Parallel-in-Time Solution of Scalar Nonlinear Conservation Laws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We consider the parallel-in-time solution of scalar nonlinear conservation laws in one spatial dimension. The equations are discretized in space with a conservative finite-volume method using weighted essentially nonoscillatory (WENO) reconstructions, and in time with high-order explicit Runge–Kutta methods. The solution of the global, discretized space-time problem is sought via a nonlinear iteration that uses a novel linearization strategy in cases of nondifferentiable equations. Under certain choices of discretization and algorithmic parameters, the nonlinear iteration coincides with Newton’s method, although, more generally, it is a preconditioned residual correction scheme. At each nonlinear iteration, the linearized problem takes the form of a certain discretization of a linear conservation law over the space-time domain in question. An approximate parallel-in-time solution of the linearized problem is computed with a single multigrid reduction-in-time (MGRIT) iteration; however, any other effective parallel-in-time method could be used in its place. The MGRIT iteration employs a novel coarse-grid operator that is a modified conservative semi-Lagrangian discretization and generalizes those we have developed previously for nonconservative scalar linear hyperbolic problems. Numerical tests are performed for the inviscid Burgers and Buckley–Leverett equations. For many test problems, the solver converges in just a handful of iterations with a convergence rate independent of mesh resolution, including problems with (interacting) shocks and rarefactions. Reproducibility of computational results. This paper has been awarded the “SIAM Reproducibility Badge: Code and data available” as a recognition that the authors have followed reproducibility principles valued by SISC and the scientific computing community. Code and data that allow readers to reproduce the results in this paper are available at https://github.com/okrzysik/pit-nonlinear-hyperbolic-github and in the supplementary materials ( pit-nonlinear-hyperbolic-master.zip [35.6MB], M163026_SM_1.pdf [12.3MB]). [Formula: see text]
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".