Generalizing reduction‐based algebraic multigrid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Algebraic multigrid (AMG) methods are often robust and effective solvers for solving the large and sparse linear systems that arise from discretized PDEs and other problems, relying on heuristic graph algorithms to achieve their performance. Reduction‐based AMG (AMGr) algorithms attempt to formalize these heuristics by providing two‐level convergence bounds that depend concretely on properties of the partitioning of the given matrix into its fine‐ and coarse‐grid degrees of freedom. MacLachlan and Saad (SISC 2007) proved that the AMGr method yields provably robust two‐level convergence for symmetric and positive‐definite matrices that are diagonally dominant, with a convergence factor bounded as a function of a coarsening parameter. However, when applying AMGr algorithms to matrices that are not diagonally dominant, not only do the convergence factor bounds not hold, but measured performance is notably degraded. Here, we present modifications to the classical AMGr algorithm that improve its performance on matrices that are not diagonally dominant, making use of strength of connection, sparse approximate inverse (SPAI) techniques, and interpolation truncation and rescaling, to improve robustness while maintaining control of the algorithmic costs. We present numerical results demonstrating the robustness of this approach for both classical isotropic diffusion problems and for non‐diagonally dominant systems coming from anisotropic diffusion.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".