On the use of higher-order azimuthal schemes in 3-D PE modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the issue of using higher-order finite difference schemes to handle the azimuthal derivative term in a three-dimensional parabolic equation based model is addressed. The three-dimensional penetrable wedge benchmark problem is chosen to illustrate the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed schemes. Both point source and modal initializations of the pressure field are considered. For each higher-order finite difference scheme used in azimuth, the convergence of the numerical solution with respect to the azimuth is investigated and the CPU times are given. Some comparisons with solutions obtained from another 3-D model [J. A. Fawcett, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 2627-2632 (1993)] are presented. The numerical simulations show that the use of a higher-order scheme in azimuth allows one to reduce the required number of points in the azimuthal direction while still obtaining accurate solutions. The higher-order schemes have approximately the same efficiency as a FFT-based approach (in fact, may outperform it slightly); however, the finite difference approach has the advantage that it may be more flexible than the FFT approach for various PE approximations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".