MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403584193 · doi:10.1002/nla.2593

Multigrid Reduction‐In‐Time Convergence for Advection Problems: A Fourier Analysis Perspective

2024· article· en· W4403584193 on OpenAlexafffund
Hans De Sterck, Stephanie Friedhoff, Oliver A. Krzysik, Scott MacLachlan

Bibliographic record

VenueNumerical Linear Algebra with Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMultigrid methodMathematicsReduction (mathematics)AdvectionConvergence (economics)Perspective (graphical)Fourier transformFourier analysisApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationPartial differential equationMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A long‐standing issue in the parallel‐in‐time community is the poor convergence of standard iterative parallel‐in‐time methods for hyperbolic partial differential equations (PDEs), and for advection‐dominated PDEs more broadly. Here, a local Fourier analysis (LFA) convergence theory is derived for the two‐level variant of the iterative parallel‐in‐time method of multigrid reduction‐in‐time (MGRIT). This closed‐form theory allows for new insights into the poor convergence of MGRIT for advection‐dominated PDEs when using the standard approach of rediscretizing the fine‐grid problem on the coarse grid. Specifically, we show that this poor convergence arises, at least in part, from inadequate coarse‐grid correction of certain smooth Fourier modes known as characteristic components, which was previously identified as causing poor convergence of classical spatial multigrid on steady‐state advection‐dominated PDEs. We apply this convergence theory to show that, for certain semi‐Lagrangian discretizations of advection problems, MGRIT convergence using rediscretized coarse‐grid operators cannot be robust with respect to CFL number or coarsening factor. A consequence of this analysis is that techniques developed for improving convergence in the spatial multigrid context can be re‐purposed in the MGRIT context to develop more robust parallel‐in‐time solvers. This strategy has been used in recent work to great effect; here, we provide further theoretical evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNumerical Linear Algebra with ApplicationsSame topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207