MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335248847 · doi:10.2514/6.2007-3943

Matrix-Explicit GMRES for a Higher-Order Accurate Inviscid Compressible Flow Solver

2007· article· en· W2335248847 on OpenAlexaff
Krzysztof Michalak, Carl Ollivier‐Gooch

Bibliographic record

Venue18th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralized minimal residual methodJacobian matrix and determinantInviscid flowSolverMatrix (chemical analysis)Applied mathematicsMathematicsComputer scienceResidualMatrix-free methodsSparse matrixMathematical optimizationAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implicit methods for nite-volume schemes on unstructured grids typically rely on a matrix-free implementation of GMRES and an explicit rst-order Jacobian for preconditioning. We show that it is possible to form the higher-order Jacobian explicitly at a reasonable computational cost. This is demonstrated for cases using both limited and unlimited reconstruction. The bene ts resulting from improvements in preconditioning and the elimination of residual evaluations in the inner iterations of the matrix-free GMRES method are substantial. Computational results are presented for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order accurate schemes. Overall computational cost for the matrix-explicit method is lower than the matrix-free method for all cases. The fourth-order matrix-explicit scheme is a factor of 2.5 to 3 faster than the matrix-free scheme while using only about 50% more memory.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue18th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics ConferenceSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207