J. Inst.

Maths Applies (1976) 17,99-110

A Consistently Rapid Algorithm for Solving Polynomial Equations ~

J. B. MOORE
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, 2308, Australia

[Received 25 March 1974 and in revised form 20 September 1974]

Novel approaches are used to ensure consistently rapid convergence of an algorithm, based on Newtons method, for the solution of polynomial equations with real or complex coefficients.lt appears that in terms of algorithm complexity and calculation time, the new algorithm represents a considerable improvement on the various always convergent algorithms in the literature. In terms of algorithm accuracy no improvements are claimed.

1. Introduction SINCEthe number of algorithms available for solving polynomial equations is legion (indicating perhaps the unsatisfactory performance of existing algorithms) there must be strong justification for introducing yet another such algorithm. To grasp the signiiicanee of the algorithm introduced in this paper, a broad classification of the various existing algorithms is in order. First, there are the simple algorithms which usually converge for initial approximations in the neighborhood of a polynomial zero but may not converge, or may converge very slowly, when the initial approximation is not in a neighborhood of a zero (Wilkinson, 1963). These algorithms fall naturally into three categories. There are those which, when convergent, converge linearly (Lins algorithm) or superlinearly (Mullers algorithm) in the neighbourhood of a zero and require only the evaluation of the polynomial itself at each iteration. Then there are the more popular quadratically convergent (when convergent) algorithms of Newton and of Bairstow. For these, both the polynomial and its derivative are evaluated at each iteration. Bairstows method is restricted to polynomials with real coefficients and is marginally more efficient than Newtons method for these polynomials. Then again there are the cubically convergent methods such as those of Laguerre. For these, the polynomial and both its first and second derivative are evaluated at each iteration. These latter algorithms give the least trouble. In fact, it is possible to arrive at a good universai polynomial solver by first using Laguerres method and then, if convergence is not reached in say thirty iterations, switching to Bairstows method. More reeently, simple algorithms which converge to all zeros simultaneously either quadratically or cubically have been developed as in Alberth (1973). A second group of polynomial solving algorithms is the one where convergence is guaranteed (Jenkins & Traub, 1970, 1972; Dejon & Nickel, 1969; Moore, 1967, 1970; Grant & Hitchins, 1971; Ward, 1957; Householder, 1971; Stewart, 1969; Lehmer, 1961; Back, 1969). These algorithms are more sophisticated, particularly those that f Work supportedby the Australian Resemch Grants Committee.
99

100

J. B. MOORE

guarantee a rapid rate of convergence. See, for example, the three stage algorithm of Jenkins & Traub (1970). In a previous paper by the author (Moore, 1967) a simple always convergent algorithm is described. (This algorithm has been rediscovered recently in Grant & Hitchins (1971)). The algorithm consists of Newtons algorithm augmented with a few logic instructions and a minimal number of calculations to ensure convergence of the method. The resulting algorithm is simple enough, but there is still the difficulty that for some polynomials and for some initial approximations convergence may be quite slow. An attempt to accelerate this algorithm (Moore, 1970) using standard type accelerating techniques has been reasonably successful for low order (less than tenth order) polynomials, but these techniques result in slow convergence for certain high order polynomials and certain initial conditions. From the above sketchy review of available methods, one point emerges. There is still the need for a simple always-convergent algorithm which gives consistently rapid convergence irrespective of the polynomial equation considered and irrespective of the first approximation to a root of this equation. The algorithm of this paper is designed to supply this need. Novel approaches are employed in an attempt to minimize the number of iterations required for polynomial zero evaluations subject to the constraint that the calculation time for each iteration be of the same order as that of the particular simple algorithm on which it is based. The paper will be concerned with algorithms based on the familiar quadratically convergent (when convergent) Newtons method. A brief outline of the remainder of the paper is as follows. Section 2 reviews the derivation of the ideas and results of Moore (1967) and Grant & Hitchins (1971) and develops concurrently additional results and insights necessary for understanding the algorithms of the paper. Section 3 introduces the novel approaches taken in this paper to achieve a consistently rapid polynomial zero finding algorithm, while comparative performance data and concluding remarks are the material of the final Section 4. 2. Theory and Background Consider the polynomial equation f(z) =

,$0 akz-= o,

(7D =

t.

