A high-order deferred correction method for the solution of free boundary problems using penalty iteration, with an application to American option pricing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a high-order deferred correction algorithm combined with penalty iteration for solving free and moving boundary problems, using a fourth-order finite difference method. Typically, when free boundary problems are solved on a fixed computational grid, the order of the solution is low due to the discontinuity in the solution at the free boundary, even if a high-order method is used. Using a detailed error analysis, we observe that the order of convergence of the solution can be increased to fourth-order by solving successively corrected finite difference systems, where the corrections are derived from the previously computed lower order solutions. The penalty iterations converge quickly given a good initial guess. We demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency of our algorithm using several examples. Numerical results show that our algorithm gives fourth-order convergence for both the solution and the free boundary location. We also test our algorithm on the challenging American put option pricing problem. Our algorithm gives the expected high-order convergence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it