MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966064798 · doi:10.11159/icmie19.117

Sizing Function Based on Machine Learning for Unstructured Mesh Generation

2019· article· en· W2966064798 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiang Gao, Chuanfu Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingComputer scienceFunction (biology)Mesh generationArtificial intelligenceEngineeringStructural engineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past few decades, unstructured mesh generation has had great success. However, it is still a challenge work to prepare a suitable sizing function for the mesh generation process. A sizing function is used to define the distribution of element scales over the meshing domain, and a good one should define smaller scales in the region where geometrical and physical characteristics exist and larger scales elsewhere. Furthermore, to ensure the mesh quality in gradation regions so that the gradient of element scales must be limited in a reasonable range. Grid sources are effective ways to define sizing functions in many computational aerodynamics applications The time cost of defining sources may be affordable for simple configurations, but for complicated models, the interactive process that defines these sources is time-consuming and error-prone. Recently, an automatic sizing function defined at unstructured background mesh is proposed in This kind of algorithm starts from an initial mesh of the geometry model, in which initial element scales are defined by considering geometrical factors at mesh boundaries and several user-specified parameters. Then a convex nonlinear programming problem is formulated and solved to obtain a smoothed sizing function over this background mesh. Although the approach greatly reduces the labor time, it still needs to generate an initial unstructured mesh as the background mesh, and an interpolation step is required for places that not located at mesh nodes. In this work, we develop a novel sizing function based on machine learning methods like support vector machine [4] and deep neural network The proposed approach first distributes points on geometry surfaces and outer boundaries, and initial element scales of these points are defined adapted to curvatures and proximities. Then a machine learning model is trained by using the coordinates and scales of these points as training data. In addition, some special locations with expected scales could be add to the training data before training. In generation stage, every possible location of the meshing domain can input its coordinates into the model function, and a resulting element scale of this location will be given. Several simple cases are tested based on the NETGEN open source software [6], the results show that the proposed sizing function has good adaptability.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.170 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207