[petsc-dev] PetscCitations: software or underlying math

[Jed Brown]

Matthew Knepley <knepley at 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)?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20131024/c13ad0fc/attachment.sig>