MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382403108 · doi:10.3390/designs7040082

Optimal Domain-Partitioning Algorithm for Real-Life Transportation Networks and Finite Element Meshes

2023· article· en· W4382403108 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jimesh Bhagatji, Sharanabasaweshwara Asundi, Eric R. Thompson, Duc T. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueDesigns · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon meshFinite element methodComputer scienceAlgorithmTetrahedronHeuristicVolume meshMathematical optimizationMesh generationMathematicsEngineeringStructural engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For large-scale engineering problems, it has been generally accepted that domain-partitioning algorithms are highly desirable for general-purpose finite element analysis (FEA). This paper presents a heuristic numerical algorithm that can efficiently partition any transportation network (or any finite element mesh) into a specified number of subdomains (usually depending on the number of parallel processors available on a computer), which will result in “minimising the total number of system BOUNDARY nodes” (as a primary criterion) and achieve “balancing work loads” amongst the subdomains (as a secondary criterion). The proposed seven-step heuristic algorithm (with enhancement features) is based on engineering common sense and observation. This current work has the following novelty features: (i) complicated graph theories that are NOT needed and (ii) unified treatments of transportation networks (using line elements) and finite element (FE) meshes (using triangular, tetrahedral, and brick elements) that can be performed through transforming the original network (or FE mesh) into a pseudo-transportation network which only uses line elements. Several examples, including real-life transportation networks and finite element meshes (using triangular/brick/tetrahedral elements) are used (under MATLAB computer environments) to explain, validate and compare the proposed algorithm’s performance with the popular METIS software.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDesignsSame topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207