Are sketch-and-precondition least squares solvers numerically stable?

TL;DR

This paper investigates the numerical stability of sketch-and-precondition least squares solvers, revealing their instability for ill-conditioned problems and proposing modifications for improved backward stability and accuracy.

Contribution

It demonstrates the instability of common sketch-and-precondition LS methods and proposes a modified approach using unpreconditioned iterative solvers for better stability.

Findings

Sketch-and-precondition methods are not backward stable for ill-conditioned problems.

Using an unpreconditioned iterative solver on the transformed system improves stability.

Starting with the sketch-and-solve solution as an initial guess enhances accuracy.

Abstract

Sketch-and-precondition techniques are efficient and popular for solving large least squares (LS) problems of the form $Ax=b$ with $A\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ and $m\gg n$. This is where $A$ is ``sketched" to a smaller matrix $SA$ with $S\in\mathbb{R}^{\lceil cn\rceil\times m}$ for some constant $c>1$ before an iterative LS solver computes the solution to $Ax=b$ with a right preconditioner $P$, where $P$ is constructed from $SA$. Prominent sketch-and-precondition LS solvers are Blendenpik and LSRN. We show that the sketch-and-precondition technique in its most commonly used form is not numerically stable for ill-conditioned LS problems. For provable and practical backward stability and optimal residuals, we suggest using an unpreconditioned iterative LS solver on $(AP)z=b$ with $x=Pz$. Provided the condition number of $A$ is smaller than the reciprocal of the unit round-off, we show that this modification ensures that the computed solution has a backward error comparable to the iterative LS solver applied to a well-conditioned matrix. Using smoothed analysis, we model floating-point rounding errors to argue that our modification is expected to compute a backward stable solution even for arbitrarily ill-conditioned LS problems. Additionally, we provide experimental evidence that using the sketch-and-solve solution as a starting vector in sketch-and-precondition algorithms (as suggested by Rokhlin and Tygert in 2008) should be highly preferred over the zero vector. The initialization often results in much more accurate solutions -- albeit not always backward stable ones.