← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteWith cards better110 / 280 · beu-84b8393b738c0dc6

Error Bounds for Boundary-Stopped Positive Cubature Schemes for Hamilton--Jacobi--Bellman Equations

Mathematics · 2609.17186v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

Error Bounds for Boundary-Stopped Positive Cubature Schemes for Hamilton--Jacobi--Bellman Equations

Introduction / related work

ese methods illustrate how the choice of stencil and the form of the discrete operator affect preservation of the continuous bounds. For HJB equations, positive wide stencils have been developed through generalized finite differences [3] and semi-Lagrangian approximations [4, 9]. The latter evaluate the solution along diffusion directions and use positive interpolation at points outside the spatial grid. This allows the diffusion directions to vary with the control without requiring diagonal dominance in the grid coordinates. Ma and Forsyth [18] use a combination of compact and rotated wide stencils for the two-factor uncertain-volatility equation. The probabilistic interpretation connects these constructions to locally consistent Markov-chain approximations [17]. Probabilistic schemes have also been developed for broader classes of fully nonlinear parabolic equations, with structural conditions ensuring monotonicity [13, 15]. The present work continues our study of expectation-based positivity-preserving discretizations [27, 31, 30]. For linear parabolic equations, Xu, Ren, and Yue [31] combine the Feynman–Kac representation with positive wide-stencil interpolation and incorporate

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: With cards better

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = without cards · B = with cards

Both outputs complete the sentence about Xu, Ren, and Yue [31] by describing how boundary conditions are incorporated. Output A is generic ('yielding a discretization that preserves the maximum principle') and somewhat redundant since the entire passage is about positivity/expectation-preserving methods. Output B is more specific and better fitted: it echoes the source snippet's emphasis on 'robust treatment of boundary conditions' and 'avoids the accuracy loss commonly encountered in BZ and semi-Lagrangian schemes,' which directly connects to the draft's earlier mention of semi-Lagrangian approximations and the paper's stated focus. The conditional-expectation formulation also precisely matches the 'expectation-based' framing in the topic sentence. B advances the argument with concrete, source-consistent detail rather than a generic maximum-principle claim.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Preferred by blind review

boundary conditions through a conditional-expectation formulation that avoids the accuracy loss of compact and semi-Lagrangian treatments at the domain boundary.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · A Non-compact Positivity-Preserving Scheme for Parabolic PDE via Conditional Expectation

We propose a novel non-compact, positivity-preserving scheme for linear non-divergence form parabolic equations. Based on the Feynman-Kac formula, the solution is expressed as a conditional expectation of an associated diffusion process. Instead of using compact Markov chain approximations, we emplo…

Read full passage excerpt

We propose a novel non-compact, positivity-preserving scheme for linear non-divergence form parabolic equations. Based on the Feynman-Kac formula, the solution is expressed as a conditional expectation of an associated diffusion process. Instead of using compact Markov chain approximations, we employ a wide stencil scheme to approximate the conditional expectation, ensuring consistency and positivity preservation. This method is effective for anisotropic diffusion with mixed derivatives, where classical schemes often fail unless the covariance matrix is diagonally dominated. A key feature of our framework is its robust treatment of boundary conditions, which avoids the accuracy loss commonly encountered in BZ and semi-Lagrangian schemes.

Card 2 · Radial and Non-Radial Solution Structures for Quasilinear Hamilton--Jacobi--Bellman Equations in Bounded Settings

This paper establishes the existence, uniqueness, and global $C^{1,β}$ regularity of positive classical solutions to a class of quasilinear Hamilton--Jacobi--Bellman (HJB) equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions on bounded convex domains. The core technical contribution is a constructive existe…

Read full passage excerpt

This paper establishes the existence, uniqueness, and global $C^{1,β}$ regularity of positive classical solutions to a class of quasilinear Hamilton--Jacobi--Bellman (HJB) equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions on bounded convex domains. The core technical contribution is a constructive existence proof based on a weighted linear monotone iteration scheme. This scheme's stability and convergence are rigorously established through the construction of adaptive sub- and super-solutions leveraging the torsion function of the domain. Additionally, we provide a complete probabilistic derivation of the quasilinear PDE from the framework of controlled Itô diffusions, formally bridging the gap between stochastic optimal control theory and elliptic regularity analysis. Our results extend beyond the classical quadratic cost regime to the wider class of sub-quadratic growth source terms. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of this theoretical framework through high-precision numerical impleme …

