MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965490868 · doi:10.1090/s0025-5718-05-01772-2

Global optimization of explicit strong-stability-preserving Runge-Kutta methods

2005· article· en· W1965490868 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven J. Ruuth

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Computation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRunge–Kutta methodsMathematicsDiscretizationMathematical proofStability (learning theory)Variety (cybernetics)Applied mathematicsPartial differential equationNonlinear systemMathematical optimizationNumerical analysisMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strong-stability-preserving Runge-Kutta (SSPRK) methods are a type of time discretization method that are widely used, especially for the time evolution of hyperbolic partial differential equations (PDEs). Under a suitable stepsize restriction, these methods share a desirable nonlinear stability property with the underlying PDE; e.g., positivity or stability with respect to total variation. This is of particular interest when the solution exhibits shock-like or other nonsmooth behaviour. A variety of optimality results have been proven for simple SSPRK methods. However, the scope of these results has been limited to low-order methods due to the detailed nature of the proofs. In this article, global optimization software, BARON, is applied to an appropriate mathematical formulation to obtain optimality results for general explicit SSPRK methods up to fifth-order and explicit low-storage SSPRK methods up to fourth-order. Throughout, our studies allow for the possibility of negative coefficients which correspond to downwind-biased spatial discretizations. Guarantees of optimality are obtained for a variety of third- and fourth-order schemes. Where optimality is impractical to guarantee (specifically, for fifth-order methods and certain low-storage methods), extensive numerical optimizations are carried out to derive numerically optimal schemes. As a part of these studies, several new schemes arise which have theoretically improved time-stepping restrictions over schemes appearing in the recent literature.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations145
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics of ComputationSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207