And, guess what? Since, the Galerkin approximation requires one to choose a basis that is appropriate to the problem at hand, we now have a deep learning solution too (since neural network learning is essentially equivalent to learning an adaptive basis). It is called the Deep Galerkin Method [1]. In a nutshell, the method directly minimizes the L2 error over the PDE, boundary conditions and initial conditions. The i…
Why would you use the Monte Carlo method when the quasi-Monte Carlo method converges so much more quickly? I admit, I am a little biased, because I worked on some QMC stuff in grad school, but it works really, really well in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-Monte_Carlo_method
Galerkin Approximation
21–25 of 25 posts
Re: Galerkin Approximation
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you use the Monte Carlo method when the quasi-Monte Carlo method converges so much more quickly? I admit, I am a little biased, because I worked on some QMC stuff in grad school, but it works really, really well in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-Monte_Carlo_method
If the number of dimensions is high enough then pretty much all points are far away from each other so there's no real need to worry about points clustering. You're at a much greater risk of simply missing interesting parts of your space than you are of oversampling any part of it.
Re: Galerkin Approximation
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the number of dimensions is high enough then pretty much all points are far away from each other so there's no real need to worry about points clustering. You're at a much greater risk of simply missing interesting parts of your space than you are of oversampling any part of it.
This can be especially bad if one corner hides a catastrophe. Any automatic method is likely to have an exponential struggle to sample appropriately. At a certain point, you just need to apply your own understanding of the problem you are trying to solve, and resort to an ad hoc method to do the “right” thing.
Re: Galerkin Approximation
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
This can be especially bad if one corner hides a catastrophe. Any automatic method is likely to have an exponential struggle to sample appropriately. At a certain point, you just need to apply your own understanding of the problem you are trying to solve, and resort to an ad hoc method to do the “right” thing.
That's exactly the problem QMC methods solve. By choosing a sequence of sample points of low discrepancy, you make sure to sample the entire space as evenly as possible.
Re: Galerkin Approximation
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
This can be especially bad if one corner hides a catastrophe. Any automatic method is likely to have an exponential struggle to sample appropriately. At a certain point, you just need to apply your own understanding of the problem you are trying to solve, and resort to an ad hoc method to do the “right” thing.
That's exactly the problem QMC methods solve. By choosing a sequence of sample points of low discrepancy, you make sure to sample the entire space as evenly as possible.