MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968250174 · doi:10.1137/040620047

A Multipreconditioned Conjugate Gradient Algorithm

2006· article· en· W1968250174 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert Bridson, Chen Greif

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMatrix Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConjugate gradient methodPreconditionerMathematicsDerivation of the conjugate gradient methodConjugate residual methodAlgorithmPositive-definite matrixGeneralizationMatrix (chemical analysis)Nonlinear conjugate gradient methodApplied mathematicsBiconjugate gradient methodLinear systemBlock (permutation group theory)Cholesky decompositionGradient methodConjugateDomain decomposition methodsRelation (database)Coefficient matrixGradient descentComputer scienceIterative methodCombinatoricsMathematical analysisEigenvalues and eigenvectorsFinite element methodArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a generalization of the conjugate gradient method that uses multiple preconditioners, combining them automatically in an optimal way. The algorithm may be useful for domain decomposition techniques and other problems in which the need for more than one preconditioner arises naturally. A short recurrence relation does not in general hold for this new method, but in at least one case such a relation is satisfied: for two symmetric positive definite preconditioners whose sum is the coefficient matrix of the linear system. A truncated version of the method works effectively for a variety of test problems. Similarities and differences between this algorithm and the standard and block conjugate gradient methods are discussed, and numerical examples are provided.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and ApplicationsSame topicMatrix Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207