On the linear convergence of circumcentered isometry methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The circumcentered Douglas--Rachford method (C--DRM), introduced by Behling, Bello Cruz and Santos, is an acceleration of the well-known Douglas-Rachford method (DRM) for finding the best approximation onto the intersection of finitely many affine subspaces. Inspired by the C--DRM, we introduced the more flexible circumcentered reflection method (CRM) and circumcentered isometry method (CIM). The CIM essentially chooses the closest point to the solution among all of the points in an associated affine hull as its iterate and is a generalization of the CRM. The circumcentered--reflection method introduced by Behling et al. to generalize the C--DRM is a special class of our CRM. We consider the CIM induced by a set of finitely many isometries for finding the best approximation onto the intersection of fixed point sets of the isometries which turns out to be an intersection of finitely many affine subspaces. We extend our previous linear convergence results on CRMs in finite-dimensional spaces from reflections to isometries. In order to better accelerate the symmetric method of alternating projections (MAP), the accelerated symmetric MAP first applies another operator to the initial point. (Similarly, to accelerate the DRM, the C--DRM first applies another operator to the initial point as well.) Motivated by these facts, we show results on the linear convergence of CIMs in Hilbert spaces with first applying another operator to the initial point. In particular, under some restrictions, our results imply that some CRMs attain the known linear convergence rate of the accelerated symmetric MAP in Hilbert spaces. We also exhibit a class of CRMs converging to the best approximation in Hilbert spaces with a convergence rate no worse than the sharp convergence rate of MAP. The fact that some CRMs attain the linear convergence rate of MAP or accelerated symmetric MAP is entirely new.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".