MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311989621 · doi:10.1016/j.amc.2022.127774

Numerical evolution of the resistive relativistic magnetohydrodynamic equations: A minimally implicit Runge-Kutta scheme

2022· article· en· W4311989621 on OpenAlexfundno aff
I. Cordero-Carrión, Samuel Santos-Pérez, Clara Martínez-Vidallach

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mathematics and Computation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Social FundConselleria de Innovación, Universidades, Ciencia y Sociedad Digital, Generalitat ValencianaOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationGovernment of CanadaAmerican Concrete Institute FoundationGeneralitat ValencianaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
KeywordsRunge–Kutta methodsMagnetohydrodynamic driveConvergence (economics)Numerical analysisApplied mathematicsMathematicsNumerical methods for ordinary differential equationsScheme (mathematics)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationMagnetohydrodynamicsDifferential equationOrdinary differential equationMathematical analysisDifferential algebraic equationPhysicsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Mathematics and ComputationSame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207