MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133311172 · doi:10.1002/nag.3197

A fast contact detection method for ellipsoidal particles

2021· article· en· W3133311172 on OpenAlexafffund
Elham Kheradmand, Serge Prudhomme, Marc Laforest

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEllipsoidEllipseAlgorithmMinificationPoint (geometry)Convergence (economics)MathematicsTransformation (genetics)Constraint (computer-aided design)Mathematical optimizationNewton's methodComputer scienceGeometryNonlinear systemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a fast and robust algorithm for contact detection between elliptical and ellipsoidal particles. The algorithm belongs to the class of geometrical potential methods, which consider the solution of two minimization problems in order to determine a contact point between the particles. The efficiency of the algorithm relies on several ingredients, namely, a transformation that maps the pair of ellipses (ellipsoids) into an ellipse (ellipsoid) centered at the origin and a unit circle (sphere), the construction of an effective initial guess to the solution of the minimization problem, the use of Newton's method for the root finding problem, and the introduction of an additional constraint to guarantee convergence to the desired root. The performance of the new algorithm is compared with that of existing contact detection algorithms on large sets of randomly generated pairs of particles. In particular, the results from several numerical examples show that the present algorithm is several times faster than the existing algorithms for comparable accuracy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207