MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962962534 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2859931

Continuous-Scale Kinetic Fluid Simulation

2018· article· en· W2962962534 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wei Li, Kai Bai, Xiaopei Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghaiTech UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceInitializationLattice Boltzmann methodsRelaxation (psychology)GraphicsComputational fluid dynamicsComputational scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kinetic approaches, i.e., methods based on the lattice Boltzmann equations, have long been recognized as an appealing alternative for solving incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in computational fluid dynamics. However, such approaches have not been widely adopted in graphics mainly due to the underlying inaccuracy, instability and inflexibility. In this paper, we try to tackle these problems in order to make kinetic approaches practical for graphical applications. To achieve more accurate and stable simulations, we propose to employ the non-orthogonal central-moment-relaxation model, where we develop a novel adaptive relaxation method to retain both stability and accuracy in turbulent flows. To achieve flexibility, we propose a novel continuous-scale formulation that enables samples at arbitrary resolutions to easily communicate with each other in a more continuous sense and with loose geometrical constraints, which allows efficient and adaptive sample construction to better match the physical scale. Such a capability directly leads to an automatic sample construction which generates static and dynamic scales at initialization and during simulation, respectively. This effectively makes our method suitable for simulating turbulent flows with arbitrary geometrical boundaries. Our simulation results with applications to smoke animations show the benefits of our method, with comparisons for justification and verification.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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