2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.cam.2020.112781
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A conjugate gradient projection method for solving equations with convex constraints

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The efficiency and suitability of the proposed algorithm for large scale problems is as a result of its low storage and lack of Jacobian matrix computation. Numerical results obtained from the problems considered proved that this algorithm is more efficient in comparison with some existing algorithms, specifically, those in [45], [49] and [50]. Moreover, the global convergence properties of the algorithm are proved under some appropriate assumptions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The efficiency and suitability of the proposed algorithm for large scale problems is as a result of its low storage and lack of Jacobian matrix computation. Numerical results obtained from the problems considered proved that this algorithm is more efficient in comparison with some existing algorithms, specifically, those in [45], [49] and [50]. Moreover, the global convergence properties of the algorithm are proved under some appropriate assumptions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Using some test problems, we compare the performance of MCDPM with three other algorithms. Specifically, Algorithm 2.1 proposed by Li et al [49], Self-adaptive three-term conjugate gradient method (SATCGM) algorithm by Wang et al [50] and the NLS algorithm proposed in [45]. In MCDPM, Algorithm 2.1 and SATCGM, Solodov and Svaiter line search [34] is used whereas the NLS algorithm considered a different line search.…”
Section: Numerical Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In NLS, Algorithm 2.1 and SATCGM all parameters are maintained as they are in [45], [49], [50] respectively. As for MCDPM, σ = 0.0001 is used whereas for β, different values were tested in the interval (0, 1), but β = 0.6 was observed to give the best result.…”
Section: Numerical Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this section, the numerical behavior of the proposed algorithm (Algorithm 1) in comparison with two existing methods is examined. We compare the performance of Algorithm 1 with a conjugate gradient projection method for solving nonlinear equations with convex constraints by Zheng et al [46] denoted as Algorithm 2 and a new three-term conjugate gradient-based projection method for solving large-scale nonlinear monotone equations by Koorapetse et al [24] denoted as Algorithm 3. Algorithm 1 is implemented using the following parameters: σ = 0.001, µ = 1 ρ = 0.7, γ = 1.7 and λ = 1.2.…”
Section: Numerical Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%