Comparative Analysis Of Numerical Efficiency In Modern Approximation Methods: Computational Performance Metrics And Application Domains

Sangeet; Dr. Jogender

doi:10.69980/redvet.v25i2.1810

Sangeet
Dr. Jogender

DOI: https://doi.org/10.69980/redvet.v25i2.1810

Keywords: .

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of the numerical efficiency of various approximation methods commonly employed in computational mathematics and scientific computing. We systematically compare polynomial approximation, spectral methods, finite element methods, and machine learning-based approximation techniques across multiple dimensions of numerical efficiency, including computational complexity, memory requirements, convergence rates, and error propagation characteristics. Our analysis employs a unified framework of performance metrics to evaluate these methods across diverse application domains, including fluid dynamics, structural mechanics, and signal processing. Extensive numerical experiments demonstrate that spectral methods exhibit superior convergence rates for smooth functions, while adaptive finite element approaches offer better efficiency for problems with singularities or sharp transitions. Machine learning-based approximations show promising performance for high-dimensional problems when sufficient training data is available. We provide quantitative benchmarks for practitioners to select appropriate approximation techniques based on problem characteristics and computational constraints. This comparative framework offers valuable insights for optimizing numerical algorithms in scientific computing applications and highlights emerging directions for hybrid approximation strategies.

Author Biographies

Sangeet

Ph.D Scholar, Department of Mathematics,School of Applied Science,OM Sterling Global Unversity,
Hisar, Haryana, India

Dr. Jogender

Department of Mathematics, School of Applied Science, OM Sterling Global Unversity, Hisar,Haryana ,
India

References

1. Ainsworth, M., & Oden, J. T. (2000). A Posteriori Error Estimation in Finite Element Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
2. Babuška, I., & Melenk, J. M. (1997). The partition of unity method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 40(4), 727-758.
3. Boyd, J. P. (2001). Chebyshev and Fourier Spectral Methods (2nd ed.). Dover Publications.
4. Brenner, S. C., & Scott, L. R. (2008). The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods (3rd ed.). Springer.
5. Burden, R. L., & Faires, J. D. (2011). Numerical Analysis (9th ed.). Brooks/Cole.
6. Canuto, C., Hussaini, M. Y., Quarteroni, A., & Zang, T. A. (2006). Spectral Methods: Fundamentals in Single Domains. Springer.
7. Cooley, J. W., & Tukey, J. W. (1965). An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex Fourier series. Mathematics of Computation, 19(90), 297-301.
8. Cottrell, J. A., Hughes, T. J. R., & Bazilevs, Y. (2009). Isogeometric Analysis: Toward Integration of CAD and FEA. John Wiley & Sons.
9. Datta, B. N. (2010). Numerical Linear Algebra and Applications (2nd ed.). SIAM.
10. Davis, P. J. (1975). Interpolation and Approximation. Dover Publications.
11. de Boor, C. (2001). A Practical Guide to Splines (rev. ed.). Springer.
12. E, W., & Engquist, B. (2003). The heterogeneous multiscale methods. Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 1(1), 87-132.
13. Fornberg, B. (1996). A Practical Guide to Pseudospectral Methods. Cambridge University Press.
14. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep Learning. MIT Press.
15. Gottlieb, D., & Orszag, S. A. (1977). Numerical Analysis of Spectral Methods: Theory and Applications. SIAM.
16. Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., & White, H. (1989). Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Networks, 2(5), 359-366.
17. Hughes, T. J. R. (2000). The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis. Dover Publications.
18. Karniadakis, G. E., & Sherwin, S. J. (2005). Spectral/hp Element Methods for Computational Fluid Dynamics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
19. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436-444.
20. Moës, N., Dolbow, J., & Belytschko, T. (1999). A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 46(1), 131-150.
21. Patera, A. T. (1984). A spectral element method for fluid dynamics: Laminar flow in a channel expansion. Journal of Computational Physics, 54(3), 468-488.
22. Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2019). Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378, 686-707.
23. Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. (2006). Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press.
24. Saad, Y. (2003). Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems (2nd ed.). SIAM.
25. Strang, G., & Fix, G. J. (1973). An Analysis of the Finite Element Method. Prentice-Hall.
26. Trefethen, L. N. (2013). Approximation Theory and Approximation Practice. SIAM.
27. Trefethen, L. N. (2019). Numerical analysis. In T. Gowers (Ed.), The Princeton Companion to Mathematics (pp. 604-615). Princeton University Press.