Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study considers the problem of the extreme behavior exhibited by solutions to Burgers equation subject to stochastic forcing. More specifically, we are interested in the maximum growth achieved by the 'enstrophy' (the Sobolev $H^1$ seminorm of the solution) as a function of the initial enstrophy $\mathcal{E}_0$, in particular, whether in the stochastic setting this growth is different than in the deterministic case considered by Ayala & Protas (2011). This problem is motivated by questions about the effect of noise on the possible singularity formation in hydrodynamic models. The main quantities of interest in the stochastic problem are the expected value of the enstrophy and the enstrophy of the expected value of the solution. The stochastic Burgers equation is solved numerically with a Monte Carlo sampling approach. By studying solutions obtained for a range of optimal initial data and different noise magnitudes, we reveal different solution behaviors and it is demonstrated that the two quantities always bracket the enstrophy of the deterministic solution. The key finding is that the expected values of the enstrophy exhibit the same power-law dependence on the initial enstrophy $\mathcal{E}_0$ as reported in the deterministic case. This indicates that the stochastic excitation does not increase the extreme enstrophy growth beyond what is already observed in the deterministic case.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".