Element‐wise <i>a posteriori</i> estimates based on hierarchical bases for non‐linear parabolic problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We show that the issue of a posteriori estimate the errors in the numerical simulation of non‐linear parabolic equations can be reduced to a posteriori estimate the errors in the approximation of an elliptic problem with the right‐hand side depending on known data of the problem and the computed numerical solution. A procedure to obtain local error estimates for the p version of the finite element method by solving small discrete elliptic problems with right‐hand side the residual of the p ‐FEM solution is introduced. The boundary conditions are inherited by those of the space of hierarchical bases to which the error estimator belongs. We prove that the error in the numerical solution can be reduced by adding the estimators that behave as a locally defined correction to the computed approximation. When the error being estimated is that of a elliptic problem constant free local lower bounds are obtained. The local error estimation procedure is applied to non‐linear parabolic differential equations in several space dimensions. Some numerical experiments for both the elliptic and the non‐linear parabolic cases are provided. Copyright © 2005 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".