MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210963883 · doi:10.52843/cassyni.vkg0jw

Verifying global stability of fluid flows despite transient growth of energy

2022· preprint· en· W4210963883 on OpenAlexaff
David Goluskin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCouette flowReynolds numberLaminar flowQuadratic equationFlow (mathematics)Fluid dynamicsPerturbation (astronomy)MathematicsTaylor–Couette flowStability (learning theory)Computational fluid dynamicsMonotonic functionInviscid flowMechanicsApplied mathematicsPhysicsComputer scienceTurbulenceMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Verifying nonlinear stability of a laminar fluid flow against all perturbations is a classic challenge in fluid dynamics. All past results rely on monotonic decrease of a perturbation energy or a similar quadratic generalized energy. This "energy method" cannot show global stability of a flow in which perturbation energy may grow transiently. For the many flows that allow transient energy growth but seem to be globally stable (e.g. pipe flow and other parallel shear flows at certain Reynolds numbers) there has been no way to mathematically verify global stability. After explaining why the energy method was the only way to verify global stability of fluid flows for over 100 years, I will describe a different approach that is broadly applicable but more technical. This approach, proposed in 2012 by Goulart and Chernyshenko, uses sum-of-squares polynomials to computationally construct non-quadratic Lyapunov functions that decrease monotonically for all flow perturbations. I will present a computational implementation of this approach for the example of 2D plane Couette flow, where we have verified global stability at Reynolds numbers above the energy stability threshold. This energy stability result for 2D Couette flow had not been improved upon since being found by Orr in 1907. The results I will present are the first verification of global stability – for any fluid flow – that surpasses the energy method. This is joint work with Federico Fuentes (Universidad Católica de Chile) and Sergei Chernyshenko (Imperial College London).

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows→French-language works237,207→