For code, see http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/174

Fast Hermite Normal Form over ZZ

We did it! Get hnf.hg from here http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/174

Status Report

Unless otherwise stated, all benchmarks below were done on a 2.6Ghz core 2 duo laptop running OS X and 32-bit Sage and 32-bit Magma.

STATUS REPORT:

Modular / p-adic HNF algorithm -- Stein, Pernet, Burcin

    "Magma V2.13 (now released) has an implementation of a new modular
    algorithm for computing the Hermite Normal Form of an integer
    matrix. On this page I compare this with other implementations.
    [See timings below where Magma is VASTLY faster then every
    other program in existence.]"
            -- Allan Steel

Another example with big coefficients (which is what I -- Stein -- care about):

    sage: a = random_matrix(ZZ,100, x=-2^32, y=2^32)
    sage: time v = a._hnf()
    CPU times: user 0.41 s, sys: 0.03 s, total: 0.43 s
    Wall time: 0.44
    sage: set_verbose(1)

which sure beats Sage right now:

    sage: time b = a.echelon_form()
    CPU times: user 16.57 s, sys: 0.11 s, total: 16.68 s
    Wall time: 16.92

and even beats Magma too:

    sage: m = magma(a)
    sage: t = magma.cputime(); b = m.EchelonForm(); magma.cputime(t)
    1.26

Try 200x200 over ZZ with small coeffs with PARI, Magma, Sage

dhcp46-76:hnf was$ sage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| SAGE Version 2.10.1, Release Date: 2008-02-02                      |
| Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.        |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Loading SAGE library. Current Mercurial branch is: abelian_rewrite
sage: a = random_matrix(ZZ,200)
sage: time e = a.echelon_form()
CPU times: user 43.51 s, sys: 0.41 s, total: 43.93 s
Wall time: 48.67
sage: time e = a._hn
a._hnf      a._hnf_mod  
sage: time e = a._hnf()
CPU times: user 0.97 s, sys: 0.08 s, total: 1.05 s
Wall time: 1.27
sage: set_verbose(1)
sage: set_verbose(0)
sage: set_verbose(1)
sage: time e = a._hnf()
verbose 1 (194: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, hnf) starting slicings
verbose 1 (194: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, hnf) done slicing (time = 0.033891)
verbose 1 (59: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, doubleDet) starting double det
verbose 1 (59: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, doubleDet) starting linbox solve_right...
verbose 1 (59: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, doubleDet) finished solve_right (time = 0.128766)
verbose 1 (59: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, doubleDet) _charpoly_linbox...
verbose 1 (59: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, doubleDet) _charpoly_linbox...
verbose 1 (59: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, doubleDet) finished double det (time = 0.243717)
verbose 1 (194: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, matrix_integer_dense) hermite mod 58
verbose 1 (194: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, matrix_integer_dense) finished hnf mod (time = 0.125313)
verbose 1 (112: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, add_column) starting add_column
verbose 1 (112: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, add_column) starting linbox solve_right...
verbose 1 (112: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, add_column) finished solve_right (time = 0.168505)
verbose 1 (112: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, add_column) computing nullspace of 198 x 199 matrix using IML
verbose 1 (112: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, add_column) finished computing nullspace (time = 0.154126)
verbose 1 (174: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, add_row) first add row
verbose 1 (174: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, add_row) finished add row (time = 0.059144)
verbose 1 (174: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, add_row) first add row
verbose 1 (174: matrix_integer_dense_hnf.py, add_row) finished add row (time = 0.10742)
CPU times: user 0.96 s, sys: 0.08 s, total: 1.05 s
Wall time: 1.04

Todo

more rows than columns
more columns than rows
degenerate cases -- fail nicely
provably correct determinant (via linbox)
transition matrix
memory leaks?!
Make this the default in Sage.
improve documentation
testing for correctness
generalize to polynomials
write a "technical report" with tables of timings

A few Misc Benchmarks of Existing Code (before this sprint)

Unless otherwise stated benchmarks are on OS X 2.6Ghz core 2 duo laptop.

Comparing Magma (red) and Sage (blue)

Random n x n matrix.

Vertical Axis = coefficient bitsize

Horizontal Axis = n.

Comparing Magma (red) and Sage (blue): 4-bit entries

Random n x n matrix.

Vertical Axis = time in seconds

Horizontal Axis = n.

