MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1906421350 · doi:10.1090/mcom/3046

Rigorous numerics for analytic solutions of differential equations: the radii polynomial approach

2015· article· en· W1906421350 on OpenAlexaff
Allan Hungria, Jean‐Philippe Lessard, J. D. Mireles James

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Computation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNumerical Methods and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsHomoclinic orbitNonlinear systemPolynomialOrdinary differential equationBounding overwatchOperator (biology)Interval arithmeticMathematical analysisApplied mathematicsDifferential equationPartial differential equation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Judicious use of interval arithmetic, combined with careful pen and paper estimates, leads to effective strategies for computer assisted analysis of nonlinear operator equations. The method of radii polynomials is an efficient tool for bounding the smallest and largest neighborhoods on which a Newton-like operator associated with a nonlinear equation is a contraction mapping. The method has been used to study solutions of ordinary, partial, and delay differential equations such as equilibria, periodic orbits, solutions of initial value problems, heteroclinic and homoclinic connecting orbits in the C k C^{\mathbf {k}} category of functions. In the present work we adapt the method of radii polynomials to the analytic category. For ease of exposition we focus on studying periodic solutions in Cartesian products of infinite sequence spaces. We derive the radii polynomials for some specific application problems and give a number of computer assisted proofs in the analytic framework.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations73
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics of ComputationSame topicNumerical Methods and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207