(t)

where z = x + iy k the complex variable and a are the coefficients which may be real or complex. We seek an iterative technique for updating an estimate of a real or complex solution to this equation. Consider now the algorithm AZj = f(zj) f,- 1(zj)
Zj = zj_l +aAzj_l,

where

AZ = AX+ iAY,
ZOgiven, (2)

forj=l,2, . . . where zj is the .jth estimate of a zero off(z). The notation ~z(z) is used to indicate the derivative f(z). The possibly complex quantity u is termed the step size scale factor. When u = 1, the algorithm (2) is simply Newtons algorithm which when convergent is quadratically convergentat least to a simple zero off(z). For some initial approximations ZO, Newtons algorithm may not converge. For

COIWSTENTLY RAPIDALGORITHM

101

example, if~(z) has no real roots and ZOis real, then Zj is real for all j and the algorithm will not converge. Straightforward extensions to Newtons algorithm ensure its convergence (Moore, 1967; Grant & Hitchins, 1971). Some of the ideas of these papers are restated with additional insights into the problem included in the restatement. Consider the functions (norms off(z) and Az = ~(z)~z- l(z) respectively) (3) F(z) = l~(z)l and D(z) = l~(z)~~ (z){. lt is not difficult to show that these functions have the following properties. (a) The functions are non-negative for all z and become infinite as z becomes infiniteq (b) The functions and their inverses are continuous and differentiable in the complex plane except possibly at isolated points ~(z) is analytic for all z, ,~- 1(z) and Az- (z) are analytic for all z except the zeros of ~(z), and Az(z) is analytic for all : except for the zeros of~,(z)]. (c) The zeros of each of the functions are the zeros off(z). (d) The only minima of the functions are the zeros off(z). (e) In any closed domain of the z-plane [not containing a zero of~z(z)], the function F(z)[D(z)] cannot have a maximum. (f) Extrema of F(z) that are not zeros of F(z) are saddle points. Saddle points of F(z) are poles of D(z) or equivalently zeros of F=(z). Notice that (d) and (e) do not exclude the existence of saddle points of F(z) and D(z). As a consequence of properties (a)-(f), the problem of finding a zero of ~(z) is equivalent to the problem of finding the location of minima (or equivalently zeros) of F(z) [or of D(z)]. The algorithms of Moore and Grant & Hitchins incorporate modifications of Newtons algorithm to ensure that F(z) is decreased at each step. In particular, for the algorithm (2), the step size scale factor a is selected as x = 1, ~, ~, . . . until there is a decrease in F(z). The key result of Grant & Hitchins is that if saddle points of F(z) are not encountered (that is ]~:(zj) I > c for somes > 0 then the percentage decrease in F(z) is bounded below and thus the algorithm converges to a zero of F(z), or equivalently to a zero off(z). An important intermediate result is that the directions of the increments z (for the cmes~(z) and~,(z) non-zero) are in the direction of steepest descent of F(z). The steepest descent directions are denoted 8. Insight into the algorithms of Moore, Grant & Hitchins is gained if one notes the property of the contours of constant [) = Az, namely that these contours change direction dramatically in the vicinity of a saddle point region of F(z) or pass through the saddle points (see Fig. 1 for an example). Now since for a real, the algorithm (2) gives increments tangent to the constant-O contours, and since the magnitude of these increments increases as saddle point regions of F(z) (zeros of ~Z(z))are approached, it is clear that, to allow navigations of the sharp direction changes of the 8 contours, the step size alAzl must be decreased, and many iterations consumed. The restriction of a to the set of real numbers promotes slow convergence in the saddle point regions and allows the possibility of convergence to a saddle point of F(z). This latter possibility y can be avoided by the introduction of certain heuristics to the algorithm which will not be discussed here.

102

J. B. MOORE

The algorithm of this paper is a variation of the algorithms of Moore and Grant & Hitchins. The variations appear minor at first glance but the impact of the variations is very significant. The variations are now summarized qualitatively.

