MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991543494 · doi:10.1145/2766982

Restoring the missing vorticity in advection-projection fluid solvers

2015· article· en· W1991543494 on OpenAlexafffund
Xinxin Zhang, Robert Bridson, Chen Greif

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsAutodesk (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAdvectionVorticityVorticity equationVortex stretchingVortexProjection methodApplied mathematicsMathematicsClassical mechanicsMechanicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most visual effects fluid solvers use a time-splitting approach where velocity is first advected in the flow, then projected to be incompressible with pressure. Even if a highly accurate advection scheme is used, the self-advection step typically transfers some kinetic energy from divergence-free modes into divergent modes, which are then projected out by pressure, losing energy noticeably for large time steps. Instead of taking smaller time steps or using significantly more complex time integration, we propose a new scheme called IVOCK (Integrated Vorticity of Convective Kinematics) which cheaply captures much of what is lost in self-advection by identifying it as a violation of the vorticity equation. We measure vorticity on the grid before and after advection, taking into account vortex stretching, and use a cheap multigrid V-cycle approximation to a vector potential whose curl will correct the vorticity error. IVOCK works independently of the advection scheme (we present examples with various semi-Lagrangian methods and FLIP), works independently of how boundary conditions are applied (it just corrects error in advection, leaving pressure etc. to take care of boundaries and other forces), and other solver parameters (we provide smoke, fire, and water examples). For 10 ~ 25% extra computation time per step much larger steps can be used, while producing detailed vorticial structures and convincing turbulence that are lost without correction.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations73
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207