Can linear collocation ever beat quadratic
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational approaches are becoming increasingly important in neuroscience, where complex, nonlinear systems modelling neural activity across multiple spatial and temporal scales are the norm. This paper considers collocation techniques for solving neural field models, which typically take the form of a partial integro-dfferential equation. In particular, we investigate and compare the convergence properties of linear and quadratic collocation on both regular grids and more general meshes not fixed to the regular Cartesian grid points. For regular grids we perform a comparative analysis against more standard techniques, in which the convolution integral is computed either by using Fourier based methods or via the trapezoidal rule. Perhaps surprisingly, we find that on regular, periodic meshes, linear collocation displays better convergence properties than quadratic collocation, and is in fact comparable with the spectral convergence displayed by both the Fourier based and trapezoidal techniques. However, for more general meshes we obtain superior convergence of the \nconvolution integral using higher order methods, as expected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it