MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130284218 · doi:10.1088/0266-5611/17/3/314

Grid refinement and scaling for distributed parameter estimation problems

2001· article· en· W2130284218 on OpenAlexaff
Uri M. Ascher, Eldad Haber

Bibliographic record

VenueInverse Problems · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods in inverse problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTikhonov regularizationMathematicsDiscretizationRegularization (linguistics)Applied mathematicsGridScalingFinite element methodTerm (time)Nonlinear systemEstimation theoryMathematical analysisMathematical optimizationInverse problemAlgorithmComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers problems of distributed parameter estimation from data measurements on solutions of differential equations. A nonlinear least squares functional is minimized to approximately recover the sought parameter function (i.e. the model). This functional consists of a data fitting term, involving the solution of a finite volume or finite element discretization of the forward differential equation, and a Tikhonov-type regularization term, involving the discretization of a mix of model derivatives. The resulting nonlinear optimization problems can be very large and costly to solve. Thus, we seek ways to solve as much of the problem as possible on coarse grids. We propose to search for the regularization parameter first on a coarse grid. Then, a gradual refinement technique to find both the forward and inverse solutions on finer grids is developed. The grid spacing of the model discretization, as well as the relative weight of the entire regularization term, affect the sort of regularization achieved and the algorithm for gradual grid refinement. We thus investigate a number of questions which arise regarding their relationship, including the correct scaling of the regularization matrix. For nonuniform grids we rigorously associate the practice of using unscaled regularization matrices with approximations of a weighted regularization functional. We also discuss interpolation for grid refinement. Our results are demonstrated numerically using synthetic examples in one and three dimensions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInverse ProblemsSame topicNumerical methods in inverse problemsFrench-language works237,207