Determining when to stop an iterative process requires careful consideration of the acceptable deviation from a desired solution. This involves establishing a criterion for halting the calculations based on an estimate of the error. One common method involves setting a maximum number of cycles, alongside an error tolerance. If the process reaches the pre-defined maximum number of cycles before achieving the desired error threshold, the iterations are halted. For example, a numerical method might involve repeatedly refining an estimate until the change in the estimate between successive iterations falls below a specified value, but a limit on the number of such refinements will still be imposed.
The application of such controls is crucial in many computational scenarios. Setting limits prevents infinite loops or excessively long runtimes. Furthermore, balancing computational cost with result precision is an inherent benefit of this technique. Early termination prevents unnecessary computations, but could simultaneously affect the result’s quality if the tolerance is not met. Historically, this concept has been employed in various fields like optimization, root-finding algorithms, and numerical simulations.
Thus, the following aspects warrant a deeper dive: methods to define error, considerations when selecting the maximum number of cycles, and strategies for analyzing the impact of early termination on the achieved solution. These aspects need to be carefully accounted for in the overall computational method and should be carefully considered when selecting methods of refining an acceptable solution.
1. Error definition
The error definition is a foundational element in determining when to cease an iterative process. It directly impacts the process of setting the maximum number of cycles by establishing a metric against which progress is measured. A clear understanding of the chosen error definition is therefore crucial for the effective use of iterative methods.
-
Absolute Error
Absolute error calculates the magnitude of the difference between an approximate value and the exact value. In the context of iterative methods, it could represent the difference between successive iterations. Utilizing absolute error, the cycle count can be configured so that iterations stop only when the magnitude of the shift falls below a set limit. For instance, consider solving an equation through successive approximations. Absolute error would be the straightforward deviation between previous and current solutions. A small magnitude suggests a near convergence.
-
Relative Error
Relative error calculates the error as a percentage or fraction of the true value. It is particularly useful when dealing with values of differing magnitudes. When solving for small number ranges, an equivalent absolute error would be more acceptable. Consider estimating the area using Monte Carlo. Relative error, therefore, gives a proportional metric when determining the number of samples based on the estimated area.
-
Residual Error
Residual error measures the extent to which a solution satisfies an equation. In solving systems of equations, it quantifies how well the obtained solution fulfills all equations. Lower residual suggests greater accuracy, though it might not directly equate to absolute error. Iterations continue until the residual falls below an established tolerance.
-
Convergence Criterion
The convergence criterion involves multiple error metrics and termination conditions. The convergence criterion is essential in complex iterations. By considering these criteria when deciding on the number of cycles, the trade-off between accuracy and time to solution can be carefully managed.
The selection of an appropriate error definition significantly shapes the determination of the cycle limit. Each definitionabsolute, relative, residual, or some derived compositeaffects the interpretation of progress and thus impacts the maximum cycle count before termination. The error should be clearly defined to facilitate iterative methods, allowing for a logical and interpretable approach to managing the trade-off between computational effort and solution accuracy.
2. Tolerance selection
Tolerance selection is intrinsically linked to determining the maximum number of iterations in iterative numerical methods. The tolerance defines the acceptable level of error in the solution, influencing the cycle limit needed to reach it. Setting an appropriate tolerance is a critical part of establishing iteration halting conditions. A stricter tolerance necessitates a greater number of cycles to meet the accuracy demands. For example, in solving a system of linear equations using an iterative solver, a tolerance of 1e-6 would generally require more cycles than a tolerance of 1e-3 to achieve convergence. The tolerance acts as the benchmark against which progress is measured, directly dictating the computational effort required.
The interplay between tolerance and cycle limit is further complicated by the nature of the problem being solved and the algorithm employed. Problems with ill-conditioned matrices may require lower tolerances and, consequently, significantly more cycles to reach an acceptable solution. Similarly, some algorithms exhibit slower convergence rates than others, also necessitating more cycles for a given tolerance. In gradient descent optimization, a tighter tolerance might be required to achieve a solution with a desired level of optimality. This highlights the importance of understanding the characteristics of both the problem and the numerical method to make informed tolerance choices. Improper tolerance selection can lead to either premature termination, resulting in inaccurate solutions, or unnecessary computational overhead.