5= x

iy
IIero t mod I
Olgor

7
2

(b)

FIG.1,(a) Constant Fand Ocontours for Z8+ 1 = O.(b) Algorithm trajectories against a background
of constant D contours for Z8+ 1 = O.

lt is not difficult to establish that an increasein f)(z) at any jttxaljon of the standard Newton algorithm (2) indicates that the iterations are heading for a saddle point region

of F or equivalentlyfor the region of sharp direction changes of the steepest descent ~ CO1ltOUl$, ~etreathg

parameciatdike totheprevious

zero

approximation and then

venturing forward ag~ln v~~. a ide stepping kelahn <complex a), k is pos<~ble to avoid the saddle point region of F and thereby gain proximity to a polynomial zero. In othel WO~dSthe ~eu~~sticsof the algorithm of this paper take note of any increase
\n D of the ~ewton a\gorithm to determine complex a in order to ik3e step saddle @n~ Iegiions of F(z) or equivalentlyto navigate efhi~entlysharp &rection changes in ~,e steegest deswnt Mection contours 0. The heuilstlcs ensure that any side step is

CONSISTENTLY RAPID

ALOORITHM

103

to the left (right) of the steepest descent direction if any change in this direction at each iteration is to the left (right). The heuristics also accelerate Newtons algorithm by a selection of the step size scale factor as a = 1, 2, . . . . provided that the following three conditions are satisfied. (a) Convergence is slow. (b) There is no increase in D. (c) Any change in direction is less than (say) 12. The acceleration steps are invaluable when converging to multiple zeros or when the initial approximation is considerably in error. A further variation is to set up the algorithm as a minimization of D(z) rather than of F(z) as in Moore and Grant & Hitchins. The reason for this variation is to simplify the algorithm and also experience indicates that it works somewhat better. Convergence proofs are less satisfactory than those in Grant & Hitchins but since they parallel these and tell us nothing of the rate of convergence except in the vicinity of a zero off(z), they will not be included here. Suffice it to say that with a few additional instructions, it is possible to ensure that at (say) every twentieth iteration F(z) is decreased using the ideas of Grant & Hitchins. Such an algorithm is guaranteed to converge using the proofs of Grant & Hitchins. Our experience is that such modifications are superfluous,
3. A Consistently Rapid Algorithm Based on Newtons Method

In constructing the polynomial equation solving algorithm of this paper, algorithm complexity is kept to a minimum while still achieving good computational efficiency. This is achieved by a judicious selection of permissible scale factors a. A classification of permissible increments or steps that can be taken at any iteration, is as follows. (1) Newton step. Here u = 1.
(2) Short Newton step. Here a = 1 but Zj = zj_l +AzJDJDj rather than Zj = Zj.l + Az as in (2) where D~ is a maximum allowable step size.

(3) Side step. Here a = ~ 15/45.The particular sign of the 45 direction change is chosen to anticipate th~direction change of the constant f3 contours. It is calculated using 0 information as follows. sgn[Sin(Oj j-~)] = sgn(sin Oj
. sgn(Ayjbj.l COS oj-~ COS Oj

sin j-~)

AxjAyj-l).

If 8 = 8j_l then an arbitrary sgn is used. step. Here u = 2,3,... = /~j-l + 131. (5) Deceleration step. Here l~jl = ~laj-l 1,/aj
(4) Acceleration

A number of tests are employed to determine when each of the above steps is to be used. The tests are now listed. (1) (Dj Dj-l)t@s whether D is decreasing at each stage. (2) (Dj D~)tests whether D is less than some maximum allowable step size.

(3) (YP) where (YP) = ~DjDj-l cos(oj @j-l) = (A~jAXj.l+ A~jAyj-~) 0.98 JDjDj-l (tests direction changes).

104

1. B.

MOORE

(4) (la]Sj Sj-l) where Sj = Fj/Fj-l (tests whether convergence is better than linear). (5) (la! 0.96)tests magnitude of Ial. The value 0.96 is a flag or indicator. The flow chart of Fig. 2 indicates an algorithm which is considered to be a reasonable compromise on complexity and calculation efficiency. A number of comments are now offered on this algorithm. (1) Although at first glance the algorithm appears to be more complicated than the algorithms of Moore and Grant & Hitchins in which a is always real, in fact the
Select 2., set a Q95, L-=19-7, G = Fo=1035, ,9~=05 I
I

c!=Colculote

f(zj),

fz(fi),

w = I

f=(zj)lz

I
1

4
=Fj/Fj_l ~ = lf(~)lz, S/.

i
1
2(b)] J

I
Logic for selection of a [see Fig.

Zj=

~-l+aA+l, j=j+t

Accept

-?j as a zero

of f(z)

FIG. 2(a), Algorithm flow chart.

