ANumerical Uncertainty in Parallel Processing Using Computational Fluid Dynamics as Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational methods such as Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) traditionally yield a single output – a single number that is much like the result one would get if one were to perform a theoretical hand calculation. However, this paper will show that computation methods have inherent uncertainty which can also be reported statistically. In numerical computation, because many factors affect the data collected, the data can be quoted in terms of standard deviations (error bars) along with a mean value to make data comparison meaningful. In cases where two data sets are obscured by uncertainty, the two data sets are said to be indistinguishable. A sample CFD problem pertaining to external aerodynamics is copied and ran on 29 identical computers in a university computer lab. The expectation is that all 29 runs should return exactly the same result; unfortunately, in a few cases the result turns out to be different. This is attributed to the parallelization scheme which partitions the mesh to run in parallel on multiple cores of the computer. The distribution of the computational load is hardware-driven depending on the available resource of each computer at the time. Things, such as load-balancing among multiple Central Processing Unit (CPU) cores using Message Passing Interface (MPI) are transparent to the user. Software algorithm such as METIS or JOSTLE is used to automatically divide up the load between different processors. As such, the user has no control over the outcome of the CFD calculation even when the same problem is computed. Because of this, numerical uncertainty arises from parallel (multicore) computing. One way to resolve this issue is to compute problems using a single core, without mesh repartitioning. However, as this paper demonstrates even this is not straight forward. Keywords: numerical uncertainty, parallelization, load-balancing, automotive aerodynamics
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".