In summary, tolerance selection exerts direct control over the maximum cycle count in iterative processes. The choice of tolerance must consider factors such as desired accuracy, computational cost, the problem’s inherent characteristics, and the algorithm’s convergence properties. By carefully considering these factors, it becomes possible to define tolerance ranges and establish cycle limits, effectively balancing computational effort with solution accuracy. Ignoring such considerations risks either inaccurate results or unnecessary computational expense, underscoring the practical significance of comprehending the connection between these two parameters.
3. Convergence rate
Convergence rate significantly influences the determination of a maximum iteration count in iterative numerical methods. A faster convergence rate implies that the solution approaches the desired accuracy level more quickly with each cycle. Conversely, a slower rate necessitates more cycles to achieve the same level of precision. Thus, the expected convergence rate informs the selection of an appropriate iteration limit. Algorithms with known slow convergence, such as basic fixed-point iteration, often require a higher cycle limit to ensure convergence within an acceptable tolerance. Failure to account for convergence rates leads to premature termination if the cycle limit is insufficient or excessive computation if the limit far exceeds what is required.
For example, Newton’s method for root-finding exhibits quadratic convergence under ideal conditions. This rapid convergence allows for a relatively low iteration limit compared to methods with linear convergence, such as the bisection method. However, the actual convergence rate can be affected by factors such as the initial guess or the smoothness of the function. In such scenarios, adaptive methods, which dynamically adjust the iteration limit based on observed convergence behavior, become valuable. These methods monitor the error reduction per cycle and increase or decrease the limit accordingly, providing a more robust approach than a fixed cycle count.
In conclusion, the convergence rate is a critical factor in establishing an appropriate maximum iteration count. Algorithms with slower convergence rates necessitate higher cycle limits to achieve desired accuracy. Ignoring this connection can result in either premature termination or unnecessary computational overhead. Practical implementation involves considering the theoretical convergence rate, monitoring actual convergence behavior, and, in some cases, employing adaptive strategies to dynamically adjust the iteration limit based on observed progress.
4. Maximum cycles
The specification of a maximum iteration count represents a fundamental safeguard in iterative numerical methods. It is inherently related to the management of error, providing a limit on the computational resources expended in pursuit of a solution. However, its selection requires careful consideration of the problem’s characteristics and the algorithm’s behavior to avoid premature termination or unnecessary computational expense.
-
Computational Cost Management
Maximum iteration count serves as a direct constraint on computational time and resources. Imposing a limit prevents infinite loops in non-convergent scenarios and caps the execution time for problems with slow convergence. For example, in solving a large system of equations, it ensures that computational resources are not indefinitely consumed, particularly where an exact solution may not be practically attainable due to numerical instability. A well-defined maximum cycle count is therefore crucial for resource allocation and scheduling in computational environments.
-
Error Tolerance Trade-off
The maximum number of cycles interacts directly with the error tolerance. A higher cycle count permits the iterative process to continue refining the solution to a closer approximation of the desired accuracy, provided that the algorithm is converging. However, if the cycle limit is reached before the error tolerance is met, the iterative process terminates, resulting in a solution with a higher error than desired. This trade-off necessitates careful calibration, balancing computational cost with the acceptable level of error. In this way, understanding and deciding the number of cycles is critical in managing and reducing error.
-
Algorithm Stability and Convergence
Algorithm stability affects the appropriate setting of maximum cycle count. Unstable algorithms may exhibit oscillations or divergences, making convergence problematic. Setting a high cycle count for such algorithms could lead to unbounded computations without a solution. Conversely, a stable algorithm may converge rapidly, rendering a large cycle count unnecessary. Therefore, determining the cycle count requires assessing the method’s convergence behavior and its sensitivity to numerical errors. This influences the range of cycles to be iterated.
-
Practical Considerations and Heuristics
In practical applications, the maximum number of cycles is often determined using a combination of theoretical analysis, empirical testing, and heuristic rules. For instance, one might start with a reasonable cycle count based on the algorithm’s known convergence rate and adjust it based on experimental runs or knowledge of the problem’s specific characteristics. In image processing, for example, iterative reconstruction algorithms often have maximum cycle counts determined based on acceptable reconstruction quality within a reasonable time frame. Practical determination allows the iteration to satisfy time constraints.
