MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122180808 · doi:10.1017/s0962492906400015

Adaptivity with moving grids

2009· article· en· W2122180808 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

VenueActa Numerica · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon meshComputer sciencePartial differential equationInterpolation (computer graphics)Finite element methodDiscretizationGridMathematical optimizationTruncation errorMultigrid methodFocus (optics)Adaptive mesh refinementApplied mathematicsAlgorithmMathematicsMotion (physics)Computational scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we survey r -adaptive (or moving grid) methods for solving time-dependent partial differential equations (PDEs). Although these methods have received much less attention than their h - and p -adaptive counterparts, particularly within the finite element community, we review the substantial progress that has been made in developing more robust and reliable algorithms and in understanding the basic principles behind these methods, and we give some numerical examples illustrative of the wide classes of problems for which these methods are suitable alternatives to the traditional ones. More specifically, we first examine the basic geometric properties of moving meshes in both one and higher spatial dimensions, and discuss the discretization process for PDEs on such moving meshes (both structured and unstructured). In particular, we consider the issues of mesh regularity, equidistribution, alignment, and associated variational methods. An overview is given of the general interpolation error analysis for a function or a truncation error on such an adaptive mesh. Guided by these principles, we show how to design effective moving mesh strategies. We then examine in more detail how these strategies can be implemented in practice. The first class of methods which we consider are based upon controlling mesh density and hence are called position-based methods. These make use of a so-called moving mesh PDE (MMPDE) approach and variational methods, as well as optimal transport methods. This is followed by an analysis of methods which have a more Lagrange-like interpretation, and due to this focus are called velocity-based methods. These include the moving finite element method (MFE), the geometric conservation law (GCL) methods, and the deformation map method. Finally, we present a number of specific types of examples for which the use of a moving mesh method is particularly effective in applications. These include scale-invariant problems, blow-up problems, problems with moving fronts and problems in meteorology. We conclude that, whilst r -adaptive methods are still in their relatively early stages of development, with many outstanding questions remaining, they have enormous potential and indeed can produce an optimal form of adaptivity for many problems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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