## Funky Givens

We have recently been looking at how we can use a special case of Francis's QR transformation to reduce a real symmetric matrix M to a diagonal matrix Λ by first applying Householder transformations to put it in tridiagonal form and then using shifted Givens rotations to zero out the off diagonal elements.
The columns of the matrix of transformations V and the elements on the leading diagonal of Λ are the unit eigenvectors and eigenvalues of M respectively and they consequently satisfy

M × V = V × Λ

and, since the product of V and its transpose is the identity matrix

M = V × Λ × VT

which is known as the spectral decomposition of M.
Last time we saw how we could efficiently apply the Householder transformations in-place, replacing the elements of M with those of the matrix of accumulated transformations Q and creating a pair of arrays to represent the leading and off diagonal elements of the tridiagonal matrix. This time we shall see how we can similarly improve the implementation of the Givens rotations.

Full text...

## A Well Managed Household

Over the last few months we have seen how we can use a sequence of Householder transformations followed by a sequence of shifted Givens rotations to efficiently find the spectral decomposition of a symmetric real matrix M, formed from a matrix V and a diagonal matrix Λ satisfying

M × V = V × Λ

implying that the columns of V are the unit eigenvectors of M and their associated elements on the diagonal of Λ are their eigenvalues so that

V × VT = I

where I is the identity matrix, and therefore

M = V × Λ × VT

From a mathematical perspective the combination of Householder transformations and shifted Givens rotations is particularly appealing, converging on the spectral decomposition after relatively few matrix multiplications, but from an implementation perspective using ak.matrix multiplication operations is less than satisfactory since it wastefully creates new ak.matrix objects at each step and so in this post we shall start to see how we can do better.

Full text...

## Spryer Francis

Last time we saw how we could use a sequence of Householder transformations to reduce a symmetric real matrix M to a symmetric tridiagonal matrix, having zeros everywhere other than upon the leading, upper and lower diagonals, which we could then further reduce to a diagonal matrix Λ using a sequence of Givens rotations to iteratively transform the elements upon the upper and lower diagonals to zero so that the columns of the accumulated transformations V were the unit eigenvectors of M and the elements on the leading diagonal of the result were their associated eigenvalues, satisfying

M × V = V × Λ

and, since the transpose of V is its own inverse

M = V × Λ × VT

which is known as the spectral decomposition of M.
Unfortunately, the way that we used Givens rotations to diagonalise tridiagonal symmetric matrices wasn't particularly efficient and I concluded by stating that it could be significantly improved with a relatively minor change. In this post we shall see what it is and why it works.

Full text...

## FAO The Householder

Some years ago we saw how we could use the Jacobi algorithm to find the eigensystem of a real valued symmetric matrix M, which is defined as the set of pairs of non-zero vectors vi and scalars λi that satisfy

M × vi = λi × vi

known as the eigenvectors and the eigenvalues respectively, with the vectors typically restricted to those of unit length in which case we can define its spectral decomposition as the product

M = V × Λ × VT

where the columns of V are the unit eigenvectors, Λ is a diagonal matrix whose ith diagonal element is the eigenvalue associated with the ith column of V and the T superscript denotes the transpose, in which the rows and columns of the matrix are swapped.
You may recall that this is a particularly convenient representation of the matrix since we can use it to generalise any scalar function to it with

f(M) = V × f(Λ) × VT

where f(Λ) is the diagonal matrix whose ith diagonal element is the result of applying f to the ith diagonal element of Λ.
You may also recall that I suggested that there's a more efficient way to find eigensystems and I think that it's high time that we took a look at it.

Full text...

For several months we've for been taking a look at cluster analysis which seeks to partition sets of data into subsets of similar data, known as clusters. Most recently we have focused our attention on hierarchical clusterings, which are sequences of sets of clusters in which pairs of data that belong to the same cluster at one step belong to the same cluster in the next step.
A simple way of constructing them is to initially place each datum in its own cluster and then iteratively merge the closest pairs of clusters in each clustering to produce the next one in the sequence, stopping when all of the data belong to a single cluster. We have considered three ways of measuring the distance between pairs of clusters, the average distance between their members, the distance between their closest members and the distance between their farthest members, known as average linkage, single linkage and complete linkage respectively, and implemented a reasonably efficient algorithm for generating hierarchical clusterings defined with them, using a min-heap structure to cache the distances between clusters.
Finally, I claimed that there is a more efficient algorithm for generating single linkage hierarchical clusterings that would make the sorting of clusters by size in our ak.clustering type too expensive and so last time we implemented the ak.rawClustering type to represent clusterings without sorting their clusters which we shall now use in the implementation of that algorithm.