The imposition of a maximum iteration count is a pragmatic necessity in iterative numerical methods, driven by considerations of computational resources, error tolerance, and algorithm stability. Its selection must be informed by both theoretical understanding and practical experience to strike a balance between computational cost and solution accuracy. Through these various considerations, the error associated to a given process can be controlled, giving users more ability to manage iterations and solution outputs.
5. Computational cost
Computational cost is inextricably linked to the determination of the maximum number of iterations in iterative numerical methods. The computational expense associated with each iteration directly impacts the overall resource consumption of the algorithm. Increasing the cycle limit typically enhances solution accuracy but also increases the time and resources required. Understanding the relationship between the number of iterations and the computational cost per iteration is crucial in managing overall computational efficiency. In finite element analysis, for instance, increasing the number of iterations in an iterative solver improves the accuracy of the stress distribution solution but also increases the time to obtain results. A careful balance must therefore be struck to optimize both accuracy and resource utilization. The iteration limit has a large impact on computational costs.
The nature of the numerical method employed strongly influences the computational cost per iteration. Algorithms with complex operations, such as those involving matrix inversions or high-order derivatives, tend to have higher costs per cycle. In such instances, efforts to reduce the overall number of iterations, even at the expense of slightly increased cost per cycle, may be beneficial. Furthermore, the hardware on which the algorithm is executedprocessor speed, memory capacity, and parallel processing capabilitiesalso impacts computational cost. For instance, when employing iterative machine learning training algorithms such as gradient descent, choosing parameters that require less computation is beneficial for reducing the processing time. A full comprehension of algorithm cost and the computational overhead is therefore vital.
In summary, the interplay between computational cost and iteration limit dictates the overall efficiency and practicality of iterative numerical methods. Balancing computational expense with accuracy involves carefully considering the cost per iteration, the rate of convergence, and the available computational resources. Effectively doing this allows users to strike that balance, which has a direct relation with the level of solution outputs and overall cost, both in time and computational output. By carefully weighing these factors, one can establish an iteration limit that optimizes computational efficiency without sacrificing solution quality and accuracy.
6. Algorithm stability
Algorithm stability, a crucial property in numerical methods, directly influences the determination of a maximum iteration count. A stable algorithm ensures that small errors in the input data or during intermediate calculations do not lead to unbounded growth of the error in the solution. In contrast, an unstable algorithm can amplify these errors, potentially causing the iterative process to diverge or converge to an incorrect solution. Consequently, assessing and ensuring algorithm stability is integral to establishing a reliable limit on the number of cycles. The maximum cycle limit must be set low enough to avoid error amplification in unstable methods, but high enough to permit stable algorithms to converge to a desired tolerance. For instance, when solving differential equations numerically, an unstable algorithm might produce solutions that oscillate wildly and grow without bound after a certain number of iterations, irrespective of the tolerance set. Therefore, an understanding of algorithm stability is critical for setting useful bounds.
The connection between algorithm stability and setting iteration limits can be further illustrated in the context of solving linear systems of equations. Iterative methods, such as the Jacobi or Gauss-Seidel methods, may converge for diagonally dominant matrices but can diverge for other matrix types. If the method diverges, increasing the maximum cycle limit will not lead to a valid solution; instead, it will only prolong the computation and increase the magnitude of the error. In such cases, it may be necessary to switch to a more stable algorithm or precondition the matrix to improve stability before applying an iterative method. Furthermore, the error introduced by floating-point arithmetic can accumulate over many cycles, exacerbating instability. This demonstrates that the cycle limit should also account for potential error accumulation, particularly when dealing with ill-conditioned problems.
In summary, algorithm stability plays a critical role in determining the appropriate cycle limit for iterative numerical methods. A stable method allows for higher cycle limits to achieve convergence, while unstable methods require stringent limits to prevent error amplification. Failure to account for stability can result in either inaccurate solutions or wasted computational resources. Therefore, assessing and ensuring algorithm stability is an essential step in establishing a reliable and efficient iterative process, impacting the accuracy of the final result and the amount of resources that are used.
7. Stopping criteria
Establishing effective stopping criteria is critical for iterative numerical methods, and it has a direct impact on determining the maximum iteration count. These criteria define when the iterative process should terminate, based on factors like error tolerance, convergence behavior, or computational cost. A well-defined stopping strategy avoids premature termination and unnecessary iterations, striking a balance between accuracy and computational efficiency.
