Optimized parameterized Uzawa methods for solving complex Helmholtz equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we know that, the parameterized Uzawa (PU) method can be very efficient when used to solve the standard saddle point problem, especially, when we have good and accurate estimation of preconditioned Schur complement matrix. In this paper, by taking full use of the special structure of coefficient matrix arising from complex Helmholtz equations, two types of optimized PU (OPU) methods are discussed theoretically and experimentally. Specifically, the convergence factors of these two OPU methods are less than 0.172, and the optimal result of first OPU method can reach 0.0396 with σ 1 ≥ σ 2 > 0 , which is currently the best theoretical result in the literatures. Moreover, the second OPU method has better computational advantages compared with the first OPU method as it avoids the inverse computation of W at each step, indicating the less CPU time will be costed by the second OPU method. In addition, the optimal parameters involved in our algorithms consist of constants, reducing the computational complexity associated with parameter selection. Finally, numerical results are given, not only show the effectiveness of OPU methods, but also confirm the rationality of theoretical analysis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".