MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385275671 · doi:10.1145/3592146

PolyStokes: A Polynomial Model Reduction Method for Viscous Fluid Simulation

2023· article· en· W4385275671 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan Panuelos, Ryan Goldade, Eitan Grinspun, David I. W. Levin, Christopher Batty

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsViscous liquidMechanicsReduction (mathematics)RopeComputer scienceImmersed boundary methodBoundary value problemCompressibilityPolynomialMathematicsPhysicsApplied mathematicsClassical mechanicsBoundary (topology)Mathematical analysisAlgorithmGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standard liquid simulators apply operator splitting to independently solve for pressure and viscous stresses, a decoupling that induces incorrect free surface boundary conditions. Such methods are unable to simulate fluid phenomena reliant on the balance of pressure and viscous stresses, such as the liquid rope coil instability exhibited by honey. By contrast, unsteady Stokes solvers retain coupling between pressure and viscosity, thus resolving these phenomena, albeit using a much larger and thus more computationally expensive linear system compared to the decoupled approach. To accelerate solving the unsteady Stokes problem, we propose a reduced fluid model wherein interior regions are represented with incompressible polynomial vector fields. Sets of standard grid cells are consolidated into super-cells, each of which are modelled using a quadratic field of 26 degrees of freedom. We demonstrate that the reduced field must necessarily be at least quadratic, with the affine model being unable to correctly capture viscous forces. We reproduce the liquid rope coiling instability, as well as other simulated examples, to show that our reduced model is able to reproduce the same fluid phenomena at a smaller computational cost. Futhermore, we performed a crowdsourced user survey to verify that our method produces imperceptible differences compared to the full unsteady Stokes method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207