Card 3 · A Probabilistic Numerical Method for Fully Nonlinear Parabolic PDEs

We consider the probabilistic numerical scheme for fully nonlinear PDEs suggested in \cite{cstv}, and show that it can be introduced naturally as a combination of Monte Carlo and finite differences scheme without appealing to the theory of backward stochastic differential equations. Our first main r…

Read full passage excerpt

We consider the probabilistic numerical scheme for fully nonlinear PDEs suggested in \cite{cstv}, and show that it can be introduced naturally as a combination of Monte Carlo and finite differences scheme without appealing to the theory of backward stochastic differential equations. Our first main result provides the convergence of the discrete-time approximation and derives a bound on the discretization error in terms of the time step. An explicit implementable scheme requires to approximate the conditional expectation operators involved in the discretization. This induces a further Monte Carlo error. Our second main result is to prove the convergence of the latter approximation scheme, and to derive an upper bound on the approximation error. Numerical experiments are performed for the approximation of the solution of the mean curvature flow equation in dimensions two and three, and for two and five-dimensional (plus time) fully-nonlinear Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations arising in t …

Card 4 · From a monotone probabilistic scheme to a probabilistic max-plus algorithm for solving Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations

In a previous work (Akian, Fodjo, 2016), we introduced a lower complexity probabilistic max-plus numerical method for solving fully nonlinear Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations associated to diffusion control problems involving a finite set-valued (or switching) control and possibly a continuum-value…

Read full passage excerpt

In a previous work (Akian, Fodjo, 2016), we introduced a lower complexity probabilistic max-plus numerical method for solving fully nonlinear Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations associated to diffusion control problems involving a finite set-valued (or switching) control and possibly a continuum-valued control. This method was based on the idempotent expansion properties obtained by McEneaney, Kaise and Han (2011) and on the numerical probabilistic method proposed by Fahim, Touzi and Warin (2011) for solving some fully nonlinear parabolic partial differential equations. A difficulty of the algorithm of Fahim, Touzi and Warin is in the critical constraints imposed on the Hamiltonian to ensure the monotonicity of the scheme, hence the convergence of the algorithm. Here, we propose a new "probabilistic scheme" which is monotone under rather weak assumptions, including the case of strongly elliptic PDE with bounded coefficients. This allows us to apply our probabilistic max-plus method in mo …

Card 5 · Error bounds for monotone approximation schemes for parabolic Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations

We obtain non-symmetric upper and lower bounds on the rate of convergence of general monotone approximation/numerical schemes for parabolic Hamilton Jacobi Bellman Equations by introducing a new notion of consistency. We apply our general results to various schemes including finite difference scheme…

Read full passage excerpt

We obtain non-symmetric upper and lower bounds on the rate of convergence of general monotone approximation/numerical schemes for parabolic Hamilton Jacobi Bellman Equations by introducing a new notion of consistency. We apply our general results to various schemes including finite difference schemes, splitting methods and the classical approximation by piecewise constant controls.

Model-reported card use

Card 1 · fact

Affected output: boundary conditions through a conditional-expectation formulation that avoids the accuracy loss of compact and semi-Lagrangian treatments at the domain boundary.

Model explanation: Supplied the specific boundary-treatment feature and its advantage over semi-Lagrangian schemes, which the draft's unfinished clause about Xu, Ren, and Yue required.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

boundary conditions into the scheme, yielding a discretization that preserves the maximum principle.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

The blinded model review preferred the Evidence version. Its original rationale appears below.

Read the original model judgment

Both outputs complete the sentence about Xu, Ren, and Yue [31] combining the Feynman-Kac representation with positive wide-stencil interpolation. Output B is preferable because it specifically incorporates the distinctive contribution described in source [31] (the paper titled 'A Non-compact Positivity-Preserving Scheme for Parabolic PDE via Conditional Expectation'): the robust treatment of boundary conditions that 'avoids the accuracy loss commonly encountered in BZ and semi-Lagrangian schemes.' Output B mentions 'conditional-expectation formulation' and 'avoids the accuracy loss of compact and semi-Lagrangian treatments at the domain boundary,' which directly mirrors the source snippet's description. Output A's claim about 'preserves the maximum principle' is generic and not specifically supported by the source text about [31]; while plausible, it lacks the specific grounding that Output B has. Output B better preserves the argument by connecting to the specific methodological advance (boundary condition treatment) that distinguishes this work from prior approaches mentioned in the draft (semi-Lagrangian, compact schemes).

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.