Assessment of adaptive and heuristic time stepping for variably saturated flow
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The performance of improved initial estimates and ‘heuristic’ and ‘adaptive’ techniques for time step control in the iterative solution of Richards equation is evaluated. The so‐called heuristic technique uses the convergence behaviour of the iterative scheme to estimate the next time step whereas the adaptive technique regulates the time step on the basis of an approximation of the local time truncation error. The sample problems used to assess these various schemes are characterized by nonuniform (in time) boundary conditions, sharp gradients in the infiltration fronts, and discontinuous derivatives in the soil hydraulic properties. It is found that higher order initial solution estimates improve the convergence of the iterative scheme for both the heuristic and adaptive techniques, with greater overall performance gains for the heuristic scheme, as could be expected. It is also found that the heuristic technique outperforms the adaptive method under strongly nonlinear conditions. Previously reported observations suggesting that adaptive techniques perform best when accuracy requirements on the numerical solution are very stringent are confirmed. Overall both heuristic and adaptive techniques have their limitations, and a more general or mixed time stepping strategy combining truncation error and convergence criteria is recommended for complex problems. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it