MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391302626 · doi:10.2514/6.2024-0457

An Adaptive Sampling Procedure with Hyperreduction for Non-linear Petrov-Galerkin Reduced-Order Models

2024· article· en· W4391302626 on OpenAlexaff
Calista Biondic, Sivakumaran Nadarajah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrov–Galerkin methodComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Applied mathematicsSampling (signal processing)MathematicsMathematical optimizationAlgorithmFinite element methodEngineeringComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Projection-based reduced order models (PROMs) have been shown in many applications to be accurate, reliable, and robust when approximating high-dimensional, differential equation-based computational models. For this reason, it has been proposed as a tool for high-querying parametric design problems like those arising in modern aircraft design. Since aerodynamic simulations can be computationally expensive, the PROMs should allow for more rapid estimations of high-fidelity solutions. However, the efficiency of PROMs can still be tied to the dimension of the full-order model (FOM), particularly when projected quantities must be frequently recomputed due to non-linearities or parameter dependence. In the case of Petrov-Galerkin models, the projected residual and Jacobian are re-evaluated at every Newton iteration, thus limiting the expected cost improvements. Hyperreduction is one of the tools available to approximate these quantities. In this paper, the energy-conserving sampling and weighting (ECSW) method will be tested as a possible approach for hyperreduction. It will be incorporated with previous work which had designed an adaptive sampling procedure for building a reduced-order model (ROM) with a controlled output error. The impacts on computational cost and accuracy will be studied for various test cases.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207