Solving Non-Linear Fractional Variational Problems Using Jacobi Polynomials
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
The aim of this paper is to solve a class of non-linear fractional variational problems (NLFVPs) using the Ritz method and to perform a comparative study on the choice of different polynomials in the method. The Ritz method has allowed many researchers to solve different forms of fractional variational problems in recent years. The NLFVP is solved by applying the Ritz method using different orthogonal polynomials. Further, the approximate solution is obtained by solving a system of nonlinear algebraic equations. Error and convergence analysis of the discussed method is also provided. Numerical simulations are performed on illustrative examples to test the accuracy and applicability of the method. For comparison purposes, different polynomials such as 1) Shifted Legendre polynomials, 2) Shifted Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind, 3) Shifted Chebyshev polynomials of the third kind, 4) Shifted Chebyshev polynomials of the fourth kind, and 5) Gegenbauer polynomials are considered to perform the numerical investigations in the test examples. Further, the obtained results are presented in the form of tables and figures. The numerical results are also compared with some known methods from the literature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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