MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1565025637 · doi:10.4208/cicp.150313.171013s

Immersed Finite Element Method for Interface Problems with Algebraic Multigrid Solver

2014· article· en· W1565025637 on OpenAlexaff
Wenqiang Feng, Xiaoming He, Yanping Lin, Xu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Computational Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultigrid methodSolverFinite element methodBilinear interpolationApplied mathematicsInterface (matter)Convergence (economics)Linear systemMatrix (chemical analysis)Positive-definite matrixBilinear formStiffness matrixAlgebraic numberComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationComputational scienceMathematical analysisPartial differential equationPhysicsParallel computingStructural engineeringEigenvalues and eigenvectorsEngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is to discuss the bilinear and linear immersed finite element (IFE) solutions generated from the algebraic multigrid solver for both stationary and moving interface problems. For the numerical methods based on finite difference formulation and a structured mesh independent of the interface, the stiffness matrix of the linear system is usually not symmetric positive-definite, which demands extra efforts to design efficient multigrid methods. On the other hand, the stiffness matrix arising from the IFE methods are naturally symmetric positive-definite. Hence the IFE-AMG algorithm is proposed to solve the linear systems of the bilinear and linear IFE methods for both stationary and moving interface problems. The numerical examples demonstrate the features of the proposed algorithms, including the optimal convergence in both L2 and semi-H1 norms of the IFE-AMG solutions, the high efficiency with proper choice of the components and parameters of AMG, the influence of the tolerance and the smoother type of AMG on the convergence of the IFE solutions for the interface problems, and the relationship between the cost and the moving interface location.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Computational PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207