MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391330070 · doi:10.2514/6.2024-1750

Application of Bound-Preserving Limiters to the Nonlinearly Stable Flux Reconstruction High-Order Method

2024· article· en· W4391330070 on OpenAlexaff
Sai Shruthi Srinivasan, Alexander Cicchino, Sivakumaran Nadarajah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimiterOrder (exchange)Flux (metallurgy)Computer scienceUpper and lower boundsMathematicsApplied mathematicsControl theory (sociology)Mathematical optimizationMathematical analysisArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsMaterials scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flux reconstruction method has gained popularity in the research community as it recovers promising high-order methods through modally filtered correction fields, such as the Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) method, on unstructured grids over complex geometries. Under a class of energy stable flux reconstruction (ESFR) schemes, the flux reconstruction method allows for larger time-steps than DG while ensuring stability for linear advection on linear elements. For nonlinear problems, split forms and entropy-conserving flux differencing approaches have become popular since they guarantee robustness for unsteady problems on coarse unstructured grids. Nonlinearly stable flux reconstruction (NSFR) combines the key properties of provable nonlinear stability and the increased time-step from ESFR. NSFR has successfully been applied to unsteady compressible flows in arbitrary curvilinear coordinates while utilizing low-storage weight-adjusted approaches to scale efficiently with low memory consumption. Unfortunately, these schemes fail to satisfy the maximum principle for scalar conservation laws nor do they preserve positivity in the case of hyperbolic conservation laws. This paper incorporates bound-preserving limiters within an NSFR framework to obtain a robust solution that preserves the desired properties while maintaining a high-order of accuracy. This is verified with results for the 1D Burgers' Equation, 2D Burgers' Equation, 2D Linear Advection, 1D Sod Shock Tube, 1D Leblanc Shock Tube and 2D Low Density problems.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207