MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995548785 · doi:10.1145/1206040.1206041

Robust and reliable defect control for Runge-Kutta methods

2007· article· en· W1995548785 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Mathematical Software · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsRunge–Kutta methodsOrdinary differential equationInterval (graph theory)Initial value problemOdeComputer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Differential equationMathematicsApplied mathematicsAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quest for reliable integration of initial value problems (IVPs) for ordinary differential equations (ODEs) is a long-standing problem in numerical analysis. At one end of the reliability spectrum are fixed stepsize methods implemented using standard floating point, where the onus lies entirely with the user to ensure the stepsize chosen is adequate for the desired accuracy. At the other end of the reliability spectrum are rigorous interval-based methods, that can provide provably correct bounds on the error of a numerical solution. This rigour comes at a price, however: interval methods are generally two to three orders of magnitude more expensive than fixed stepsize floating-point methods. Along the spectrum between these two extremes lie various methods of different expense that estimate and control some measure of the local errors and adjust the stepsize accordingly. In this article, we continue previous investigations into a class of interpolants for use in Runge-Kutta methods that have a defect function whose qualitative behavior is asymptotically independent of the problem being integrated. In particular the point, in a step, where the maximum defect occurs as h → 0 is known a priori. This property allows the defect to be monitored and controlled in an efficient and robust manner even for modestly large stepsizes. Our interpolants also have a defect with the highest possible order given the constraints imposed by the order of the underlying discrete formula. We demonstrate the approach on three Runge-Kutta methods of orders 5, 6, and 8, and provide Fortran and preliminary Matlab interfaces to these three new integrators. We also consider how sensitive such methods are to roundoff errors. Numerical results for four problems on a range of accuracy requests are presented.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.289 · 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