Roots of Polynomials: on twisted QR methods for companion matrices and pencils
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
Two generalizations of the companion QR algorithm by J.L. Aurentz, T. Mach, R. Vandebril, and D.S. Watkins, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 36(3): 942--973, 2015, to compute the roots of a polynomial are presented. First, we will show how the fast and backward stable QR algorithm for companion matrices can be generalized to a QZ algorithm for companion pencils. Companion pencils admit a greater flexibility in scaling the polynomial and distributing the matrix coefficients over both matrices in the pencil. This allows for an enhanced stability for polynomials with largely varying coefficients. Second, we will generalize the pencil approach further to a twisted QZ algorithm. Whereas in the classical QZ case Krylov spaces govern the convergence, the convergence of the twisted case is determined by a rational Krylov space. A backward error analysis to map the error back to the original pencil and to the polynomial coefficients shows that in both cases the error scales quadratically with the input. An extensive set of numerical experiments supports the theoretical backward error, confirms the numerical stability and shows that the computing time depends quadratically on the problem size.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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