The impact of velocity update frequency on time accuracy for mantle convection particle methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computing the velocity field is an expensive process for mantle convection codes. This has implications for particle methods used to model the advection of quantities such as temperature or composition. A common choice for the numerical treatment of particle trajectories is classical fourth-order Runge–Kutta (ERK4) integration, which involves a velocity computation at each of its four stages. To reduce the cost per time step, it is possible to evaluate the velocity for a subset of the four time integration stages. We explore two such alternative schemes, in which velocities are only computed for: a) stage 1 on odd-numbered time steps and stages 2–4 for even-numbered time steps, and b) stage 1 for all time steps. A theoretical analysis of stability and accuracy is presented for all schemes. It was found that the alternative schemes are first-order accurate with stability regions different from that of ERK4. The efficiency and accuracy of the alternate schemes were compared against ERK4 in four test problems covering isothermal, thermal, and thermochemical flows. Exact solutions were used as reference solutions when available. In agreement with theory, the alternate schemes were observed to be first-order accurate for all test problems. Accordingly, they may be used to efficiently compute solutions to within modest error tolerances. For small error tolerances, however, ERK4 was the most efficient.
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 | 0.004 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".