Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com> writes: > I would argue that Saad's implementation suggestions (like incremental > QR) are much better than the GCR and justify an independent citation.
The real difference is that GCR keeps two sets of vectors. It does not have any "brute-force QR". But GCR allows nonlinear preconditioners and provides the true residual at each iteration at no extra cost. These weaknesses were not pointed out in the 1986 GMRES paper. The 1993 FGMRES paper did not cite the GCR paper, though it has pretty much the same attributes, minus GCR's ability to produce the true residual. >> "In practical implementation it is usually more suitable to replace >> the Gram-Schmidt algorithm of step 2 by the modified Gram-Schmidt >> algorithm" >> >> If someone uses LGMRES, would we produce a citation only to Baker et al, >> > > Only to Baker. This should be easy since SS would be associated with GMRES. What about CG with the single reduction or with Bill's trick? Does that tweak mean that Hestenes and Stiefel don't get cited, where as they would be otherwise? Who gets cited for PCFIELDSPLIT? >> or also to Saad & Schultz? What about the BiCG family, containing many >> more variants that are slight variations on existing methods? Or >> > > We need to build in support for selection with options I think. Okay, to do this, we need to extend the interface to include one or more classification labels. Should those labels be extensible (dynamically registered) or static (enum)?
pgpuXL244xy6F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
