MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286616145 · doi:10.1145/3528223.3530124

Adaptive rigidification of elastic solids

2022· article· en· W4286616145 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Mercier-Aubin, Paul G. Kry, Alexandre Winter, David I. W. Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreconditionerRigid bodyCholesky decompositionConjugate gradient methodNorm (philosophy)Laplace operatorHingeComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmMathematical analysisIterative methodClassical mechanicsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a method for reducing the computational cost of elastic solid simulation by treating connected sets of non-deforming elements as rigid bodies. Non-deforming elements are identified as those where the strain rate squared Frobenius norm falls below a threshold for several frames. Rigidification uses a breadth first search to identify connected components while avoiding connections that would form hinges between rigid components. Rigid elements become elastic again when their approximate strain velocity rises above a threshold, which is fast to compute using a single iteration of conjugate gradient with a fixed Laplacian-based incomplete Cholesky preconditioner. With rigidification, the system size to solve at each time step can be greatly reduced, and if all elastic element become rigid, it reduces to solving the rigid body system. We demonstrate our results on a variety of 2D and 3D examples, and show that our method is likewise especially beneficial in contact rich examples.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207