MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006898615 · doi:10.1002/nla.2285

Two‐level Fourier analysis of multigrid for higher‐order finite‐element discretizations of the Laplacian

2020· article· en· W3006898615 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNumerical Linear Algebra with Applications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMultigrid methodSmoothingFinite element methodApplied mathematicsRelaxation (psychology)MathematicsGridConvergence (economics)Mathematical optimizationLaplace operatorFourier analysisFourier transformPartial differential equationComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In this paper, we employ local Fourier analysis (LFA) to analyze the convergence properties of multigrid methods for higher‐order finite‐element approximations to the Laplacian problem. We find that the classical LFA smoothing factor, where the coarse‐grid correction is assumed to be an ideal operator that annihilates the low‐frequency error components and leaves the high‐frequency components unchanged, fails to accurately predict the observed multigrid performance and, consequently, cannot be a reliable analysis tool to give good performance estimates of the two‐grid convergence factor. While two‐grid LFA still offers a reliable prediction, it leads to more complex symbols that are cumbersome to use to optimize parameters of the relaxation scheme, as is often needed for complex problems. For the purposes of this analytical optimization as well as to have simple predictive analysis, we propose a modification that is “between” two‐grid LFA and smoothing analysis, which yields reasonable predictions to help choose correct damping parameters for relaxation. This exploration may help us better understand multigrid performance for higher‐order finite element discretizations, including for Q 2 ‐ Q 1 (Taylor‐Hood) elements for the Stokes equations. Finally, we present two‐grid and multigrid experiments, where the corrected parameter choice is shown to yield significant improvements in the resulting two‐grid and multigrid convergence factors.

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 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 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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.269 · 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