MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560304003 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2016-7934

Use of the Adjoint Method to Assess the Error in Simulations

2016· article· en· W2560304003 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Carrier, Johann Nicolle, Claire Deschênes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjoint equationDiscretizationEstimatorComputational fluid dynamicsAerodynamicsScalar (mathematics)Applied mathematicsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsComputer scienceSensitivity (control systems)Mathematical optimizationNavier–Stokes equationsDiscretization errorCompressibilityMathematicsPartial differential equationMathematical analysisMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, a sensitivity calculation approach called the adjoint method is explored to estimate and control the discretization error in computational fluid dynamic (CFD). This paper describes how the adjoint is applied to incompressible RANS simulations to approach the continuous solution which is unknown. While the adjoint method is already widespread in aerodynamics to optimize designs, here it is used as an error estimator. The error is thus calculated from the scalar product of sensitivities to an objective function selected by the user (efficiency, power, losses, etc.) with respect to residuals of governing equations. The key point is that adjoint method pinpoints the sensitive areas of the simulation. By adapting the mesh accordingly, it is possible to improve the numerical accuracy while keeping the mesh size manageable.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207