MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138945932 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2008.201

The Lattice-Boltzmann Method on Optimal Sampling Lattices

2009· article· en· W2138945932 on OpenAlexaff
Usman Alim, Alireza Entezari, Torsten Möller

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersUniversity of Rochester
KeywordsLattice Boltzmann methodsDiscretizationHPP modelLattice (music)Lattice gas automatonCartesian coordinate systemComputer scienceStreamlines, streaklines, and pathlinesComputationStatistical physicsTurbulenceMathematical optimizationComputational scienceAlgorithmPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisMechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we extend the single relaxation time Lattice-Boltzmann Method (LBM) to the 3D body-centered cubic (BCC) lattice. We show that the D3bQ15 lattice defined by a 15 neighborhood connectivity of the BCC lattice is not only capable of more accurately discretizing the velocity space of the continuous Boltzmann equation as compared to the D3Q15 Cartesian lattice, it also achieves a comparable spatial discretization with 30 percent less samples. We validate the accuracy of our proposed lattice by investigating its performance on the 3D lid-driven cavity flow problem and show that the D3bQ15 lattice offers significant cost savings while maintaining a comparable accuracy. We demonstrate the efficiency of our method and the impact on graphics and visualization techniques via the application of line-integral convolution on 2D slices as well as the extraction of streamlines of the 3D flow. We further study the benefits of our proposed lattice by applying it to the problem of simulating smoke and show that the D3bQ15 lattice yields more detail and turbulence at a reduced computational cost.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer GraphicsSame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207