Constrained Optimization and Radial Basis Functions in Computational Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Duality and radial basis functions (RBFs) are compelling principles which are currently underrepresented in computational engineering.Following an introduction to the mathematics, these methodologies are applied to a series of toy problems.To begin, both methodologies are integrated into a predictor-corrector algorithm, which is then used to model transient thermal diffusion in a one-dimensional domain.Following discretization of the heat equation with the finite element method (FEM) or RBFs, Euclidean temperature errors of 9.613E-2 (RBF) and 1.442E-1 (FEM) are observed at five seconds and 7.635E-2 (RBF) and 1.136E-1 (FEM) at ten seconds.In addition, duality is successfully applied as an error bound on the numerical solutions; the duality gap is cheaply computed by the algorithm and converges to zero as the thermal flux and temperature fields iteratively approach their exact solutions.The RBF methodology is next applied to the interpolation of two complicated data sets.The first is a two-dimensional velocity field associated with a scattered collection of particles in a rheometer.Using a subset of these particles and their velocities as input, the RBFs accurately interpolate the scattered velocity data back on to the original collection of particles.The addition of a high-order polynomial to the RBFs is seen to improve accuracy further with an increase in algorithm complexity.The second test interpolates two-dimensional stress and stress gradient tensor fields of scattered particles on a plate in uniaxial tension.In supplement to the standard iv RBF technique of the first test, a Hermite RBF technique is devised which uses given stress and stress gradient data as input.With respect to accuracy, the Hermite technique achieves an improvement of one order of magnitude in stress interpolation and one to two orders of magnitude in stress gradient interpolation over the standard technique.In the final tests, RBFs are tested alongside finite differences in the discretization of two-phase heat exchange problems.In the first two cases, the RBFs more accurately compute the position of the planar phase interface with time, as well as the temperature fields in the vapour and liquid-phases.In the third case, it is found that the RBFs track the instantaneous position and velocity of a spherical bubble with higher accuracy.vFor my grandmother, who taught me the value of persistence, dedication, and never giving up.Ruhe in frieden Oma, ich liebe dich.vi I would like to extend my utmost gratitude to my thesis supervisors, Dr. John Goldak and Dr. Tarik Kaya.They have had an immense impact on the last years seven years of my life and, with their guidance and wisdom, I never felt that I was alone in my journey.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".