MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597278668 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.7541

Characterizing the stabilization size for semi-implicit Fourier-spectral method to phase field equations

2014· preprint· en· W1597278668 on OpenAlexaff
Dong Li, Zhonghua Qiao, Tao Tang

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSolidification and crystal growth phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaHong Kong Baptist University
KeywordsLipschitz continuityNonlinear systemMathematicsPhase field modelsStability (learning theory)Field (mathematics)Applied mathematicsCahn–Hilliard equationEnergy (signal processing)Term (time)Mathematical analysisWork (physics)Fourier seriesNumerical analysisPhase (matter)Partial differential equationComputer sciencePhysicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent results in the literature provide computational evidence that stabilized semi-implicit time-stepping method can efficiently simulate phase field problems involving fourth-order nonlinear dif- fusion, with typical examples like the Cahn-Hilliard equation and the thin film type equation. The up-to-date theoretical explanation of the numerical stability relies on the assumption that the deriva- tive of the nonlinear potential function satisfies a Lipschitz type condition, which in a rigorous sense, implies the boundedness of the numerical solution. In this work we remove the Lipschitz assumption on the nonlinearity and prove unconditional energy stability for the stabilized semi-implicit time-stepping methods. It is shown that the size of stabilization term depends on the initial energy and the perturba- tion parameter but is independent of the time step. The corresponding error analysis is also established under minimal nonlinearity and regularity assumptions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.174 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicSolidification and crystal growth phenomenaFrench-language works237,207