New Approach for Radial Basis Function Based on Partition of Unity of Taylor Series Expansion with Respect to Shape Parameter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radial basis function (RBF) is gaining popularity in function interpolation as well as in solving partial differential equations thanks to its accuracy and simplicity. Besides, RBF methods have almost a spectral accuracy. Furthermore, the implementation of RBF-based methods is easy and does not depend on the location of the points and dimensionality of the problems. However, the stability and accuracy of RBF methods depend significantly on the shape parameter, which is primarily impacted by the basis function and the node distribution. At a small value of shape parameter, the RBF becomes more accurate, but unstable. Several approaches were followed in the open literature to overcome the instability issue. One of the approaches is optimizing the solver in order to improve the stability of ill-conditioned matrices. Another approach is based on searching for the optimal value of the shape parameter. Alternatively, modified bases are used to overcome instability. In the open literature, radial basis function using QR factorization (RBF-QR), stabilized expansion of Gaussian radial basis function (RBF-GA), rational radial basis function (RBF-RA), and Hermite-based RBFs are among the approaches used to change the basis. In this paper, the Taylor series is used to expand the RBF with respect to the shape parameter. Our analyses showed that the Taylor series alone is not sufficient to resolve the stability issue, especially away from the reference point of the expansion. Consequently, a new approach is proposed based on the partition of unity (PU) of RBF with respect to the shape parameter. The proposed approach is benchmarked. The method ensures that RBF has a weak dependency on the shape parameter, thereby providing a consistent accuracy for interpolation and derivative approximation. Several benchmarks are performed to assess the accuracy of the proposed approach. The novelty of the present approach is in providing a means to achieve a reasonable accuracy for RBF interpolation without the need to pinpoint a specific value for the shape parameter, which is the case for the original RBF interpolation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".