Talk:Conjugate gradient method

Comment

In your algorithm, the formula to calculate pk differs from Jonathan Richard Shewchuk paper. The index of r should be k instead of k-1. Mmmh, sorry, it seams to be correct! ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.66.40.105 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

additional comment:

basis vector set $P = \{ p_0, ... p_{n-1} \}$.

Original research in "description" section?

The "description" section has always been painfully confusing to whoever wants to understand the theory behind the conjugate gradient method as the two "as a direct/iterative method" subsections provide nothing close to the actual algorithm, which is only vaguely justified with a cryptic paragraph at the beginning of the "resulting algorithm" subsection.

It now seems even worse to me that a large portion of the section appears to consist of pure original research—although the equations are true, nobody derives the conjugate gradient method that way, i.e., expressing the solution as a linear combination of the search directions and then calculating coefficients. (Let's not mention the "numerical example" subsection, which is probably the most obvious OR offender.) I looked at Hestenes and Stiefel's paper and Jonathan Shewchuk's writing, which are close in the way of thinking. But they describe the method as a special case of the conjugate direction method, which readily gives the expressions for α_i and x_i, no need for linear expansion.

Probably the best way out is a rewrite. Just follow either or both of the two classical derivations (conjugate direction method and Lanczos iteration). Kxx (talk | contribs) 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue appears to be fixed as of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.185.230 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Monotonic improvements?

"Fortunately, the conjugate gradient method can be used as an iterative method as it provides monotonically improving approximations x_k to the exact solution." Is this really true? I find, in practice, that the residual norm(A*x_k - b) is definitely not monotonic w.r.t. k. As an example, I invite you to try the following program with the given octave code. You will see that the residuals, when x_0=[0;0;0], are [1.3776, 1.3986, 1.6422, 1.4e-14].

A := [0.100397715109637, 0.333310651201826, 0.197818584877521; 0.333310651201826, 1.443856474586787, 0.826552007973684; 0.197818584877521, 0.826552007973684, 1.143082020356276];

b := [0.964888535199277, 0.157613081677548, 0.970592781760616]';

Rocketman768 (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A note is added that monotonicity is in the energy norm, so the issue is resolved as of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.185.230 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Complex (preconditioned) CG

The CG algorithm extends to complex matrices and vectors in both the original and the preconditioned case. The derivation for this can be found in Iterative Methods for Solving Linear Systems, A. Greenbaum. The changes to the algorithms are trivial - the transposes are replaced by the hermitian (conjugate) transpose (which I always denote as superscript H). It's necessary in the preconditioned case to take care whether it is the update for z or r that is conjugated (in the real case, it doesn't matter which is transposed), but the algorithm shown is correct. I suggest a comment should be made somewhere that the complex case is also covered. Finding references to this is _not_ trivial (almost universally the derivations say "For real..."). [edit: claiming ownership or last comment] Hgomersall (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Done by adding a new section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.185.230 (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

dead link correction for LSQR

old link = http://www.stanford.edu/group/SOL/software/lsqr.html new link = http://www.stanford.edu/group/SOL/software/lsqr/

Notsofastyou2 (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(very new to wikipedia,sorry if I did this wrong)