MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009274308 · doi:10.1007/s11081-020-09493-z

Convex optimization techniques in compliant assembly simulation

2020· article· en· W3009274308 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptimization and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationHessian matrixActive set methodInterior point methodQuadratic programmingComputer scienceConvex optimizationOptimization problemLinear programmingMatrix (chemical analysis)AlgorithmMathematicsRegular polygonNonlinear programmingApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A special class of quadratic programming (QP) problems is considered in this paper. This class emerges in simulation of assembly of large-scale compliant parts, which involves the formulation and solution of contact problems. The considered QP problems can have up to 20,000 unknowns, the Hessian matrix is fully populated and ill-conditioned, while the matrix of constraints is sparse. Variation analysis and optimization of assembly process usually require massive computations of QP problems with slightly different input data. The following optimization methods are adapted to account for the particular features of the assembly problem: an interior point method, an active-set method, a Newton projection method, and a pivotal algorithm for the linear complementarity problems. Equivalent formulations of the QP problem are proposed with the intent of them being more amenable to the considered methods. The methods are tested and results are compared for a number of aircraft assembly simulation problems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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