MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970266193 · doi:10.1137/060655286

The Max-Plus Finite Element Method for Solving Deterministic Optimal Control Problems: Basic Properties and Convergence Analysis

2008· article· en· W1970266193 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Control and Optimization · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Universitaire de la FrancophonieInstitut national de recherche en informatique et en automatique (INRIA)
KeywordsMathematicsDiscretizationFinite element methodBounded functionNorm (philosophy)Dimension (graph theory)Applied mathematicsOptimal controlMatrix (chemical analysis)Mathematical analysisCombinatoricsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a max-plus analogue of the Petrov–Galerkin finite element method to solve finite horizon deterministic optimal control problems. The method relies on a max-plus variational formulation. We show that the error in the sup-norm can be bounded from the difference between the value function and its projections on max-plus and min-plus semimodules when the max-plus analogue of the stiffness matrix is exactly known. In general, the stiffness matrix must be approximated: this requires approximating the operation of the Lax–Oleinik semigroup on finite elements. We consider two approximations relying on the Hamiltonian. We derive a convergence result, in arbitrary dimension, showing that for a class of problems, the error estimate is of order $\delta+\Delta x(\delta)^{-1}$ or $\sqrt{\delta}+\Delta x(\delta)^{-1}$, depending on the choice of the approximation, where $\delta$ and $\Delta x$ are, respectively, the time and space discretization steps. We compare our method with another max-plus based discretization method previously introduced by Fleming and McEneaney. We give numerical examples in dimensions 1 and 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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.241 · 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