-
Error Tolerance
Error tolerance is a fundamental stopping criterion, setting an acceptable level of deviation from the true solution. The iterative process continues until the estimated error falls below this tolerance. For example, in solving a system of linear equations, the iterations might stop when the norm of the residual vector is less than a pre-defined threshold. The choice of error tolerance influences the number of cycles required, a tighter tolerance necessitating more iterations. Properly setting the error tolerance is essential for achieving the required accuracy without excessive computational effort, thus optimizing overall efficiency.
-
Convergence Tests
Convergence tests monitor the behavior of the iterative process to detect when it is approaching a stable solution. These tests often involve examining the change in the solution or the residual between successive iterations. If the change is below a specified threshold, it indicates that the solution is converging, and the iterations can be terminated. For instance, in optimization algorithms, a convergence test might check if the change in the objective function value is small enough. Such tests help avoid unnecessary iterations when the process is already close to convergence. They give important information and insight to the number of cycles for computations.
-
Maximum Iterations
The maximum number of cycles acts as a failsafe mechanism to prevent infinite loops or excessively long run times. Even when error tolerance and convergence tests are used, it is essential to set an upper limit on the number of cycles. If the error tolerance is not met, or convergence is not achieved within this limit, the process is terminated, preventing indefinite computation. An example is using a numerical scheme to solve a boundary value problem; if the user does not specify the number of iterations, then there will be no upper cycle limits. Although it can be considered a crude method, setting a upper cycle limit is critical for ensuring the iterative process completes in a reasonable amount of time.
-
Stagnation Detection
Stagnation detection involves monitoring the progress of the iterative process to identify when it has reached a point where it is no longer making significant improvements. This can occur when the algorithm becomes trapped in a local minimum or when the problem is ill-conditioned. If stagnation is detected, the iterations can be terminated to avoid wasting computational resources on a process that is unlikely to converge to a satisfactory solution. For instance, an iterative solver might monitor the reduction in the residual and terminate if the reduction falls below a certain rate. Detecting and addressing stagnation is essential for ensuring the overall effectiveness of the iterative method and ensuring computational efficiency.
Linking these facets to the establishment of a iteration upper-cycle reveals a comprehensive method for managing iterative processes. These techniques provide mechanisms for monitoring progress, preventing excessive computation, and detecting potential problems. By integrating error tolerance, convergence tests, maximum iterations, and stagnation detection, a robust and efficient iterative process can be achieved. This method provides the user the capability to control and reduce solution deviation and improve computational efficiency.
8. Accuracy trade-offs
The determination of a maximum iteration count in iterative numerical methods inherently involves accuracy trade-offs. Limiting the number of cycles directly impacts the achievable accuracy, creating a balance between computational cost and solution precision. Selecting an appropriate iteration limit necessitates evaluating the acceptable error level and the computational resources available. Higher cycle limits typically yield more accurate solutions, but at the expense of greater computational time and energy consumption. Conversely, lower limits reduce computational cost but may result in less precise approximations. This compromise is fundamental to the application of iterative methods, requiring a nuanced understanding of the problem at hand and the characteristics of the chosen numerical algorithm.
Real-world examples illustrate the practical significance of these trade-offs. In weather forecasting, numerical models rely on iterative simulations to predict future conditions. Increasing the iteration limit in these simulations can improve the accuracy of the forecasts, potentially leading to better warnings and preparedness for severe weather events. However, this comes at the cost of longer simulation times, which may delay the issuance of timely warnings. Similarly, in medical imaging, iterative reconstruction algorithms are used to generate images from raw data. Higher iteration limits can improve image quality, enabling more accurate diagnoses, but prolonging the reconstruction process could delay critical medical interventions. The selection of maximum cycle is thus related to these trade-offs.
In summary, accuracy trade-offs are intrinsic to iterative numerical methods and directly influence the selection of the upper iteration limit. Careful consideration of these trade-offs is crucial for balancing computational cost with solution accuracy, ensuring that the iterative process provides results that are both reliable and computationally feasible. Challenges remain in developing adaptive methods that dynamically adjust the iteration limit based on observed convergence behavior and problem characteristics, further optimizing the compromise between accuracy and efficiency. The process for selecting the limit should therefore be thoughtfully considered, as an integral facet of managing both accuracy and costs.
