Steve Smale and the Geometry of Ill-Conditioning

  • James Demmel


The work of Steve Smale and his colleagues on average case analysis of algorithms [30, 31] and modeling real computations [3, 32] introduced methods and models not previously used in numerical analysis and complexity theory. In particular, the use of integral geometry to bound the sizes of sets of problems where algorithms “go bad” and the introduction of a model of real computation to clearly formulate complexity questions have inspired a great deal of other work. In this chapter, we will survey past results and open problems in three areas: the probability that a random numerical problem is difficult, the complexity of condition estimation, and the use of regularization to solve ill-posed or ill-conditioned problems; we will define all these terms below.


Condition Number Complete Intersection Matrix Inversion Multiple Root Integral Geometry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Aho, J. Hopcroft, and J Ullman, The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1974.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    V.I. Arnol’d, On matrices depending on parameters, Russ. Math. Surveys 26: 29–43, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Lenore Blum, Mike Shub, and Steve Smale, On a theory of computation and complexity over the real numbers: NP-completeness, recursive functions and universal machines. AMS Bull. (New Series) 21(1): 1–46, 1989.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    James Demmel, On condition numbers and the distance to the nearest ill-posed problem, Numer. Math. 51(3): 251–289, 1987.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    James Demmel, The probability that a numerical analysis problem is difficult, Math. Comput. 50(182): 449–480, 1988.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    James Demmel and Bo Kågström, Computing stable eigendecompositions of matrix pencils, Linear Alg. Appl. 88/89: 139–186, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    James Demmel and Bo Kågström, Accurate solutions of ill-posed problems in control theory, SIAM J. Math. Anal. Appl. 9(1): 126–145, 1988.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.D. Dixon, Estimating extremal eigenalues and condition numbers of matrices. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 20: 812–814, 1983.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. Van Dooren, The computation of Kronecker’s canonical form of a singular pencil, Linear Alg. Appl. 27: 103–141, 1979.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    P. Van Dooren, The generalized eigenstructure problem in linear system theory, IEEE Trans. Auto. Control. AC-26: 111–128, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Edelman, On the distribution of a scaled condition number, Math. Comput., 58(197): 185–190, 1992.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    A. Edelman, Eigenvalues and condition numbers of random matrices, SIAM J. Math. Anal. Appl. 9(4): 543–560, 1988.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. Federer, Geometric Measure Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1969.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Gene Golub and Charles Van Loan, Matrix Computations, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1983.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Gray, Comparison theorems for the volumes of tubes as generalizations of the Weyl tube formula, Topology 21(2): 201–228, 1982.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    A. Gray, An estimate for the volume of a tube about a complex hypersurface, Tensor (N. S.) 39: 303–305, 1982.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    P.A. Griffiths, Complex differential and integral geometry and curvature integrals associated to singularities of complex analytic varieties, Duke Math. J. 45(3):427–512, 1978.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    W.W. Hager, Condition estimators, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 5: 311–316, 1984.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    N. Higham, A survey of condition number estimation for triangular matrices, SIAM Rev. 29: 575–596, 1987.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    H. Hotelling, Tubes and spheres in n-spaces, and a class of statistical problems, Amer. J. Math. 61: 440–460, 1939.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    W. Kahan, Conserving confluence curbs ill-condition, Computer Science Dept. Technical Report 6, University of California, Berkeley, CA, August 1972.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    E. Kostlan, Statistical complexity of numerical linear algebra, Ph. D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1985.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. Kuczyński and H. Woźniakowski, Estimating the largest eigenvalue by the power and Lanczos algorithms with a random start, Computer Science Department, Columbia University, Argonne, IL, March 1989.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    P. Lelong, Fonctions plurisousharmoniques et formes dijferentielles positiv, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
  25. [25]A. Ocneanu, On the volume of tubes about a real variety, J. Complexity, to be published.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    A. Ocneanu, On the loss of precision in solving large linear systems, Technical report, Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, Berkeley, CA, 1985.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    J. Renegar, Ill-posed problem instances, this volume.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    J. Renegar, On the efficiency of Newton’s method in approximating all zeros of systems of complex polynomials, Math. Oper. Res. 12(1): 121–148, 1987.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    L.A. Santaló, Integral Geometry and Geometric Probability, Vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1985.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Steve Smale, The fundamental theorem of algebra and complexity theory, AMS Bull. (New Series), 4(1): 1–35, 1981.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Steve Smale, On the efficiency of algorithms of analysis, AMS Bull. (New Series) 13(2): 87–121, 1985.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Steve Smale, Some remarks on the foundations of numerical analysis, SIAM Rev. 32(2): 211–220, 1990.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    G. Stolzenberg. Volumes, Limits, and Extensions of Analytic Varieties, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1966.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    P. Thie, The Lelong number of points of a complex analytic set, Math. Ann. 172: 69–312, 1967.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    H. Weyl, On the volume of tubes, Amer. J. Math. 61: 461–472, 1939.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    J. H. Wilkinson, The Algebraic Eigenvalue Problem, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1965.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Demmel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations