MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990976137 · doi:10.1115/detc2019-98098

Interface Models for Multirate Co-Simulation of Nonsmooth Multibody Systems

2019· article· en· W2990976137 on OpenAlexaff
Albert Peiret, József Kövecses, Francisco González, Marek Teichmann

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModeling and Simulation Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModular designInterface (matter)Computer scienceMechanical systemCoupling (piping)Multibody systemCo-simulationSet (abstract data type)Control engineeringStability (learning theory)SimulationEngineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Co-simulation techniques enable the coupling of physically diverse subsystems in an efficient and modular way. Complex engineering applications can be simulated in co-simulation setups, in which each subsystem is solved and integrated using numerical methods tailored to its physical behaviour. Co-simulation implies that the communication between subsystems takes place at discrete-time instants and is limited to a given set of coupling variables, while the internals of each subsystem are generally not accessible to the rest of the simulation environment. In non-iterative co-simulation schemes, this may lead to the instability of the integration. Increasingly demanding requirements in the simulation of machinery have led to the coupling, in real-time co-simulation setups, of multibody models of mechanical systems to computational representations of non-mechanical subsystems, such as hydraulics and electronics. Often, these feature faster dynamics than their mechanical counterparts, which leads to the use of multirate integration in non-iterative co-simulation environments. The stability of the integration in these cases can be enhanced using interface models, i.e., reduced representations of the multibody system, to provide meaningful input values to faster subsystems between communication points. This work describes such interface models that can be used to represent nonsmooth mechanical systems subjected to unilateral contact and friction.

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)0.003
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModeling and Simulation SystemsFrench-language works237,207