MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542136675

Effective order strong stability preserving Runge–Kutta methods

2012· preprint· en· W1542136675 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yiannis Hadjimichael, Colin B. Macdonald, David I. Ketcheson, J. H. Verner

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology
KeywordsRunge–Kutta methodsOrder (exchange)Stability (learning theory)Applied mathematicsMathematicsSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationConstruct (python library)Computer scienceNumerical analysisMathematical analysisMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We apply the concept of effective order to strong stability preserving (SSP) explicit Runge–Kutta methods. Relative to classical Runge–Kutta methods, effective order methods are designed to satisfy a relaxed set of order conditions, but yield higher order accuracy when composed with special starting and stopping methods. The relaxed order conditions allow for greater freedom in the design of effective order methods. We show that this allows the construction of four-stage SSP methods with effective order four (such methods cannot have classical order four). However, we also prove that effective order five methods—like classical order five methods—require the use of non-positive weights and so cannot be SSP. By numerical optimization, we construct explicit SSP Runge–Kutta methods up to effective order four and establish the optimality of many of them. Numerical experiments demonstrate the validity of these methods in practice.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford)Same topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207