Skip to main content

linear algebra - How to find selected elements of inverse of a banded matrix without inverting it?


Is it possible to find some selected elements of the inverse of a large sparse matrix without inverting it?



For example consider this Hermitian matrix (as a general case).


n1 = 20; n2 = 50;
n3 = n1 n2;

a1 = RandomComplex[{0. + 0. I, 1. + 1. I}, {n1, n1}];
a2 = ConjugateTranspose[a1];

a3 = RandomComplex[{0. + 0. I, 1. + 1. I}, {n1, n1}];
a3 = (a3 + ConjugateTranspose[a3])/2.;


a0 = SparseArray[{Band[{1, 1}, {n3, n3}] -> {a3},
Band[{1, n1 + 1}, {n3 - n1, n3}] -> {a1},
Band[{n1 + 1, 1}, {n3, n3 - n1}] -> {a2}}, {n3, n3}]

b0 = Inverse[a0]; // AbsoluteTiming


{0.240657, Null}



and I am interested only in a small portion of b0 say



b0[[(n2 - 1) n1 + 1 ;; n2 n1, 1 ;; n1]] // MatrixForm

In case of banded matrix, 'LinearSolve` works much faster.


f = LinearSolve[a0, SparseArray[{i_, i_} -> 1, {n3, n3}]]; // AbsoluteTiming
f[[(n2 - 1) n1 + 1 ;; n2 n1, 1 ;; n1]] // MatrixForm


{0.068483, Null}



The result is same (I didn't put it here). As you can see the execution is significantly faster. But f is using same memory as b0 where the memory required to store a single block (a1,a2) is very little.



Map[ByteCount, {a1, a2, a0, b0, f, b0[[(n2 - 1) n1 + 1 ;; n2 n1, 1 ;; n1]]}]
%/Min[%] // N


{6776, 6776, 6165680, 16000152, 16000152, 6776}


{1., 1., 909.929, 2361.3, 2361.3, 1.}



Is there any way to reduce both time and memory in this case?



Answer



One possibility is to use a rectangular matrix with one block being the identity matrix. Let us consider the example in block matrix form.



$\begin{pmatrix} a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{13} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} & a_{23} \\ a_{31} & a_{32} & a_{33} \\ \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} b_{11} & b_{12} & b_{13} \\ b_{21} & b_{22} & b_{23} \\ b_{31} & b_{32} & b_{33} \\ \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & I & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & I \\ \end{pmatrix} $


Each element here is a $n \times n$ block matrix as per our definition. Now let say we want to find $b_{12}$. For that only three scalar equations will be sufficient, which in matrix form is


$\begin{pmatrix} a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{13} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} & a_{23} \\ a_{31} & a_{32} & a_{33} \\ \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} b_{12} \\ b_{22} \\ b_{32} \\ \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ I \\ 0 \\ \end{pmatrix} $


So the second argument of LinearSolve will be a $3n \times n$ rectangular matrix.


Lets use this with the main problem.


n1 = 20; n2 = 50;
n3 = n1 n2;

a1 = RandomComplex[{0. + 0. I, 1. + 1. I}, {n1, n1}];
a2 = ConjugateTranspose[a1];


a3 = RandomComplex[{0. + 0. I, 1. + 1. I}, {n1, n1}];
a3 = (a3 + ConjugateTranspose[a3])/2.;

a0 = SparseArray[{Band[{1, 1}, {n3, n3}] -> {a3},
Band[{1, n1 + 1}, {n3 - n1, n3}] -> {a1},
Band[{n1 + 1, 1}, {n3, n3 - n1}] -> {a2}}, {n3, n3}]

b0 = Inverse[a0]; // AbsoluteTiming



{0.223080, Null}



f = LinearSolve[a0, SparseArray[{i_, i_} -> 1, {n3, n3}]]; // AbsoluteTiming
f[[(n2 - 1) n1 + 1 ;; n2 n1, 1 ;; n1]] // MatrixForm


{0.068368, Null}



Now using the rectangular argument



icol = SparseArray[Band[{1, 1}] -> IdentityMatrix[n1], {n3, n1}]
f1 = LinearSolve[a0, icol]; // AbsoluteTiming
f1[[(n2 - 1) n1 + 1 ;; n2 n1, 1 ;; n1]] // MatrixForm


{0.009034,Null}



icol is here $(I,0,0 ...)^T$ because the element we want to calculate is in first column ($b_{31}$).


Comparing the ByteCount


Map[ByteCount, {a1, f, f1, f1[[(n2 - 1) n1 + 1 ;; n2 n1, 1 ;; n1]]}]

%/Min[%] // N


{6776, 16000152, 320152, 6776}


{1., 2361.3, 47.2479, 1.}



So this is a bit improvement. The method should also work on dense matrices. Although there must be a even better way to do this.


Time Comparison


I tried with different system size and check the time (in seconds) for full inversion and partial inversion (evaluating one column of the inverse).


$n1=100$



$\begin{array}{rrr} n2 & full & col. \\ \hline 20 & 0.55 & 0.15 \\ 40 & 2.26 & 0.25 \\ 80 & 8.72 & 0.55 \end{array}$


As you can see $time_{col.} > time_{full}/n2$. If you need to calculate multiple blocks, using LinearSolve for full matrix would be better.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...