MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567773966 · doi:10.1002/nme.5506

Exploiting semantics of temporal multi‐scale methods to optimize multi‐level mesh partitioning

2017· article· en· W2567773966 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammad Hasan Jamal, Arun J. Prakash, Milind Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsDiscretizationDomain decomposition methodsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceFinite element methodScale (ratio)Domain (mathematical analysis)AlgorithmExploitTheoretical computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Multi‐scale problems are often solved by decomposing the problem domain into multiple subdomains, solving them independently using different levels of spatial and temporal refinement, and coupling the subdomain solutions back to obtain the global solution. Most commonly, finite elements are used for spatial discretization, and finite difference time stepping is used for time integration. Given a finite element mesh for the global problem domain, the number of possible decompositions into subdomains and the possible choices for associated time steps is exponentially large, and the computational costs associated with different decompositions can vary by orders of magnitude. The problem of finding an optimal decomposition and the associated time discretization that minimizes computational costs while maintaining accuracy is nontrivial. Existing mesh partitioning tools, such as METIS, overlook the constraints posed by multi‐scale methods and lead to suboptimal partitions with a high performance penalty. We present a multi‐level mesh partitioning approach that exploits domain‐specific knowledge of multi‐scale methods to produce nearly optimal mesh partitions and associated time steps automatically. Results show that for multi‐scale problems, our approach produces decompositions that outperform those produced by state‐of‐the‐art partitioners like METIS and even those that are manually constructed by domain experts. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207