Estimates of turbulence modeling uncertainties in NACA65 cascade flow predictions by Bayesian model-scenario averaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations represent the computational workhorse for engineering design, despite their numerous flaws. Improving and quantifying the uncertainties associated with RANS models is particularly critical in view of the analysis and optimization of complex turbomachinery flows. Design/methodology/approach First, an efficient strategy is introduced for calibrating turbulence model coefficients from high-fidelity data. The results are highly sensitive to the flow configuration (called a calibration scenario) used to inform the coefficients. Second, the bias introduced by the choice of a specific turbulence model is reduced by constructing a mixture model by means of Bayesian model-scenario averaging (BMSA). The BMSA model makes predictions of flows not included in the calibration scenarios as a probability-weighted average of a set of competing turbulence models, each supplemented with multiple sets of closure coefficients inferred from alternative calibration scenarios. Findings Different choices for the scenario probabilities are assessed for the prediction of the NACA65 V103 cascade at off-design conditions. In all cases, BMSA improves the solution accuracy with respect to the baseline turbulence models, and the estimated uncertainty intervals encompass reasonably well the reference data. The BMSA results were found to be little sensitive to the user-defined scenario-weighting criterion, both in terms of average prediction and of estimated confidence intervals. Originality/value A delicate step in the BMSA is the selection of suitable scenario-weighting criteria, i.e. suitable prior probability mass functions (PMFs) for the calibration scenarios. The role of such PMFs is to assign higher probability to calibration scenarios more likely to provide an accurate estimate of model coefficients for the new flow. In this paper, three mixture models are constructed, based on alternative choices of the scenario probabilities. The authors then compare the capabilities of three different criteria.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".