MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243976675 · doi:10.2514/6.2020-1048

Stability of Energy Stable Flux Reconstruction for the Diffusion Problem using Compact Numerical Fluxes on Quadrilateral Elements

2020· article· en· W4243976675 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Quaegebeur, Alexander Cicchino, Sivakumaran Nadarajah

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Scitech 2020 Forum · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscontinuous Galerkin methodMathematicsQuadrilateralStability (learning theory)Polygon meshNumerical stabilityGalerkin methodNumerical diffusionApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisConvection–diffusion equationDiffusionNumerical analysisFinite element methodComputer sciencePhysicsGeometryMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flux reconstruction method has gained popularity in the research community as it recovers promising high-order methods through modally filtered correction fields, such as the Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) method, on unstructured grids over complex geometries. The attraction of the method follows with its stability proofs for the linear advection problem, under a class of energy stable flux reconstruction (ESFR) schemes also known as Vincent-Castonguay-Jameson-Huynh (VCJH) schemes. The proof has later been developed for the diffusion problem on triangular elements for Local Discontinuous Galerkin (LDG) and compact numerical fluxes such as the interior penalty (IP), the Bassi and Rebay II, the compact discontinuous Galerkin, or the compact discontinuous Galerkin 2 numerical fluxes. For the diffusion problem, on Cartesian meshes, the proof has been extended for the LDG numerical flux. This paper expands the proof for compact numerical fluxes, and demonstrates the stability’s independence on the correction parameter in the auxiliary equation for the IP and BR2 numerical fluxes. The conditions for stability restrict the values of the penalty term of the different schemes. These stability conditions are valid for any ESFR schemes including DG and are much sharper than previously known 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Scitech 2020 ForumSame topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207