4.7 Article

Numerical solution of differential equations using multiquadric radial basis function networks

期刊

NEURAL NETWORKS
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 185-199

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0893-6080(00)00095-2

关键词

radial basis function networks; multiquadric function; global approximation; mesh-free method; solution of differential equation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents mesh-free procedures for solving linear differential equations (ODEs and elliptic PDEs) based on multiquadric (MQ) radial basis function networks (RBFNs). Based on our study of approximation of function acid its derivatives using RBFNs that was reported in an earlier paper (Mai-Duy, N. & Tran-Cong, T. (1999). Approximation of function and its derivatives using radial basis function networks. Neural networks, submitted), new RBFN approximation procedures are developed in this paper for solving DEs, which can also be classified into two types: a direct (DRBFN) and an indirect (IRBFN) RBFN procedure. In the present procedures, the width of the RBFs is the only adjustable parameter according to a((i)) = betad((i)), where d((i)) is the distance from the ith centre to the nearest centre. The IRBFN method is more accurate than the DRBFN one and experience so far shows that beta can be chosen in the range 7 less than or equal to beta less than or equal to 10 for the former. Different combinations of RBF centres and collocation points (uniformly and randomly distributed) are tested on both regularly and irregularly shaped domains. The results for a 1D Poisson's equation show that the DRBFN and the IRBFN procedures achieve a norm of error of at least O (1.0 x 10(-4)) and O (1.0 x 10(-8)), respectively, with a centre density of 50. Similarly, the results for a 2D Poisson's equation show that the DRBFN and the IRBFN procedures achieve a norm of error of at least O( 1.0 X 10(-3)) and O( 1.0 x 10(-6)) respectively, with a centre density of 12 x 12. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据