Efficiency‐based <i>h</i>‐ and <i>hp</i>‐refinement strategies for finite element methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two efficiency‐based grid refinement strategies are investigated for adaptive finite element solution of partial differential equations. In each refinement step, the elements are ordered in terms of decreasing local error, and the optimal fraction of elements to be refined is determined based on efficiency measures that take both error reduction and work into account. The goal is to reach a pre‐specified bound on the global error with minimal amount of work. Two efficiency measures are discussed, ‘work times error’ and ‘accuracy per computational cost’. The resulting refinement strategies are first compared for a one‐dimensional (1D) model problem that may have a singularity. Modified versions of the efficiency strategies are proposed for the singular case, and the resulting adaptive methods are compared with a threshold‐based refinement strategy. Next, the efficiency strategies are applied to the case of hp ‐refinement for the 1D model problem. The use of the efficiency‐based refinement strategies is then explored for problems with spatial dimension greater than one. The ‘work times error’ strategy is inefficient when the spatial dimension, d , is larger than the finite element order, p , but the ‘accuracy per computational cost’ strategy provides an efficient refinement mechanism for any combination of d and p . Copyright © 2008 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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".