9. Residual analysis
Residual analysis provides essential information for determining the maximum number of iterations in iterative numerical methods. It involves examining the residual, which quantifies the extent to which the approximate solution satisfies the original problem. Analyzing the behavior of the residual over successive iterations offers insights into convergence, stability, and the overall accuracy of the numerical solution. Understanding residual behavior is critical for establishing appropriate halting criteria and setting a suitable cycle limit.
-
Residual Magnitude and Error Estimation
The magnitude of the residual provides a direct indication of the approximation error. A smaller residual generally implies a more accurate solution. By monitoring the reduction in the residual magnitude over successive cycles, one can estimate the error and determine whether the desired accuracy has been achieved. For instance, in solving a system of linear equations using an iterative solver, the norm of the residual vector is often used as an error proxy. If the residual magnitude plateaus or increases, it indicates that the iterative process is no longer improving the solution, suggesting that the maximum iteration count may have been reached or that the method is stagnating. This helps users understand and assess the amount of deviation in results.
-
Convergence Rate Assessment
The rate at which the residual decreases provides insights into the convergence properties of the numerical method. A faster rate of decay suggests rapid convergence, allowing for a lower cycle limit. Conversely, a slow decay indicates slower convergence and the potential need for a higher limit. In some cases, the convergence rate may vary over the iterations, requiring adaptive strategies for setting the cycle count. Residual analysis facilitates the assessment of convergence and the dynamic adjustment of parameters. Determining the convergence helps the user identify convergence and provides insight for iterations.
-
Stability Monitoring
Residual analysis can reveal instabilities in the iterative process. If the residual oscillates or increases significantly, it indicates potential instability, suggesting that the method may be diverging or that numerical errors are accumulating. In such cases, setting a low iteration upper limit becomes crucial to prevent unbounded growth of the error. Residual analysis provides an approach to monitor iterations and correct instabilities during a computation. This allows for the user to correct deviation if there are issues.
-
Identification of Stagnation
Residual analysis can detect when the iterative process has stagnated, reaching a point where further iterations yield minimal improvements. This can occur when the solution is trapped in a local minimum or when the problem is ill-conditioned. By monitoring the reduction in the residual over time, one can identify stagnation and terminate the iterations to avoid unnecessary computation. For instance, an iterative solver might terminate if the reduction in the residual falls below a certain threshold. This facilitates early stopping and prevents wasted computational resources. Analysis helps with identifying problems and reducing iterations.
These facets highlight the interconnected relationship between residual analysis and establishing maximum iteration criteria. Residual analysis provides direct insight into solution accuracy and convergence behavior, thereby supporting informed choices regarding appropriate iteration limits. Properly combining a residual magnitude assessment, convergence test, stability monitoring and identification of stagnation provide a robust, repeatable, and consistent method for managing iterations and reducing error.
Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions address common points of confusion or interest regarding the calculation of a maximum cycle limit in iterative numerical methods. Understanding these considerations is crucial for ensuring both solution accuracy and computational efficiency.
Question 1: Is there a universal formula to determine the optimal upper limit of iterative processes across all numerical methods?
No universally applicable formula exists. The determination of an appropriate iteration cycle upper limit depends heavily on the specific numerical method employed, the characteristics of the problem being solved, and the desired level of accuracy. A suitable cycle count typically requires balancing computational cost with solution quality. Employing a single formula without considering these factors can lead to either premature termination or excessive computation.
Question 2: How does error tolerance relate to setting the upper cycle limit?
Error tolerance establishes the acceptable level of deviation from the true solution. A tighter tolerance necessitates more cycles to reach the desired accuracy, thereby increasing the cycle count. Conversely, a looser tolerance reduces the required number of cycles. The relationship between error tolerance and upper cycle limit is inverse and critical for managing the trade-off between accuracy and computational effort.
Question 3: How does algorithm convergence rate affect setting a suitable limit?
Algorithm convergence rate indicates how quickly the solution approaches the desired accuracy level. Algorithms with faster convergence rates require fewer cycles to achieve a given error tolerance, thereby allowing for a lower upper cycle limit. Conversely, algorithms with slower convergence rates necessitate more cycles to reach the same level of precision, necessitating a higher limit. The rate of convergence heavily dictates the value of the upper limit.
Question 4: What are the risks of setting the upper cycle limit too low?
