Uniform error estimate of an asymptotic preserving scheme for the Lévy-Fokker-Planck equation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We establish a uniform-in-scaling error estimate for the asymptotic preserving (AP) scheme proposed by Xu and Wang [Commun. Math. Sci. 21 (2023), pp. 1–23] for the Lévy-Fokker-Planck (LFP) equation. The main difficulties stem not only from the interplay between the scaling and numerical parameters but also the slow decay of the tail of the equilibrium state. We tackle these problems by separating the parameter domain according to the relative size of the scaling parameter ε \varepsilon : in the regime where ε \varepsilon is large, we design a weighted norm to mitigate the issue caused by the fat tail, while in the regime where ε \varepsilon is small, we prove a strong convergence of LFP towards its fractional diffusion limit with an explicit convergence rate. This method extends the traditional AP estimates to cases where uniform bounds are unavailable. Our result applies to any dimension and to the whole span of the fractional power.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".