CONSISTENTLY RAPID ALGORITHM

105

computer program requires less than twenty additional FORTRAN statements. The gain, as far as computational efficiency is concerned, is considerable as the next section indicates.
(2) Notice that acceleration is only permitted when Dj < Dj_l, lA6jl <12 (i.e. Y > P) and ]til~j > Sj-l or on a side step (see (5) above). The first requirement needs no explanation. The second requirement is simply that the direction change at an iteration is small. Clearly it is unwise to consider acceleration when the direction change at an iteration is more than say 12. The third requirement is that the algorithm without acceleration is achieving no better than linear convergence of F. Acceleration is achieved by incrementing a by unity.

____ ___ r

r+l---l
u

a ~ ,,

1,

I
i

( ? H

III---I

ii Y
___

L-l
IN ,,

<, ~
u

........ __.J

~-------

.;l;__:{ (m---T
4, u
!

L .

___

--w--J

106

J. B. MoORE

(3) The short Newton step is taken whenever Dj > D~ where D~ is a maximum allowed step size. Whenever Dj < D~, then DM is set equal to Dj. The initial value of D~ is set to be the suspected diameter of the smallest region containing but one zero. After a zero removal of nonzero magnitude, D~ is set to be the magnitude of the previously found zero. (4) A side stepping (acceleration) iteration is taken whenever Dj ~ Dj_l and Ial >1. In other words, whenever a saddle point region of F(z) is suspected, an attempt is made to side step this region. Such an iteration rarely fails to reduce D,

but if it does not reduce D, a decderation step is used.

(5) The algorithm is designed so that rarely is Dj > Dj_l after one side stepping iteration. In this event a deceleration step is Used. It may be possible to construct a polynomial and an initial value such that in some very complicated saddle point regions of F(z), D does not decrease for the deceleration steps prescribed by the algorithm. Such nonconvergent or its cousin S1OW convergen~ is easily detected and a new starting point can be chosen to avoid such difficulties. This possible improvement is not incorporated into the flow chart of Fig. 2 to avoid overcomplication. (6) Mult@e zeros off(z). For multiple roots, acceleration steps are required in order to give rapid convergence. Accuracy may be a problem as pointed out in discussing iteration termination. (7) Calculation time for each iteration. The increase in calculation time for each iteration over that of a regular Newton iteration is at most the equivalent of (say) twelve multiplications. This is negligible compared to the 8n or so multiplications required for the regular Newton iteration once n is four or greater. The decision network to select a suitable a consists of about four or so decisions for each path through the network and thus represents a negligible cost. (8) It might be thought that since saddle points of F cause trouble in algorithms of Moore and Grant & Hitchins, saddle points of D may muse trouble in the algorithm of Fig. 2. This is not the case. On the contrary, it is in these regions that the side step iteration is most efficient. Moreover, the algorithm is not attempting to decrease D along the direction of steepest descent of D. (To calculate this direction, higher derivatives would be needed.) Actually it would be convenient to have available the steepest descent direction of D, for then a composite direction of steepest descent of F and this direction would result in a highly efficient algorithm. In essence, the side stepping iteration of the present algorithm is a crude attempt to attain this composite direction when it is needed most. (9) Slow convergence or nonconvergence may sometimes occur in practice due to poor scaling and a poor initial zero estimate combined with a selection of too small a maximum allowable step size, computer overflow, etc. However, since convergence is normally consistently rapid, such abnormal situations are quickly detected. If the &~gOli~hm has not converged to a zero in <say) 20+-~ n iterations then an abnormal situation has arisen. Some additional comments concerning the well-researched problems of termination of the iteration process, estimation of calculation accuracy, polynomial deflation and the selection of an initial zero estimate are given in the Appendix. A good reference on these topics is Peters & Wilkinson (1971).

CONSISTENTLY RAPID ALGORITHM 4. ComparativePerformance

107

Any realistic comparison must consider the three factors, accuracy, calculation time, and program complexity. In the first instince it is reasonable to compare the present algorithm with other algorithms based on Newtons method. Now since most algorithms based on Newtons method use the same recursive equation in the final iterations for finding a polynomial zero, the accuracy of all the various algorithms based on Newtons method is of the same order onm the precision of the calculations is specified. The calculation time for each iteration is approximately the same for the two cases studied in this section. The complexity of the present algorithms require the addition of about 30 FORTRAN statements to the simplest Newton algorithm. We suggest that the iteration number is a reasonable criterion for comparison. Figure 3(a) presents comparative information on the number of iterations to find a zero of z+ 1 = Ofor n = 3 to 100 with a fist approximation ZO= 1+ il. Figure 3(b) indicates the average number of iterations to solve for all the zeros of z+ 1 = O using deflation and using the deflation zero as the starting point for the next zero

Mdafk?d Newton algor, Ihm

AlgOrlthm of F!g z

,~
Degree N of FolymmIol z+ I=0
10

76 54 3 ~ I o 10 20
n FIG.

