MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106833662 · doi:10.1137/s1064827599353865

Residual Replacement Strategies for Krylov Subspace Iterative Methods for the Convergence of True Residuals

2000· article· en· W2106833662 on OpenAlexafffund
H.A. van der Vorst, Qiang Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Scientific Computing · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMatrix Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcKnight Foundation
KeywordsResidualKrylov subspaceMathematicsGeneralized minimal residual methodSubspace topologyConvergence (economics)Method of mean weighted residualsApplied mathematicsComputationMathematical optimizationIterative methodAlgorithmFinite element methodMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a strategy is proposed for alternative computations of the residual vectors in Krylov subspace methods, which improves the agreement of the computed residuals and the true residuals to the level of O(u) ||A|| ||x||. Building on earlier ideas on residual replacement and on insights in the finite precision behavior of the Krylov subspace methods, computable error bounds are derived for iterations that involve occasionally replacing the computed residuals by the true residuals, and they are used to monitor the deviation of the two residuals and hence to select residual replacement steps, so that the recurrence relations for the computed residuals, which control the convergence of the method, are perturbed within safe bounds. Numerical examples are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of this new residual replacement scheme.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations69
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Scientific ComputingSame topicMatrix Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207