Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11714 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866910926691631104 |
|---|---|
| author | Lim, Alexander Liu, Yang Roosta, Fred |
| author_facet | Lim, Alexander Liu, Yang Roosta, Fred |
| contents | Since the development of the conjugate gradient (CG) method in 1952 by Hestenes and Stiefel, CG, has become an indispensable tool in computational mathematics for solving positive definite linear systems. On the other hand, the conjugate residual (CR) method, closely related CG and introduced by Stiefel in 1955 for the same settings, remains relatively less known outside the numerical linear algebra community. Since their inception, these methods -- henceforth collectively referred to as conjugate direction methods -- have been extended beyond positive definite to indefinite, albeit consistent, settings. Going one step further, in this paper, we investigate the theoretical and empirical properties of these methods under inconsistent systems. Among other things, we show that small modifications to the original algorithms allow for the pseudo-inverse solution. Furthermore, we show that CR is essentially equivalent to the minimum residual method, proposed by Paige and Saunders in 1975, in such contexts. Lastly, we conduct a series of numerical experiments to shed lights on their numerical stability (or lack thereof) and their performance for inconsistent systems. Surprisingly, we will demonstrate that, unlike CR and contrary to popular belief, CG can exhibit significant numerical instability, bordering on catastrophe in some instances. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2401_11714 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Conjugate Direction Methods Under Inconsistent Systems Lim, Alexander Liu, Yang Roosta, Fred Numerical Analysis Since the development of the conjugate gradient (CG) method in 1952 by Hestenes and Stiefel, CG, has become an indispensable tool in computational mathematics for solving positive definite linear systems. On the other hand, the conjugate residual (CR) method, closely related CG and introduced by Stiefel in 1955 for the same settings, remains relatively less known outside the numerical linear algebra community. Since their inception, these methods -- henceforth collectively referred to as conjugate direction methods -- have been extended beyond positive definite to indefinite, albeit consistent, settings. Going one step further, in this paper, we investigate the theoretical and empirical properties of these methods under inconsistent systems. Among other things, we show that small modifications to the original algorithms allow for the pseudo-inverse solution. Furthermore, we show that CR is essentially equivalent to the minimum residual method, proposed by Paige and Saunders in 1975, in such contexts. Lastly, we conduct a series of numerical experiments to shed lights on their numerical stability (or lack thereof) and their performance for inconsistent systems. Surprisingly, we will demonstrate that, unlike CR and contrary to popular belief, CG can exhibit significant numerical instability, bordering on catastrophe in some instances. |
| title | Conjugate Direction Methods Under Inconsistent Systems |
| topic | Numerical Analysis |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11714 |