MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140140973 · doi:10.1109/dmcc.1990.555433

Conjugate Gradient Methods for Spline Collocation Equations

2005· article· en· W2140140973 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjugate gradient methodSpline (mechanical)Collocation (remote sensing)Computer scienceCollocation methodApplied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical analysisAlgorithmDifferential equationEngineeringOrdinary differential equationMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the parallel computation of linear second order elliptic Partial Differential Equation (PDE) problems in rectangular domains. We discuss the application of Conjugate Gradient (CG) and Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (PCG) methods to the linear system arising from the discretisation of such problems using quadratic splines and the collocation discretisation methodology. Our experiments show that the number of iterations required for convergence of CG-QSC (Conjugate Gradient applied to Quadratic Spline Collocation equations) grows linearly with the square root of the number of equations. We implemented the CG and PCG methods for the solution of the Quadratic Spline Collocation (QSC) equations on the iPSC/2 hypercube and present performance evaluation results for up to 32 processors configurations. Our experiments show efficiencies of the order of 90%, for both the fixed and scaled speedups.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.361 · 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