[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"David E Moore" <davem@hartman-group.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
st: RE: Matrix inversion "bug" |

Date |
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:23:23 -0700 |

Given Mark's description, this does indeed sound like a "bug" or at least an annoying feature. The problem, of course, is that Stata doesn't "know" that the matrix in question is (supposed to be) symmetric. I'm not sure it's a great idea to use a procedure that forces symmetry, however, because one might be tempted to use the procedure in situations that don't guarantee (in principle) that a matrix is symmetric. This is not Mark's situation, but I can imagine one in which subtle programming issues obscure the problem and an incorrect use of something like syminv2 could lead to difficulties. And wouldn't we also need a cholesky2 command? Instead, I'd suggest that Stata develop an internally created and maintained property for matrices that indicates whether or not it is symmetric. Perhaps this is already being done for diagonal matrices. This property would "know" that the result of particular matrix expressions should create a symmetric matrix and enforce this by whatever internal operations are necessary. For example, Stata should know that if S is symmetric, then X*S*X' is also symmetric. If S had a property that indicated its symmetric nature, then Stata could perform the appropriate calculations/manipulations to ensure that the result of this expression is also symmetric, and assign it the symmetric property as well. Admittedly, this would require re-tooling Stata. But it would result in a change that was transparent to programmers and users without having to add yet another special purpose command or two. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Mark Schaffer > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:19 PM > To: Statalist > Cc: Mark Schaffer > Subject: st: Matrix inversion "bug" > > > Dear Statalisters: > > Every now and then I encounter a matrix inversion "bug" in Stata. It > cropped up yet again last week when an ivreg2 user wrote to me, and I > finally decided to see what my fellow Statalisters think of it. > > Say we have a matrix M which is calculated as X*S*X'. S is symmetric and > so is M. We want to invert M and so the best thing to do is to use > -syminv-. The Stata programming manual tells us to use -syminv- instead > of -inv- wherever possible. > > The problem is this. Although M is guaranteed to be symmetric in > principle, it is not guaranteed to be symmetric in practice. Tiny rounding > errors can arise when Stata multiplies matrices. Once in a while, M will > be very slightly non-symmetric, but when it is, -syminv- will exit with an > error. > > When I first encountered this, I wrote to Stata Technical Support, and I > received a very helpful and simple fix: prior to the call to syminv, simply > do the following: > > mat M = (M+M')/2 > > This makes the matrix symmetric. Works, no problem. But... > > Arguably, this is just a fix for what is really a Stata bug. Ought it be > possible for Stata's code to recognise when the result of a matrix > multiplication is supposed to be a symmetric matrix? > > Whether or not this should be called a "bug", it may still be the case that > it's not possible for our friends at Stata Corp to fix it. If so, then > there are several possibilities: > > (1) Prior to using -syminv-, we should always (?) symmetrize the matrix we > want to invert using the code fragment above. > > (2) Any (?) time we call -syminv-, we should use -capture-. If the > inversion using -syminv- fails, we should call -inv-. > > (3) Neither of the above is very pretty. An alternative is to ask our > Stata Corp friends to, say, add a variant of the -syminv- function, say > -syminv2-. This function would automatically symmetrize a square matrix > before inverting it. > > What do you think? > > --Mark > > ________________________________________________________________ > > DISCLAIMER: > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to > whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient > you are prohibited from using any of the information contained > in this e-mail. In such a case, please destroy all copies in > your possession and notify the sender by reply e-mail. Heriot > Watt University does not accept liability or responsibility > for changes made to this e-mail after it was sent, or for > viruses transmitted through this e-mail. Opinions, comments, > conclusions and other information in this e-mail that do not > relate to the official business of Heriot Watt University are > not endorsed by it. > ________________________________________________________________ > * > * For searches and help try: > * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html > * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq > * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ > > * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**st: RE: RE: Matrix inversion "bug"***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**References**:**st: Matrix inversion "bug"***From:*Mark Schaffer <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: RE: Matrix inversion "bug"** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: Re: grading** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: Matrix inversion "bug"** - Next by thread:
**st: RE: RE: Matrix inversion "bug"** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |