MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995994084 · doi:10.4153/s0008439519000742

A New Method for High-Degree Spline Interpolation: Proof of Continuity for Piecewise Polynomials

2019· article· en· W2995994084 on OpenAlexaffvenue
A. Pepin, Steven S. Beauchemin, S. Léger, Normand Beaudoin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Mathematical Bulletin · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsSpline interpolationPiecewiseSpline (mechanical)Interpolation (computer graphics)Degree (music)Box splineApplied mathematicsThin plate splineTrigonometric interpolationMathematical analysisPolynomial interpolationBilinear interpolationComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Effective and accurate high-degree spline interpolation is still a challenging task in today’s applications. Higher degree spline interpolation is not so commonly used, because it requires the knowledge of higher order derivatives at the nodes of a function on a given mesh. In this article, our goal is to demonstrate the continuity of the piecewise polynomials and their derivatives at the connecting points, obtained with a method initially developed by Beaudoin (1998, 2003) and Beauchemin (2003). This new method, involving the discrete Fourier transform (DFT/FFT), leads to higher degree spline interpolation for equally spaced data on an interval $[0,T]$ . To do this, we analyze the singularities that may occur when solving the system of equations that enables the construction of splines of any degree. We also note an important difference between the odd-degree splines and even-degree splines. These results prove that Beaudoin and Beauchemin’s method leads to spline interpolation of any degree and that this new method could eventually be used to improve the accuracy of spline interpolation in traditional problems.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Mathematical BulletinSame topicAdvanced Numerical Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207