30

40

I 5(

3.

(a) Performance data. (b) Solution of z+ 1 = Ofor all zeros.

108

J. B. MOORE

calculation. Complex zeros are extracted in pairs and the iteration number for the extraction of real roots is weighted by one half since real arithmetic is involved. Double precision arithmetic is used, but even so ill-conditioning becomes a difficulty for some of the polynomials above order 60. Notice that the algorithm of Moore and Grant & Hitchins is very inefficient for some n. In fact, convergence is so slow in some instances as to be just as annoying as an algorithm which fails to converge for some initial conditions. The algorithm of this paper clearly represents a con.~iderable
improvement in consistency of convergence rate. (Almost identical results are obtained

for other first approximations with /zO I < lat least with the maximum allowable step size set initially as D~ = 0.4.) The same problem is solved by an always convergent algorithm in Back (1969) where each iteration requires three function evaluations as well as a derivative evaluation (that is each iteration involves twice the amount of calculations as the algorithms of Sections 2 and 3). @ the basis of the results reported in Back, his algorithm requires at best twice as many iterations as that of the algorithm of this paper and at worst ten times as many iterations. (That is, the present algori!hm is from four to twenty times faster than that of the algorithm of Back and only a little (if any) more complicated.) This comparison points up the consistency quality of the present algorithm. Of course the polynomial~(z) = z + 1 is not the only standard difficult poiy nomial to solve but the results for this problem are in fact almost identical to those obtained with other difficult polynomials. For ten polynomials each with [1O, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60] random zeros (Izl < 2), the average number of iterations to solve for all zeros of each polynomial (extracting complex zeros in pairs, weighting real zero iterations by one half, and using double precision arithmetic) is in the range [5f- 1, 5++ 1, 6f 1, 6++ 1, 7*1, 8+1] confirming the statement above. For polynomials with low order multiple zeros there is little or no variation from the results indicated so far. For the case of high order multiple zeros inherent accuracy limitations are encountered as illustrated in for example the solution of (z + 1~ = O with first estimate [0.5, 0,01]. Here with n = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 the number of iterations to yield a first zero is 22, 24, 27, 27, 27 and the average number of iterations to yield all zeros is 7, 6, 7, 6, 8, 6, 9 respectively. For higher order polynomkds the inaccuracies using double precision arithmetic are intolerable. The methods of this paper have not improved the accuracy of the basic Newton algorithm-only speeded it up and avoided poor convergence characteristics. To compare the present algorithm with those of Jenkins & Traub, Dejon & Nickel and Lehmer is best done first on the basis of complexity. These algorithms involve considerably more computation for each iteration than the present algorithm. For example, the algorithm of Dejon & Nickel requires all derivatives off(z) to be calculated. Thus the calculation time for each iteration goes up in proportion to
n II

i as in the present algorithm. It is not surprising therefore i=] i=~1 that the number of iterations is less than that of the algorithm of Section 3. Even so, the complexity and calculation times appear to be of an order of magnitude greater

~ i as compared to

than that of the algorithm of this paper. The same may be said of many of the always

CONSISTENTLY RAPIDALGORITHM

109

convergent algorithms in the literature. We shall not give a detailed comparison for each ofthese methods. To conclude, it is perhaps worthwhile to mention that investigations so far carried out in applying the techniques of this paper to Bairstows method and Laguerres method have also been partially successful and fully successful respectively. As for Newtons method, the first indication that convergence may not be proceeding satisfldctorily in either of the above methods is that the step size increases at a particular iteration. Also, as for Newtons method, the application of ideas of Section 3, namely to introduce a direction change when step size increases, helps considerably. However, with second derivatives information available as in Laguerres method, more efficient ways of dealing with the problem mentioned are available. Even so, the algorithm of the present paper is more eflicient in terms of calculation time and program complexity. With the modified Bairstows method, due to the existence of local minima of D in some polynomials, convergence cannot be guaranteed and frequently slow convergence occurs. Even when the modified Bairstows method converges its performance on the average is not as good as for the modified Newton method.
REFERENCES

D. A. 1967 Communs A. C.&l. 10, 655-658. ALBERTH, O. 1973 Maths Cornput. 27, 339-344.
ADAMS, BACK,

DEJON, B. & NICKEL, K.

