MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114535880 · doi:10.1007/s10915-009-9272-6

Comparison of Two-Level Preconditioners Derived from Deflation, Domain Decomposition and Multigrid Methods

2009· article· en· W2114535880 on OpenAlexaff
Jinyu Tang, Reinhard Nabben, C. Vuik, Yogi A. Erlangga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scientific Computing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersTechnische Universität BerlinDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPreconditionerMathematicsMultigrid methodCoefficient matrixApplied mathematicsPositive-definite matrixRobustness (evolution)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsDomain decomposition methodsMatrix (chemical analysis)Condition numberLinear systemEigendecomposition of a matrixMathematical analysisFinite element methodPartial differential equation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For various applications, it is well-known that a multi-level, in particular two-level, preconditioned CG (PCG) method is an efficient method for solving large and sparse linear systems with a coefficient matrix that is symmetric positive definite. The corresponding two-level preconditioner combines traditional and projection-type preconditioners to get rid of the effect of both small and large eigenvalues of the coefficient matrix. In the literature, various two-level PCG methods are known, coming from the fields of deflation, domain decomposition and multigrid. Even though these two-level methods differ a lot in their specific components, it can be shown that from an abstract point of view they are closely related to each other. We investigate their equivalences, robustness, spectral and convergence properties, by accounting for their implementation, the effect of roundoff errors and their sensitivity to inexact coarse solves, severe termination criteria and perturbed starting vectors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.372 · 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

Citations119
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scientific ComputingSame topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207