MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311804363 · doi:10.1145/3550454.3555474

ElastoMonolith

2022· article· en· W4311804363 on OpenAlexafffund
Tetsuya Takahashi, Christopher Batty

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInviscid flowSolverDiscretizationEulerian pathComputer scienceGridSpurious relationshipMesh generationSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsRobustness (evolution)MathematicsClassical mechanicsMechanicsMathematical analysisPhysicsFinite element methodLagrangianGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simultaneous coupling of diverse physical systems poses significant computational challenges in terms of speed, quality, and stability. Rather than treating all components with a single discretization methodology (e.g., smoothed particles, material point method, Eulerian grid, etc.) that is ill-suited to some components, our solver, ElastoMonolith , addresses three-way interactions among standard particle-in-cell-based viscous and inviscid fluids, Lagrangian mesh-based deformable bodies, and rigid bodies. While prior methods often treat some terms explicitly or in a decoupled fashion for efficiency, often at the cost of robustness or stability, we demonstrate the effectiveness of a strong coupling approach that expresses all of the relevant physics within one consistent and unified optimization problem, including fluid pressure and viscosity, elasticity of the deformables, frictional solid-solid contact, and solid-fluid interface conditions. We further develop a numerical solver to tackle this difficult optimization problem, incorporating projected Newton, an active set method, and a transformation of the inner linear system matrix to ensure symmetric positive definiteness. Our experimental evaluations show that our framework can achieve high quality coupling results that avoid artifacts such as volume loss, instability, sticky contacts, and spurious interpenetrations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.006

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface InteractionsFrench-language works237,207