MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019270511 · doi:10.1137/100803092

Convergent Finite Difference Solvers for Viscosity Solutions of the Elliptic Monge–Ampère Equation in Dimensions Two and Higher

2011· article· en· W2019270511 on OpenAlexaff
Brittany D. Froese, Adam M. Oberman

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsDiscretizationStencilViscosity solutionMathematical analysisMonotone polygonPartial differential equationMonge–Ampère equationElliptic curveNewton's methodConvergence (economics)Finite differenceViscosityFinite element methodApplied mathematicsNonlinear systemGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The elliptic Monge–Ampère equation is a fully nonlinear partial differential equation that originated in geometric surface theory and has been applied in dynamic meteorology, elasticity, geometric optics, image processing, and image registration. Solutions can be singular, in which case standard numerical approaches fail. Novel solution methods are required for stability and convergence to the weak (viscosity) solution. In this article we build a wide stencil finite difference discretization for the Monge–Ampère equation. The scheme is monotone, so the Barles–Souganidis theory allows us to prove that the solution of the scheme converges to the unique viscosity solution of the equation. Solutions of the scheme are found using a damped Newton's method. We prove convergence of Newton's method and provide a systematic method to determine a starting point for the Newton iteration. Computational results are presented in two and three dimensions, which demonstrates the speed and accuracy of the method on a number of exact solutions, which range in regularity from smooth to nondifferentiable.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations140
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Numerical AnalysisSame topicGeometric Analysis and Curvature FlowsFrench-language works237,207