Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Steepest descent preconditioning is considered for the recently proposed nonlinear generalized minimal residual (N‐GMRES) optimization algorithm for unconstrained nonlinear optimization. Two steepest descent preconditioning variants are proposed. The first employs a line search, whereas the second employs a predefined small step. A simple global convergence proof is provided for the N‐GMRES optimization algorithm with the first steepest descent preconditioner (with line search), under mild standard conditions on the objective function and the line search processes. Steepest descent preconditioning for N‐GMRES optimization is also motivated by relating it to standard non‐preconditioned GMRES for linear systems in the case of a standard quadratic optimization problem with symmetric positive definite operator. Numerical tests on a variety of model problems show that the N‐GMRES optimization algorithm is able to very significantly accelerate convergence of stand‐alone steepest descent optimization. Moreover, performance of steepest‐descent preconditioned N‐GMRES is shown to be competitive with standard nonlinear conjugate gradient and limited‐memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno methods for the model problems considered. These results serve to theoretically and numerically establish steepest‐descent preconditioned N‐GMRES as a general optimization method for unconstrained nonlinear optimization, with performance that appears promising compared with established techniques. In addition, it is argued that the real potential of the N‐GMRES optimization framework lies in the fact that it can make use of problem‐dependent nonlinear preconditioners that are more powerful than steepest descent (or, equivalently, N‐GMRES can be used as a simple wrapper around any other iterative optimization process to seek acceleration of that process), and this potential is illustrated with a further application example. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".