MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385963966 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.00820

Geometry preserving numerical methods for physical systems with finite-dimensional Lie algebras

2023· preprint· en· W4385963966 on OpenAlexfundno aff
L. Blanco, Fernando Jiménez Alburquerque, Cristina Sardón

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de MontréalCentre de Recherches Mathématiques
KeywordsLie groupMathematicsSimple Lie groupAdjoint representationLie theoryAdjoint representation of a Lie algebraRepresentation of a Lie groupLie bracket of vector fieldsLie algebraManifold (fluid mechanics)Fundamental vector fieldAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematicsMathematical analysisLie conformal algebra

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a geometric integrator to numerically approximate the flow of Lie systems. The key is a novel procedure that integrates the Lie system on a Lie group intrinsically associated with a Lie system on a general manifold via a Lie group action, and then generates the discrete solution of the Lie system on the manifold via a solution of the Lie system on the Lie group. One major result from the integration of a Lie system on a Lie group is that one is able to solve all associated Lie systems on manifolds at the same time, and that Lie systems on Lie groups can be described through first-order systems of linear homogeneous ordinary differential equations (ODEs) in normal form. This brings a lot of advantages, since solving a linear system of ODEs involves less numerical cost. Specifically, we use two families of numerical schemes on the Lie group, which are designed to preserve its geometrical structure: the first one based on the Magnus expansion, whereas the second is based on Runge-Kutta-Munthe-Kaas (RKMK) methods. Moreover, since the aforementioned action relates the Lie group and the manifold where the Lie system evolves, the resulting integrator preserves any geometric structure of the latter. We compare both methods for Lie systems with geometric invariants, particularly a class on Lie systems on curved spaces. We also illustrate the superiority of our method for describing long-term behavior and for differential equations admitting solutions whose geometric features depends heavily on initial conditions. As already mentioned, our milestone is to show that the method we propose preserves all the geometric invariants very faithfully, in comparison with nongeometric numerical methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.065 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207