MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105432629 · doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107912

Application of the augmented block Householder Arnoldi method to the calculation of non-fundamental modes of the diffusion equation

2020· article· en· W3105432629 on OpenAlexafffund
Alain Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Nuclear Energy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDiscretizationBlock (permutation group theory)Generalized minimal residual methodEigenvalues and eigenvectorsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceDiffusion equationMathematicsDiffusionMathematical optimizationMathematical analysisIterative methodThermodynamicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The determination of non-fundamental modes of the diffusion equation is required for computing CANDU reactor power distribution from analysis of in-core detector readings. They are also important for understanding subcritical mode instabilities occurring in boiling water reactors. The legacy method for computing these modes is the Hotelling deflation technique based on bi-harmonic decontamination. However, the Hotelling technique becomes unstable as the number of modes increase or as their eigenvalues become closer. Effective and fast alternatives are provided with Implicit Arnoldi Restarted Methods (IRAM). Among them, we investigated the Krylov–Schur method available in the SLEPc library, and we are proposing a custom implementation of the augmented block Householder Arnoldi (ABHA) method, similar to the Open Source implementation of Prof. James Baglama. In our work, the ABHA method is applied to the neutron diffusion equation, discretized with the Raviart–Thomas and Raviart–Thomas-Schneider methods or with the mesh-centered finite difference method.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Nuclear EnergySame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207