MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610954229 · doi:10.1504/ijmmno.2018.088992

Tuning Runge-Kutta parameters on a family of ordinary differential equations

2018· article· en· W2610954229 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

VenueInternational Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Optimisation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRunge–Kutta methodsOdeOrdinary differential equationEuler methodMathematicsNonlinear systemL-stabilityNumerical methods for ordinary differential equationsApplied mathematicsClass (philosophy)Differential equationSet (abstract data type)Backward Euler methodExplicit and implicit methodsEuler equationsMathematical analysisDifferential algebraic equationComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Runge-Kutta class of iterative methods is designed to approximate solutions of a system of ordinary differential equations (ODE). The second-order class of Runge-Kutta methods is determined by a system of three nonlinear equations and four unknowns, and includes the modified-Euler and mid-point methods. The fourth-order class is determined by a system of eight nonlinear equations and 10 unknowns. This work formulates the question of identifying good values of these eight parameters for a given family of ODE as a blackbox optimisation problem. The objective is to determine the parameter values that minimise the overall error produced by a Runge-Kutta method on a training set of ODE. Numerical experiments are conducted using the NOMAD direct-search optimisation solver.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.239 · 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