MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013008544 · doi:10.1063/5.0001521

Benchmarking of a distributed-memory, high-order discontinuous finite element flow solver on a shared-memory parallel architecture

2020· article· en· W3013008544 on OpenAlexaff
Amjad Ali, Hamayun Farooq, Gullnaz Shahzadi, Muhammad Umar, Khalid Saifullah Syed

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP Advances · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistributed memoryComputer scienceParallel computingShared memorySolverUniform memory accessScalabilityDistributed shared memoryComputational scienceMemory managementComputer hardwareSemiconductor memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-order numerical schemes implemented on high-performance parallel computers are of special interest for contemporary numerical simulations, especially in computational fluid dynamics. In this study, first, a high-order parallel flow solver is presented for some test cases of aerodynamic simulations. The flow solver is based on a discontinuous Galerkin finite element method on arbitrary grids with different orders of polynomial approximation for solving the compressible flow model. Second, the distributed-memory parallel implementation of the flow solver is benchmarked on a shared-memory multicore system. A distributed-memory parallel application can be executed on shared-memory architectures by assuming that each of the parallel processes assumes separate memory address space, although all are present in a common memory bank. This approach can offer an effective measure to address several issues related to limited resources, especially for uninterrupted electric supply. The scalability of the parallel application is analyzed by varying the problem workload per process for the test cases. For some test cases in the present study, over 90% parallel efficiency per process is also observed. The performance of the distributed-memory program on the shared-memory architecture establishes suitability and robustness of the approach for small to medium scale problems, at least.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP AdvancesSame topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207