MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969892577 · doi:10.1137/s0895479898348519

On a Newton-Like Method for Solving Algebraic Riccati Equations

2000· article· en· W1969892577 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsControllabilityMathematicsAlgebraic Riccati equationNewton's methodConvergence (economics)Algebraic equationAlgebraic numberApplied mathematicsRiccati equationConjectureRate of convergenceMathematical analysisPure mathematicsPartial differential equationComputer scienceNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An exact line search method has been introduced by Benner and Byers [IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 43 (1998), pp. 101--107] for solving continuous algebraic Riccati equations. The method is a modification of Newton's method. A convergence theory is established in that paper for the Newton-like method under the strong hypothesis of controllability, while the original Newton's method needs only the weaker hypothesis of stabilizability for its convergence theory. It is conjectured there that the controllability condition can be weakened to the stabilizability condition. In this article we prove that conjecture.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.364 · 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