Stopping Criteria for the Iterative Solution of Linear Least Squares Problems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explain an interesting property of minimum residual iterative methods for the solution of the linear least squares (LS) problem. Our analysis demonstrates that the stopping criteria commonly used with these methods can in some situations be too conservative, causing any chosen method to perform too many iterations or even fail to detect that an acceptable iterate has been obtained. We propose a less conservative criterion to determine whether a given iterate is an acceptable LS solution. This is merely a sufficient condition, but it approaches a necessary condition in the limit as the given iterate approaches the exact LS solution. We also propose a necessary and sufficient condition to determine whether a given approximate LS solution is an acceptable LS solution, based on recent results on backward perturbation analysis of the LS problem. Although both of the above new conditions use quantities that are too expensive to compute in practical situations, we suggest potential approaches for estimating some of these quantities efficiently. We illustrate our results with several numerical examples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it