Mathematics / Singular Value Decomposition
FREE TO EXPLORE
LABORATORY 19 · MATHEMATICS

Singular Value Decomposition lab report

A worked singular value decomposition lab report with iteration data tables, logarithmic graphs, calculations, uncertainty and conclusions.

WORKED EXAMPLE · BENCHMARK OBSERVATIONS

A complete example laboratory report.

Simulated demonstration data.

This report illustrates formal numerical analysis, iteration tracking, and convergence rate extraction. Replace its observations with your own computational telemetry when preparing a practical submission.

Student: __________________Student ID: __________________Course: __________________Date: __________________Partner: __________________Instructor: __________________

1. Title and aim

Singular Value Decomposition and Moore-Penrose Pseudoinverse Conditioning. Decompose ill-conditioned and rank-deficient rectangular matrices into A = UΣVᵀ using Golub-Kahan bidiagonalization, construct the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse A⁺ = VΣ⁺Uᵀ, and extract the 2-norm matrix condition number κ₂(A) = σ_max / σ_min = 25.000 via singular spectrum linear regression.

2. Abstract

Six computational trials were executed across standardized inputs k = 1.0 to k = 6.0 for Singular Value Decomposition and Moore-Penrose Pseudoinverse Conditioning. An ordinary least-squares regression yielded an empirical Matrix Condition Number κ₂(A) of 25.000 (difference from theoretical reference = 0.0000%). The empirical telemetry conclusively validates the theoretical model and complexity scaling with R² = 1.000000.

3. Apparatus and fixed settings

4. Theory and graph choice

The Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)—originating in the independent mathematical investigations of Eugenio Beltrami (1873), Camille Jordan (1874), and James Joseph Sylvester (1889), and elevated to an algorithmic triumph by Gene Golub and William Kahan in 1965—is universally acknowledged as the absolute summit of matrix computations. In linear algebra, eigendecomposition A = VΛV⁻¹ is restricted exclusively to square, diagonalizable matrices, and can become severely ill-conditioned if eigenvectors are nearly collinear. SVD transcends all such limitations: every matrix—square or rectangular, full-rank or rank-deficient, well-conditioned or pathological—admits an SVD: A = UΣVᵀ. Here, U is an m×m orthogonal matrix containing the left singular vectors, V is an n×n orthogonal matrix containing the right singular vectors, and Σ is an m×n diagonal matrix containing the non-negative singular values sorted in descending order: σ₁ ≥ σ₂ ≥ ... ≥ σ_p ≥ 0. Geometrically, SVD decomposes any linear transformation into three elementary geometric actions: an initial rotation in the domain (Vᵀ), an axis-aligned stretching by factors σ_i (Σ), and a final rotation in the codomain (U). In computational science, SVD provides the definitive definition of matrix condition: the 2-norm condition number is given exactly by κ₂(A) = σ_max / σ_min. Furthermore, SVD resolves the universal problem of inverting non-invertible matrices via the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse: A⁺ = V Σ⁺ Uᵀ. For any linear system Ax = b, x_{LS} = A⁺ b produces the unique solution that simultaneously minimizes the residual error ‖Ax − b‖₂ and has the minimum Euclidean norm ‖x‖₂. Finally, by the Eckart-Young-Mirsky theorem, truncating the SVD to its top k components yields the mathematically optimal low-rank matrix approximation, providing the engine for Principal Component Analysis (PCA), latent semantic indexing, and big-data denoising. In this computational laboratory, students evaluate SVD on a matrix with singular values σ = [10.0, 4.0, 0.4] (condition number κ = 10.0/0.4 = 25.000), construct the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse, explore rank truncation, and extract the condition number κ₂(A) = 25.000 via linear regression.

\kappa_2(A) = \frac{\sigma_{\max}}{\sigma_{\min}} = \frac{\sigma_1}{\sigma_r} = \frac{10.000}{0.400} = 25.000

The mathematical regression linearizes the relationship into the form y = mx + b. Here, the independent variable x represents Iteration Step k, and the dependent variable y represents Cumulative Condition Ratio (25.000 · k). The slope m directly extracts Matrix Condition Number κ₂(A), while the intercept b accounts for residual baseline offsets.

5. Method

  1. Initialize m×n matrix A with known singular spectrum σ = [10.000, 4.000, 0.400]. Verify that condition number κ₂(A) = 10.0 / 0.4 = 25.000.
  2. Apply alternating Householder reflections: P₁ A Q₁ ... P_n A Q_{n-2} reduces A to upper-bidiagonal form B in 4mn² − (4/3)n³ operations.
  3. Apply the Golub-Reinsch implicitly shifted QR algorithm to bidiagonal matrix B, driving off-diagonal entries to zero to extract singular values σ_i.
  4. Form diagonal matrix Σ⁺ where σ_i⁺ = 1/σ_i if σ_i > 10⁻¹², and 0 otherwise. Compute pseudoinverse A⁺ = V Σ⁺ Uᵀ.
  5. For right-hand side b, evaluate x_{LS} = A⁺ b. Confirm that x_{LS} is the unique solution minimizing both residual ‖Ax − b‖₂ and solution norm ‖x‖₂.
  6. Plot cumulative condition metric y = 25.000 · k against step k. Perform ordinary least-squares regression to extract empirical slope m = 25.000, confirming matrix condition number κ₂(A) = 25.000.

6. Observations and calculation table

All iterative observations use strictly controlled 64-bit IEEE 754 precision buffers. Residuals are computed relative to the ordinary least-squares regression line.

Table 1. Six simulated observations; x and y represent transformed mathematical metrics.
No.Iteration Step k (steps)Singular Value Ratio σ_1/σ_r ()Iteration Step kCumulative Condition Ratio (25.000 · k)Fitted yResidual
11.025.01.000025.000025.00000.0000
22.050.02.000050.000050.00000.0000
33.075.03.000075.000075.00000.0000
44.0100.04.0000100.0000100.00000.0000
55.0125.05.0000125.0000125.00000.0000
66.0150.06.0000150.0000150.00000.0000

Download the sample observations (CSV) ↓

7. Worked calculation for one observation

For step k = 1.0: Current coordinate x = 1.0000. Mathematical model response y = 25.0000. Output reading: 25.0000.

8. Graph, gradient and final calculation

6.250.4046.881.9587.503.50128.125.05168.756.60Iteration Step kCumulative Condition Ratio (25.000 · k)

Circular markers represent empirical computational observations. The solid line represents the ordinary least-squares linear fit.

x̄ = 3.50000; ȳ = 87.50000
Σ(x − x̄)² = 17.50000
Σ(x − x̄)(y − ȳ) = 437.50000
m = Σ(x − x̄)(y − ȳ) / Σ(x − x̄)² = 25.00000000
b = ȳ − mx̄ = 0.00000000
y = 25.0000 · k + 0.0000 ⟹ Target = 25.000 (theoretical = 25.000)

9. Uncertainty and comparison

Percentage difference = |estimate − theoretical value| / |theoretical value| × 100 = 0.0000%.

For n = 6 observations, Σresidual² = 0.00000; s² = Σresidual²/(n − 2). Gradient standard error = √[s²/Σ(x − x̄)²] = 0.00000. Intercept standard error = √[s²(1/n + x̄²/Σ(x − x̄)²)] = 0.00000.

Propagating the fit parameters yields a fit standard error of 1.0000e-04 , with an ideal coefficient of determination R² = 1.000000.

In computational mathematics and numerical analysis, errors arise from algorithmic discretization, finite precision IEEE 754 floating-point arithmetic (machine epsilon ε_mach ≈ 2.22 × 10⁻¹⁶ for 64-bit double precision), and condition number propagation. The ordinary least-squares fit across n = 6 standardized observations provides standard errors for the gradient and intercept. Because the mathematical recurrence is evaluated with high numerical precision, the residual sum of squares is vanishingly small, yielding a coefficient of determination R² ≥ 0.999999 and confirming the theoretical mathematical model.

10. Result and discussion

Matrix Condition Number κ₂(A) = 25.000
Theoretical reference value: 25.000

The empirical benchmark observations provide rigorous quantitative verification of Singular Value Decomposition and Moore-Penrose Pseudoinverse Conditioning. In numerical analysis, scientific computing, and computational mathematics, algorithms are characterized by their asymptotic operational scaling, stability, and convergence rates. Across all six observations, the empirical slope m = 25.0000 confirms the theoretical model with near-zero residual variance. Furthermore, comparison with alternative algorithmic paradigms underscores critical trade-offs between memory footprint, condition number sensitivity, and operational throughput. The algorithm's behavior confirms the mathematical predictions established by numerical analysis literature.

11. Precautions and limitations

SVD is computationally expensive: full SVD requires approximately 4mn² + 8n³ FLOPs. The numerical simulation model executes SVD on a 3×3 matrix with singular spectrum σ = [10.000, 4.000, 0.400]. Analytical 2-norm condition number: κ₂(A) = σ₁ / σ₃ = 10.000 / 0.400 = 25.000000. Across the six standardized iteration steps k = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], the cumulative condition metric is y = κ · k = [25.000, 50.000, 75.000, 100.000, 125.000, 150.000]. Ordinary least-squares linear regression on these coordinates produces an empirical slope m = 25.00000 and Y-intercept b = 0.000 with coefficient of determination R² = 1.000000. The empirical condition number κ₂(A) = 25.000 matches the theoretical benchmark κ₂(A) = 25.000 within 0.0000% deviation.

12. Conclusion

This computational laboratory investigation quantitatively verified the mathematical formulation and asymptotic scaling of Singular Value Decomposition and Moore-Penrose Pseudoinverse Conditioning. Through rigorous tracking across six observation points, we confirmed an empirical Matrix Condition Number κ₂(A) of 25.000 matching the theoretical reference 25.000 within 0.0000% error. The investigation demonstrates why this method serves as an indispensable tool in modern computational science.