MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951899961 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1505.07449

A low complexity algorithm for non-monotonically evolving fronts

2015· preprint· en· W2951899961 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Tcheng, Jean‐Christophe Nave

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFast marching methodBounded functionAlgorithmDiscretizationMathematicsPartial differential equationMonotonic functionTruncation errorTruncation (statistics)Applied mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new algorithm is proposed to describe the propagation of fronts advected in the normal direction with prescribed speed function F. The assumptions on F are that it does not depend on the front itself, but can depend on space and time. Moreover, it can vanish and change sign. To solve this problem the Level-Set Method [Osher, Sethian; 1988] is widely used, and the Generalized Fast Marching Method [Carlini et al.; 2008] has recently been introduced. The novelty of our method is that its overall computational complexity is predicted to be comparable to that of the Fast Marching Method [Sethian; 1996], [Vladimirsky; 2006] in most instances. This latter algorithm is O(N^n log N^n) if the computational domain comprises N^n points. Our strategy is to use it in regions where the speed is bounded away from zero -- and switch to a different formalism when F is approximately 0. To this end, a collection of so-called sideways partial differential equations is introduced. Their solutions locally describe the evolving front and depend on both space and time. The well-posedness of those equations, as well as their geometric properties are addressed. We then propose a convergent and stable discretization of those PDEs. Those alternative representations are used to augment the standard Fast Marching Method. The resulting algorithm is presented together with a thorough discussion of its features. The accuracy of the scheme is tested when F depends on both space and time. Each example yields an O(1/N) global truncation error. We conclude with a discussion of the advantages and limitations of our method.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.126 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207