Setting a low iteration limit can lead to premature termination, resulting in solutions that do not meet the desired error tolerance or adequately represent the true solution. This is of particular concern when algorithms are converging slowly or when the problem is ill-conditioned. An insufficient upper limit sacrifices the accuracy of the solution.
Question 5: What are the risks of setting the upper cycle limit too high?
Setting a high iteration limit can result in unnecessary computational expense, as the algorithm continues to iterate even after the solution has converged to an acceptable level of accuracy. This wastes computational resources and increases execution time. Furthermore, in some cases, excessive cycles can lead to error accumulation or divergence, particularly for unstable algorithms. Setting an exceedingly high limit can therefore waste resources.
Question 6: How can residual analysis inform the selection of a cycle limit?
Residual analysis involves monitoring the residual, a measure of the extent to which the approximate solution satisfies the original problem. By observing the residual’s behavior over successive iterations, it is possible to assess convergence, detect instabilities, and identify stagnation. If the residual decreases consistently, the iterations are converging, and the limit should be adjusted based on rate of change. Residual Analysis helps determine the value to which the limit should be set to.
In summary, determining a suitable cycle limit is a complex task requiring careful consideration of numerous factors, including error tolerance, algorithm convergence rate, stability, and computational cost. There is no single formula that fits all scenarios, but a combination of theoretical analysis, empirical testing, and adaptive methods can provide a basis for informed decision-making.
The following section further explores practical considerations and best practices for setting cycle limits in different application domains.
Practical Guidance on Iteration Limit Determination
This section provides actionable insights for establishing the number of iterations within computational contexts. These tips are intended to promote effective resource management and solution accuracy.
Tip 1: Define an Acceptable Error Threshold. Establish, a priori, the maximum tolerable deviation from the idealized solution. This metric serves as the initial condition for determining the cycles necessary for computational convergence. An error threshold guides the proper cycle determination.
Tip 2: Evaluate Method Stability. Before execution, evaluate an algorithm’s stability characteristics to determine its suitability for iterative implementation. An unstable algorithm necessitates stringent management of cycles to prevent divergence or unbounded error accumulation. Stability enables cycles to be controlled.
Tip 3: Assess Convergence Rate. Determine the anticipated convergence rate of the chosen numerical method. Algorithms exhibiting slow convergence necessitate higher cycle limits to achieve the requisite accuracy, while rapidly converging methods permit lower limits. Convergence rate is very critical when deciding the amount of iterations to run.
Tip 4: Monitor Residual Behavior. Continuously observe the behavior of the residual over iterations. Residual analysis provides insights into solution accuracy and stability, guiding the dynamic adjustment of cycles. A proper assessment will determine the needed number of iterations.
Tip 5: Implement a Cycle Limit. Irrespective of the other conditions, implement a maximum cycle limit to guarantee the iterative process terminates within a reasonable timeframe. This precautionary measure prevents indefinite computation in non-convergent scenarios. The maximum cycle limit will ensure the process completes in a reasonable amount of time.
Tip 6: Adapt Limits Dynamically. Implement strategies for dynamically adapting the upper limit, based on observed convergence behavior and problem characteristics. Adaptive methods provide flexibility in managing the trade-off between accuracy and computational cost. Properly adapting limit will improve the balance between computational accuracy and time.
Effectively determining iteration limits involves a combination of theoretical understanding, empirical observation, and adaptive strategies. Applying these principles promotes solution precision and resource use when iterative methods are implemented.
The following conclusion synthesizes key considerations discussed throughout this exploration of iteration cycle limits, reinforcing central themes and offering final perspectives.
Calculating Maximum Iterations for Error Management
The determination of a maximum iteration count is critical in iterative numerical methods, impacting computational efficiency and solution accuracy. This exploration has emphasized the interplay between factors such as error tolerance, algorithm stability, convergence rate, computational cost, and residual analysis. A suitable maximum cycle count necessitates a balanced assessment of these elements, as no universal formula applies across all scenarios. The cycle upper-limit is critical in maintaining a balance between computation costs, stability and accurate solution.
Continued investigation into adaptive strategies and problem-specific tuning techniques is warranted to optimize cycle number determination. Careful consideration and informed judgment remain essential for establishing a maximum cycle limit to achieve the required accuracy within acceptable computational constraints. It is expected that the computation can be further refined and improved in the upcoming future. Therefore, the analysis presented herein is important and has significant value for iterative cycle analysis.
