MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391857915 · doi:10.33737/gpps23-tc-146

Improving an Algorithm for Assessing the Completion of Internal, Unsteady Flow Simulations using Spatial Downsampling

2023· article· en· W4391857915 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeff Defoe

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsLightMachinery (Canada)
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsUpsamplingComputer scienceAlgorithmConvergence (economics)Flow (mathematics)ComputationReduction (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationDiscretizationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In practical computational fluid dynamics (CFD), a reduction in flow time required to be solved is extremely beneficial in reducing the amount of time and computational resources required for the computation. The authors have previously introduced a convergence algorithm based on dynamic mode decomposition (DMD) that can determine the completion of an unsteady CFD flow, reducing the overall amount of flow time required to be solved. However, this algorithm itself can be expensive, and was only tested on cases with less than half a million cells. The original algorithm become too expensive on larger datasets. This paper introduces an updated algorithm along with a method for spatially downsampling the CFD data to make the execution of the convergence algorithm feasible on practical CFD, which could have up to hundreds of millions of cells. The updated algorithm and spatial downsampling method is applied to two CFD cases - a turbulent flow over a cylinder and a rotor in duct case - where the full solution is known. It is able to correctly determine the amount of flow time required for the spatio-temporal content stops changing meaningfully, requiring much fewer computational resources than the original version of the algorithm.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedingsSame topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207