S.M. Rump.

1946: \newblock {Computer-Assisted Proofs and Self-Validating Methods}.

1947: \newblock In B.~Einarsson, editor, {\em Handbook of Accuracy and Reliability in

1948:   Scientific Computation}, pages 195--240. SIAM, 2005.

1949: 

1950: \bibitem{Rum06}

1951: S.M. Rump.

1952: \newblock {Verification of positive definiteness}.

1953: \newblock {\em BIT Numerical Mathematics}, 46:433--452, 2006.

1954: 

1955: \bibitem{RuOg07}

1956: S.M. Rump and T.~Ogita.

1957: \newblock Super-fast validated solution of linear systems.

1958: \newblock {\em J. Comp. Applied Math}, 199(2):199--206, 2007.

1959: 

1960: \bibitem{Sch06}

1961: C.P. Schnorr.

1962: \newblock {Fast LLL-Type Lattice Reduction}.

1963: \newblock {\em Information and Computation}, 204:1--25, 2006.

1964: 

1965: \bibitem{ScEu94}

1966: C.P. Schnorr and M.~Euchner.

1967: \newblock Lattice basis reduction: improved practical algorithms and solving

1968:   subset sum problems.

1969: \newblock {\em Mathematics of Programming}, 66:181--199, 1994.

1970: 

1971: \bibitem{Ste05}

1972: D.~Stehl\'e.

1973: \newblock {\em {Algorithmique de la r\'eduction de r\'eseaux et application \`a

1974:   la recherche de pires cas pour l'arrondi de fonctions mathmatiques}}.

1975: \newblock PhD thesis, {Universit\'e Henri-Poincar\'e - Nancy 1, Nancy, France},

1976:   December 2005.

1977: 

1978: \bibitem{Ste93}

1979: G.W. Stewart.

1980: \newblock {On the perturbation of LU, Cholesky, and QR factorizations}.

1981: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Math. Anal.}, 14(4):1141--1145, 1993.

1982: 

1983: \bibitem{Sun91}

1984: J.-G. Sun.

1985: \newblock {Perturbation bounds for the Cholesky and $QR$ factorizations}.

1986: \newblock {\em BIT}, 31:341--352, 1991.

1987: 

1988: \bibitem{Sun92}

1989: J.-G. Sun.

1990: \newblock {Componentwise perturbation bounds for some matrix decompositions}.

1991: \newblock {\em BIT}, 32:702--714, 1992.

1992: 

1993: \bibitem{Zha93}

1994: H.~Zha.

1995: \newblock {A componentwise perturbation analysis of the QR decomposition}.

1996: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.}, 14(4):1124--1131, 1993.

1997: 

1998: \end{thebibliography}

1999: 

2000: 

2001: 

2002: 

2003: }

2004: 

2005: 

2006: 

2007: 

2008: 

2009: \end{document}

2010:    

2011: