A Parameter optimization for the eignevalues of a matrix

kelly0303
Messages
573
Reaction score
33
Hello! I have a matrix (about 20 x 20), which corresponds to a given Hamiltonian. I would like to write an optimization code that matches the eigenvalues of this matrix to some experimentally measured energies. I wanted to use gradient descent, but that seems to not work in a straightforward manner and I was wondering if someone has any advice on how to proceed. In my case, the diagonal term are mainly of the form ##ax^2+bx^4##, where a and b are the values I want to fit for, and in my case x is around 20. I expect (based on some theoretical calculations) that a is around 5000 and b is around 0.005, so the first term is on the order of ##5000 \times 20^2 = 2000000## and the second term is on the order ##0.005\times 20^4 = 800##. The off diagonal terms are much smaller on the order ~1. The main problem is that the gradient of the function with respect to b is huge i.e. ##x^4##, while b itself is very small. Moreover, when doing the diagonalization the ##bx^4## term gets mixed nonlinearly with the other terms of the matrix so in the end the gradient is not just simply ##x^4## and for example going from 0.0055 to 0.0056 changes the gradient of the eigenvalues with respect to b by almost 5 orders of magnitude. Is there a way to deal with this (for context this is for fitting rotational parameters to a molecular spectrum). Thank you!
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top