Assessment of adaptive and heuristic time stepping for variably saturated flow
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".