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 OpenAlexaff
Charles Audet

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Numerical OptimisationSame topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207