MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144294838 · doi:10.1051/m2an/2009025

Gradient descent and fast artificial time integration

2009· article· en· W2144294838 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

VenueESAIM Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods in inverse problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGradient descentMathematicsRegularization (linguistics)Method of steepest descentSmoothingApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationContext (archaeology)Gradient methodComputer scienceArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration to steady state of many initial value ODEs and PDEs using the forward Euler method can alternatively be considered as gradient descent for an associated minimization problem. Greedy algorithms such as steepest descent for determining the step size are as slow to reach steady state as is forward Euler integration with the best uniform step size. But other, much faster methods using bolder step size selection exist. Various alternatives are investigated from both theoretical and practical points of view. The steepest descent method is also known for the regularizing or smoothing effect that the first few steps have for certain inverse problems, amounting to a finite time regularization. We further investigate the retention of this property using the faster gradient descent variants in the context of two applications. When the combination of regularization and accuracy demands more than a dozen or so steepest descent steps, the alternatives offer an advantage, even though (indeed because) the absolute stability limit of forward Euler is carefully yet severely violated.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.249 · 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