Two‐level Fourier analysis of multigrid for higher‐order finite‐element discretizations of the Laplacian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".