MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1490905176

Stiffness reduction of complex non-linear models and procedure to maintain solution quality

2009· article· en· W1490905176 on OpenAlexaff
Cyril Garneau, Damien J. Batstone, Filip Claeys, Peter A. Vanrolleghem

Bibliographic record

VenueQueensland's institutional digital repository (The University of Queensland) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJacobian matrix and determinantMathematicsSolverLinearizationApplied mathematicsRunge–Kutta methodsOdeReduction (mathematics)Differential algebraic equationInstabilityEigenvalues and eigenvectorsOrdinary differential equationControl theory (sociology)Differential equationMathematical optimizationComputer scienceNonlinear systemMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wastewater treatment models consisting of large sets of non-linear ODE are usually stiff. Because stiff solvers cannot typically be applied, due to dynamic inputs, long computation times result. To limit the computational burden, model reduction, e.g. by linearization or by singular perturbation, has been applied on individual cases with good results, but there are no generalised methods to apply this in DAE systems. We therefore developed a method to improve the efficiency of a Diagonally Implicit Runge-Kutta (DIRK) DAE solver. The method consists of reducing the number of differential equations in the model by transforming some of them into algebraic equations, i.e. assuming instantaneous equilibrium. The Homotopy method is used to link the state variables to the large eigenvalues of the Jacobian (i.e. the fast dynamics). By solving these “stiff” state equations algebraically, important improvements in calculation time can be achieved. However, several practical issues remain. In particular, it is important to confirm that the reduction of the original model does not induce instability or unacceptable error. Control of instability is achieved by comparing the solution of five simulated steps computed with the reduced model to the solution of a single step of equivalent time computed with the full model. Since implicit Runge-Kutta methods show highly stable response, the full step can be considered as a converging estimate of the true solution, and thus a comparison point to detect instability. In case of unacceptable error (i.e. instability detected), the five simulated steps are rejected and the original model is used. An unacceptable error typically arises when a stiff state variable loses its stiffness after one step. This is common when states are influenced by non-linear equations in themselves, as apparent eigenvalues can drop dramatically when the state moves towards equilibrium. In such a case, the variation of the state variable away from equilibrium will be too large, missing potentially important events. The eigenvalue related to the state will pass from a very high eigenvalue to a much lower eigenvalue after a single simulated time step. To detect such a case, eigenvalues are recomputed after one time step and the number of “large” eigenvalues is compared before and after the time step. In case of a modification, the step is rejected and recalculated with the original model. Results have shown that improvements up to 45% in the number of function evaluations can be observed. Best improvements have been observed at more stringent error tolerances. Stability and error control have shown promising results, but the model reduction induces visible changes in intermediate values of stiff state variables. Caution must be used if results need high precision in all state variables.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQueensland's institutional digital repository (The University of Queensland)Same topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207