MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549989273 · doi:10.4153/cmb-2016-077-5

The Shifted Classical Circulant and Skew Circulant Splitting Iterative Methods for Toeplitz Matrices

2016· article· en· W2549989273 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Mathematical Bulletin · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMatrix Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsToeplitz matrixCirculant matrixMathematicsIterative methodHermitian matrixApplied mathematicsSkewMatrix (chemical analysis)Discrete mathematicsAlgorithmPure mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is known that every Toeplitz matrix T enjoys a circulant and skew circulant splitting (denoted CSCS) i.e., T = C−S with C a circulantmatrix and S a skew circulantmatrix. Based on the variant of such a splitting (also referred to as CSCS), we first develop classical CSCS iterative methods and then introduce shifted CSCS iterative methods for solving hermitian positive deûnite Toeplitz systems in this paper. The convergence of each method is analyzed. Numerical experiments show that the classical CSCS iterative methods work slightly better than the Gauss–Seidel (GS) iterative methods if the CSCS is convergent, and that there is always a constant α such that the shifted CSCS iteration converges much faster than the Gauss–Seidel iteration, no matter whether the CSCS itself is convergent or not.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · 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