On the stability of alternating‐direction explicit methods for advection‐diffusion equations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alternating‐Direction Explicit (A.D.E.) finite‐difference methods make use of two approximations that are implemented for computations proceeding in alternating directions, e.g., from left to right and from right to left, with each approximation being explicit in its respective direction of computation. Stable A.D.E. schemes for solving the linear parabolic partial differential equations that model heat diffusion are well‐known, as are stable A.D.E. schemes for solving the first‐order equations of fluid advection. Several of these are combined here to derive A.D.E. schemes for solving time‐dependent advection‐diffusion equations, and their stability characteristics are discussed. In each case, it is found that it is the advection term that limits the stability of the scheme. The most stable of the combinations presented comprises an unconditionally stable approximation for computations carried out in the direction of advection of the system, from left to right in this case, and a conditionally stable approximation for computations proceeding in the opposite direction. To illustrate the application of the methods and verify the stability conditions, they are applied to some quasi‐linear one‐dimensional advection‐diffusion problems. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Numer Methods Partial Differential Eq, 2007
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it