MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406370873 · doi:10.28924/2291-8639-23-2025-10

Another Updated Parameter for the Hestenes-Stiefel Conjugate Gradient Method

2025· article· en· W4406370873 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Osman Omer Osman Yousif, Raouf Ziadi, Mohammed A. Saleh, Abdulgader Z. Almaymuni

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQassim University
KeywordsConjugate gradient methodMathematicsConjugate residual methodDerivation of the conjugate gradient methodConvergence (economics)Nonlinear conjugate gradient methodApplied mathematicsComputationRobustness (evolution)Mathematical optimizationTrust regionAlgorithmComputer scienceGradient descentArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conjugate gradient (CG) methods are considered as one of the most popular methods for solving linear and non-linear unconstrained optimization problems, especially the problems of large-scale, that is because they are characterized by low memory requirements and strong local and global convergence properties. The method of Hestenes-Stiefel (HS) usually gives good numerical results in the practical computation. However, theoretically, its convergence properties are uncertain. To address the convergence failure of HS method, many choices for its update parameter have been proposed such as the choice of Gilbert and Nocedal in 1992, of Hager and Zhang in 2005, and of Yousif et al. in 2022. In this paper, motivated by these updated parameters, we propose another updated parameter for HS, and hence another CG method which inherits all the convergence properties of Gilbert and Nocedal, Hager and Zhang, and of Yousif et al. and has better numerical results. To show the efficiency and robustness of the new modified method in practice, a numerical experiment was done.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.389 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Analysis and ApplicationsSame topicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207