MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388921160 · doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2023.11.015

Agglomeration of polygonal grids using graph neural networks with applications to multigrid solvers

2023· article· en· W4388921160 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paola F. Antonietti, N. Farenga, E. Manuzzi, G. Martinelli, L. Saverio

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers & Mathematics with Applications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultigrid methodComputer scienceGridGraph partitionScalabilityCluster analysisGraphArtificial neural networkTheoretical computer scienceInferenceAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agglomeration-based strategies are important both within adaptive refinement algorithms and to construct scalable multilevel algebraic solvers. In order to automatically perform agglomeration of polygonal grids, we propose the use of Machine Learning (ML) strategies, that can naturally exploit geometrical information about the mesh in order to preserve the grid quality, enhancing performance of numerical methods and reducing the overall computational cost. In particular, we employ the k-means clustering algorithm and Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to partition the connectivity graph of a computational mesh. Moreover, GNNs have high online inference speed and the advantage to process naturally and simultaneously both the graph structure of mesh and the geometrical information, such as the areas of the elements or their barycentric coordinates . These techniques are compared with METIS, a standard algorithm for graph partitioning , which is meant to process only the graph information of the mesh. We demonstrate that performance in terms of quality metrics is enhanced for ML strategies. Such models also show a good degree of generalization when applied to more complex geometries , such as brain MRI scans, and the capability of preserving the quality of the grid. The effectiveness of these strategies is demonstrated also when applied to MultiGrid (MG) solvers in a Polygonal Discontinuous Galerkin (PolyDG) framework. In the considered experiments, GNNs show overall the best performance in terms of inference speed, accuracy and flexibility of the approach.

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)0.003
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputers & Mathematics with ApplicationsSame topicAdvanced Graph Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207