MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032858295 · doi:10.1063/1.4912436

Efficient accurate non-iterative breaking point detection and computation for state-dependent delay differential equations

2015· article· en· W2032858295 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputationContinuationPoint (geometry)Breaking wavePoint-to-pointMathematicsFunction (biology)AlgorithmComputer scienceApplied mathematicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When solving delay differential equations (DDEs) with state-dependent delays the problem of breaking point detection is important. Points where the solution is not smooth enough to provide the order of the method must be included into the computational mesh, otherwise a reduction in the order of the solution will result. The problem, however is to detect and compute such points efficiently. Breaking points arise every time a delay falls on a previous breaking point (either of the calculated solution or in the history function). In the case of retarded DDEs the new breaking point is (at least) one order smoother than the previous breaking point that gave rise to it. For fixed or time-dependent delays the breaking points can be precomputed independent of the solution, but for state-dependent delays the positions of the breaking points depend on the computed solution. If a breaking point is detected and the step-size is changed in order to incorporate the point into the mesh, then the new step-size generates a new solution and the breaking point moves. Consequently, breaking point detection is traditionally performed iteratively, and is computationally expensive. The same breaking point can also be detected multiple times. In the current work we propose a fast non-iterative method for finding breaking points with sufficient precision to preserve the order of up to third or fourth order methods. Our method makes use of analytic continuation of the solution across breaking points (including possible breaking points in the initial history function), and we explain how we handle this carefully to attain the desired order. Test results are presented for Explicit Functional Continuous Runge–Kutta methods, showing that they retain their order of convergence when the solutions have breaking points.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.268 · 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