We consider the solution of the large-scale nonsymmetric algebraic Riccati equation XCX − XD − AX + B = 0, with M ≡ [D,−C;−B,A] ∈ R(n1+n2)×(n1+n2) being a nonsingular M-matrix. In addition, A and D are sparselike, with the products A−1u, A−⊤u, D−1v, and D−⊤v computable in O(n) complexity (with n = max{n1, n2}), for some vectors u and v, and B, C are low ranked. The structure-preserving doubling algorithms (SDA) by Guo, Lin, and Xu [Numer. Math., 103 (2006), pp. 392–412] is adapted, with the appropriate applications of the Sherman–Morrison– Woodbury formula and the sparse-plus-low-rank representations of various iterates. The resulting large-scale doubling algorithm has an O(n) computational complexity and memory requirement per iteration and converges essentially quadratically. A detailed error analysis, on the effects of truncation of iterates with an explicit forward error bound for the approximate solution from the SDA, and some numerical results will be presented.

No abstract uploaded!

Let$D$be a strictly pseudoconvex domain in$C$^{$n$}. We prove that $$\bar \partial u = \phi , \phi $$ , ϕ a $$\bar \partial $$ (0,1)-form, admits solutions in$L$^{$p$}(∂$D$), 1≤$p$<∞ and in BMO, under certain Wolff type conditions of ϕ. Some such results (for 1<$p$<∞) have previously been obtained by Amar in the ball, but under slightly stronger hypotheses. As a corollary we obtain a$H$^{$p$}-corona result for two generators.

Blocking is commonly used in randomized experiments to increase efficiency of estimation. A generalization of blocking removes allocations with imbalance in covariate distributions between treated and control units, and then randomizes within the remaining set of allocations with balance. This idea of rerandomization was formalized by Morgan and Rubin (Annals of Statistics, 2012, 40, 1263–1282), who suggested using Mahalanobis distance between treated and control covariate means as the criterion for removing unbalanced allocations. Kallus (Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B: Statistical Methodology, 2018, 80, 85–112) proposed reducing the set of balanced allocations to the minimum. Here we discuss the implication of such an ‘optimal’ rerandomization design for inferences to the units in the sample and to the population from which the units in the sample were randomly drawn. We argue that, in general, it is a bad idea to seek the optimal design for an inference because that inference typically only reflects uncertainty from the random sampling of units, which is usually hypothetical, and not the randomization of units to treatment versus control.

No abstract uploaded!