HackerPapers

arXiv:1507.00687math.NA

Improving the numerical stability of fast matrix multiplication

Grey Ballard, Austin R. Benson, Alex Druinsky, Benjamin Lipshitz, Oded Schwartz

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

Fast algorithms for matrix multiplication, namely those that perform asymptotically fewer scalar operations than the classical algorithm, have been considered primarily of theoretical interest. Apart from Strassen's original algorithm, few fast algorithms have been efficiently implemented or used in practical applications. However, there exist many practical alternatives to Strassen's algorithm with varying performance and numerical properties. Fast algorithms are known to be numerically stable, but because their error bounds are slightly weaker than the classical algorithm, they are not used even in cases where they provide a performance benefit. We argue in this paper that the numerical sacrifice of fast algorithms, particularly for the typical use cases of practical algorithms, is not prohibitive, and we explore ways to improve the accuracy both theoretically and empirically. The numerical accuracy of fast matrix multiplication depends on properties of the algorithm and of the input matrices, and we consider both contributions independently. We generalize and tighten previous error analyses of fast algorithms and compare their properties. We discuss algorithmic techniques for improving the error guarantees from two perspectives: manipulating the algorithms, and reducing input anomalies by various forms of diagonal scaling. Finally, we benchmark performance and demonstrate our improved numerical accuracy.

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
math.NANumerical Analysis

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from May 2025 to May 2025.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

  1. X X^t can be faster 1 comment
    • Yes see this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00687 . There is also this answer ( https://mathoverflow.net/a/421380 ) in MathOverflow which state that you can't do better than cubic time if you want strong form of numerical stability.

      HappyPanaceaView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.