MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1959663720 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v7n2p125

The Integrating Factors for Riccati and Abel Differential Equations

2015· article· en· W1959663720 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chein‐Shan Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanNational Science Council
KeywordsMathematicsRiccati equationDifferential equationHomogeneous differential equationUniversal differential equationFirst-order partial differential equationMathematical analysisOrdinary differential equationExact differential equationAlgebraic Riccati equationDelay differential equationNonlinear systemApplied mathematicsDifferential algebraic equation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We can recast the Riccati and Abel differential equationsinto new forms in terms of introduced integrating factors.Therefore, the Lie-type systems endowing with transformation Lie-groups$SL(2,{\mathbb R})$ can be obtained.The solution of second-order linearhomogeneous differential equation is an integrating factorof the corresponding Riccati differential equation.The numerical schemes which are developed to fulfil the Lie-group property have better accuracy and stability than other schemes.We demonstrate that upon applying the group-preserving scheme (GPS) to the logistic differential equation, it is not only qualitatively correct for all values of time stepsize $h$, and is also the most accurate one among all numerical schemes compared in this paper.The group-preserving schemes derived for the Riccati differential equation, second-order linear homogeneous and non-homogeneous differential equations, the Abel differential equation and higher-order nonlinear differential equations all have accuracy better than $O(h^2)$.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.056
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.540
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.001 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207