Comparing Magma (red) and Sage (blue): 20-bit entries

Random n x n matrix.

Vertical Axis = time in seconds

Horizontal Axis = n.

Comparing Magma (red) and Sage (blue): 64-bit entries

Random n x n matrix.

Vertical Axis = time in seconds

Horizontal Axis = n.

Comparing Magma (red) and Sage (blue): 256-bit entries

Random n x n matrix.

Vertical Axis = time in seconds

Horizontal Axis = n.

(the last magma timing would take about an hour so I gave up)

Benchmark 1: Random 50x50 single-digit matrix

MuPAD

>> A := linalg::randomMatrix(50,50,Dom::Integer, 10);
Warning: This matrix is too large for display. If you want to see all non-zero entries of large matrices, use doprint(..). [(Dom::Matrix(Dom::Integer))::print]

                                              Dom::Matrix(Dom::Integer)(50, 50, ["..."])
>> time(linalg::hermiteForm(A));                     

                                                                26445

Benchmark 1: Random 200x200 single-digit matrix

Mathematica code:

sage: mathematica.eval('a = Table[RandomInteger[{0,9}], {i,200}, {j,200}];')

sage: mathematica.eval('Timing[HermiteDecomposition[a];]')
        {98.9791, Null}

Maple code:

> with(LinearAlgebra); n := 200: k := 9: A := RandomMatrix(n,n,generator=rand(-k..k)): time( HermiteForm(A,output=['H', 'U']) );

60.431 seconds

Sage (via PARI):

sage: a = random_matrix(ZZ,200)
sage: time v = a.echelon_form()
CPU times: user 43.72 s, sys: 0.27 s, total: 43.98 s
Wall time: 44.36

Sage (via NTL):

sage: a = random_matrix(ZZ,200, x=-9, y=9)
sage: time e = a.echelon_form(algorithm='ntl')
CPU times: user 26.11 s, sys: 0.27 s, total: 26.38 s
Wall time: 35.52

sage: a = random_matrix(ZZ,200)
sage: z = magma(a)
sage: t = magma.cputime()
sage: time w = z.HermiteForm()
CPU times: user 0.00 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.00 s
Wall time: 0.82
sage: magma.cputime(t)
0.68999999999999995

Benchmark 1: Random 200x200 matrix with 32-bit entries

Maple (on mhansen's laptop):

> with(LinearAlgebra); n := 200: k := 2147483646: A := RandomMatrix(n,n,generator=rand(-k..k)): time( HermiteForm(A,output=['H', 'U']) );
336.753seconds

NTL

sage: a = random_matrix(ZZ, 200, x=-2^32, y=2^32)
sage: time e = a.echelon_form(algorithm='ntl')
CPU times: user 461.25 s, sys: 2.71 s, total: 463.97 s

PARI

sage: a = random_matrix(ZZ, 200, x=-2^32, y=2^32)
sage: time e = a.echelon_form(algorithm='pari')
CPU times: user 466.90 s, sys: 12.86 s, total: 479.76 s

MAGMA (amazingly fast):

sage: a = random_matrix(ZZ,200,x=-2^32,y=2^32)
sage: m = magma(a)
sage: t = magma.cputime()
sage: w = m.HermiteForm()
sage: magma.cputime(t)
10.33

MATHEMATICA (shockingly slow!):

sage: mathematica.eval('a = Table[RandomInteger[{-2^32,2^32}], {i,200}, {j,200}];')

sage: time mathematica.eval('Timing[HermiteDecomposition[a];]')
CPU times: user 0.00 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.00 s
Wall time: 1376.37
        {1366.7, Null}

days7/sprints/linalg

Fast Hermite Normal Form over ZZ

Status Report

Try 200x200 over ZZ with small coeffs with PARI, Magma, Sage

Todo

A few Misc Benchmarks of Existing Code (before this sprint)

Comparing Magma (red) and Sage (blue)

Comparing Magma (red) and Sage (blue): 4-bit entries

Comparing Magma (red) and Sage (blue): 20-bit entries

Comparing Magma (red) and Sage (blue): 64-bit entries

Comparing Magma (red) and Sage (blue): 256-bit entries

Benchmark 1: Random 50x50 single-digit matrix

Benchmark 1: Random 200x200 single-digit matrix

Benchmark 1: Random 200x200 matrix with 32-bit entries