Global receptivity analysis: physically realizable input–output analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of transition analysis, linear input–output analysis determines the worst-case disturbances to a laminar base flow based on a generic right-hand-side volumetric/boundary forcing term. The worst-case forcing is not physically realizable, and, to our knowledge, a generic framework for posing physically realizable worst-case disturbance problems is lacking. In natural receptivity analysis, disturbances are forced by matching (typically local) solutions within the boundary layer to outer solutions consisting of free-stream vortical, entropic and acoustic disturbances. We pose a scattering formalism to restrict the input forcing to a set of realizable disturbances associated with plane-wave solutions of the outer problem. The formulation is validated by comparing with direct numerical simulations of a Mach 4.5 flat-plate boundary layer. We show that the method provides insight into transition mechanisms by identifying those linear combinations of plane-wave disturbances that maximize energy amplification over a range of frequencies. We also discuss how the framework can be extended to accommodate scattering from shocks and in shock layers for supersonic flow.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".