Statistical Analysis of Dynamic Subgrid Modeling Approaches in Large Eddy Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In large eddy simulation (LES) of turbulent flows, dynamic subgrid models would account for an average cascade of kinetic energy from the largest to the smallest scales of the flow. Yet, it is unclear which of the most critical dynamical processes can ensure the criterion mentioned above. Furthermore, evidence of vortex stretching being the primary mechanism of the cascade is not out of the question. In this article, we study essential statistical characteristics of vortex stretching. Our numerical results demonstrate that vortex stretching rate provides the energy dissipation rate necessary for modeling subgrid-scale turbulence. We have compared the interaction of subgrid stresses with the filtered quantities among four models using invariants of the velocity gradient tensor. The individual and the joint probability of vortex stretching and strain amplification show that vortex stretching rate is highly correlated with the energy cascade rate. Sheet-like flow structures are correlated with viscous dissipation, and vortex tubes are more stretched than compressed. The overall results indicate that the stretching mechanism extracts energy from the large-scale straining motion and passes it onto small-scale stretched vortices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".