MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FALSE DIFFUSION PRODUCED BY FLUX LIMITERS

2013· article· en· W2064972110 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent H. Chu, Congwei Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Thermal Sciences An International Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimensionless quantityLimiterDiffusionFlux limiterFlux (metallurgy)AdvectionMathematicsCourant–Friedrichs–Lewy conditionMechanicsSeries (stratigraphy)Mathematical analysisPhysicsApplied mathematicsMaterials scienceThermodynamicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The false diffusions of six flux limiters were examined in a series of advection simulation experiments conducted for different flow directions and Courant numbers. The rate of deviation from the exact solution determines the false-diffusion coefficients that are defined by the Lagrangian diffusion equation. Occasional intervention by downgrading high-order schemes to a lower order produces a false-diffusion error that is linearly in proportion to the size of the computation grid. The dimensionless coefficient normalized by the grid size oscillates with time. The amplitude of the oscillations is evaluated as an indicator of computational instability. Some flux limiters, such as MINMOD, produce computationally stable results. However, the simulation by MINMOD is diffusive. Other flux limiters such as ULTRA-QUICK and ULTRA-CD are more accurate and not as diffusive, but computationally are not as stable. This study found that the false-diffusion coefficients of the flux limiters became independent of the Courant number when the fourth-order Runge−Kutta method was used for time integration. Using fourth-order time integration, the flux limiter SUPERBEE was nine times less diffusive than MINMOD, and 49 times less diffusive than the first-order upwind scheme.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational Thermal Sciences An International JournalSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207