H, 1969 Communs A. C.&l. 12, 675-684. 1969In Constructive aspects of the flmdamenta[ theorem of algebra;

proceedings of the symposium conducted at the IBM Research Laboratory, ZurichRuscldikon, Switzerland, June 5-7, 1967 (eds B. Dejon & P. Henrici). London: WileyInterscience, pp. 1-35, GRANT, J. A. & HITCHINS, G. D. 1971.1. Inst. Maths AppIics 8, 122-129.
HOUSEHOLDER, A. S. 1971 JENKINS, M. LEIiMER, D. A. & TRAUB, J. F.

Num. Math. 16, 375-382. 1970 Num. Math. 14, 252263. (See

also 1972 Communs

A. C./W. 15, 97-99.)

H. 1961J. Ass. cornput. Mach. 8, 151-162.

16-35.

MOORE, J. B. 1967 f. Ass. comput. Mach. 14, 311-315. MOORE, J. B. 1970 IEEE Trans. on Computers C-19(1), 79-80. PETERS, G. & WILKINSON, J. H. 1971 J. Inst. Maths Applies 8, STEWART, G. W. 1969 Num. Math. 13, 458-471. WARD, J. A. 1957 J. Ass. comput. Mach. 4, 148-150.
WILKINSON, J. H. 1963

Rounding errors in algebraic processes. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall.

Appendix (1) Evaluation off(z) andfJz) for the algorithm (2) requires 2n complex (8n real) multiplications for the case when ak are complex and half this amount when the coeficien~s a~ a~e reaL Perhaps the Qmplest method to evaluate these quantities is by nested rnuhip~~cation as follows. Two sequences bk and c~ defined by bO = 1, b,+, = z b~+a~ c~+~= ZCk+bk co = 1, are calculated simultaneously for k = 1 to n to obtain ~(z) = b.+l and
f.(z) = co.

110

J. B. MOORE

After a zero of ~(z) has been accepted and divided out from the polynomial, the n- 1 reduced order polynomial is ~ bkzn-1 -. k=o (2) Termination of the algorithm. Notice that the algorithm of Fig. 2 accepts a zero of~(z) when D has reached its minimum value achievable using the Newton algorithm (2). This is detected when D increases at an iteration and yet ~D is less than a small value E which is initially set for any zero removal as a conservative estimate of a round-off error bound. Notice also that in the event that the initial estimate E is set too low, as will usually be the case when converging to a high order multiple zero for example, the actual round-off errors cause oscillations in D. These oscillations in D are detected and cause an increase in E so that the algorithm will terminate. For real polynomials an alternative approach is to use a round-off error bound for E (Adams, 1967). (3) Estimate of calculation accuracy. The value of ~Dj at the final iteration is a reasonable estimate of the computation accuracy and should be printed out along with the value of zj at the final iteration. (4) Polynomial defiation. Here the results of Peters & Wilkinson are relevant if full accuracy is required in a composite deflation process. With the simpler forward deflation process, zeros should be found in increasing magnitude. This presents no special difficulty since with the initial estimate of [0, O],the algorithm usually finds the zero of minimum magnitude. Once zeros are found using a deflation technique (with high precision arithmetic in at least the last four iterations), improvement in accuracy can be achieved using the undefeated polynomial. If ill-conditioning is suspected, the zeros found using the techniques above could be chosen as starting points for the algorithms of which find all roots simultaneously. The combination of the methods of this paper with the methods of Alberth (1973) will yield more rapid solutions than the methods of Alberth aloneat least when there is little a priori information concerning zero locations. (5) Selection of initial zero estimate Zo. It is perhaps worthwhile for the algorithm to select an initial approximation to a zero off(z) from two or three tentative estimates of the minimum magnitude zero by choosing the one with the minimum value of D. Suggestionsfor the various initial estimates are: (a) standard initial estimates such as [O@05,O]or random zeros in the unit square, (b) the conjugate value of the previously calculated root (for the case of real coefficients this is a good check on accuracy involving only a few extra iterations), (c) the previously calculated zero value (in case there is a multipIe root or cluster of roots).