Full text...

## Cut Price Clusterings

Last month we saw how we could efficiently generate hierarchical clusterings, which are sequences of sets of clusters, which are themselves subsets of a set of data that each contain elements that are similar to each other, such that if a pair of data are in the same clustering at one step then they must be in the same clustering in the next which will always be the case if we move from one step to the next by merging the closest pairs of clusters. Specifically, we used our ak.minHeap implementation of the min-heap structure to cache the distances between clusters, saving us the expense of recalculating them for clusters that don't change from one step in the hierarchy to the next.
Recall that we used three different schemes for calculating the distance between a pair of clusters, the average distance between their members, known as average linkage, the distance between their closest members, known as single linkage, and the distance between their farthest members, known as complete linkage, and that I concluded by noting that our algorithm was about as efficient as possible in general but that there is a much more efficient scheme for single linkage clusterings; efficient enough that sorting the clusters in each clustering by size would be the most costly operation and so in this post we shall implement objects to represent clusterings that don't do that.

Full text...

## Racing Up The Hierarchy

In the previous post we saw how to identify subsets of a set of data that are in some sense similar to each other, known as clusters, by constructing sequences of clusterings starting with each datum in its own cluster and ending with all of the data in the same cluster, subject to the constraint that if a pair of data are in the same cluster in one clustering then they must also be in the same cluster in the next, which are known as hierarchical clusterings.
We did this by selecting the closest pairs of clusters in one clustering and merging them to create the next, using one of three different measures of the distance between a pair of clusters; the average distance between their members, the distance between their nearest members and the distance between their farthest members, known as average linkage, single linkage and complete linkage respectively.
Unfortunately our implementation came in at a rather costly O(n3) operations and so in this post we shall look at how we can improve its performance.

Full text...

## A Place In The Hierarchy

Last time we implemented the clusterings type to store a set of clustering objects in order to represent hierarchical clusterings, which are sequences of clusterings having the property that if a pair of data are in the same cluster in one clustering then they will be in the same cluster in the next, where clusters are subsets of a set of data that are in some sense similar to each other.
We then went on to define the ak.clade type to represent hierarchical clusterings as trees, so named because that's what they're called in biology when they are used to show the relationships between species and their common ancestors.
Now that we have those structures in place we're ready to see how to create hierarchical clusterings and so in this post we shall start with a simple, general purpose, but admittedly rather inefficient, way to do so.

Full text...

We have so far seen a couple of schemes for identifying clusters in sets of data which are subsets whose members are in some sense similar to each other. Specifically, we have looked at the k means and the shared near neighbours algorithms which implicitly define clusters by the closeness of each datum to the average of each cluster and by their closeness to each other respectively.
Note that both of these algorithms use a heuristic, or rule of thumb, to assign data to clusters, but there's another way to construct clusterings; define a heuristic to measure how close to each other a pair of clusters are and then, starting with each datum in a cluster of its own, progressively merge the closest pairs until we end up with a single cluster containing all of the data. This means that we'll end up with a sequence of clusterings and so before we can look at such algorithms we'll need a structure to represent them.

Full text...

## Nearest And Dearest

Last time we saw how we could use the list of the nearest neighbours of a datum in a set of clustered data to calculate its strengths of association with their clusters. Specifically, we used the k nearest neighbours algorithm to define those strengths as the proportions of its k nearest neighbours that were members of each cluster or with a generalisation of it that assigned weights to the neighbours according to their positions in the list.
This time we shall take a look at a clustering algorithm that uses nearest neighbours to identify clusters, contrasting it with the k means clustering algorithm that we covered about four years ago.

Full text...

### Gallimaufry

 AKCalc ECMA Endarkenment Turning Sixteen

This site requires HTML5, CSS 2.1 and JavaScript 5 and has been tested with

 Chrome 26+ Firefox 20+ Internet Explorer 9+