Numerical evolution of the resistive relativistic magnetohydrodynamic equations: A minimally implicit Runge-Kutta scheme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the Minimally-Implicit Runge-Kutta (MIRK) methods for the numerical evolution of the resistive relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (RRMHD) equations, following the approach proposed by Komissarov (2007) of an augmented system of evolution equations to numerically deal with constraints. Previous approaches rely on Implicit-Explicit (IMEX) Runge-Kutta schemes; in general, compared to explicit schemes, IMEX methods need to apply the recovery (which can be very expensive computationally) of the primitive variables from the conserved ones in numerous additional times. Moreover, the use of an iterative process for the recovery could have potential convergence problems, increased by the additional number of required loops. In addition, the computational cost of the previous IMEX approach in comparison with the standard explicit methods is much higher. The MIRK methods are able to deal with stiff terms producing stable numerical evolutions, minimize the number of recoveries needed in comparison with IMEX methods, their computational cost is similar to the standard explicit methods and can actually be easily implemented in numerical codes which previously used explicit schemes. Two standard numerical tests are shown in the manuscript.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".