Implicit Frictional Dynamics With Soft Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamics simulation with frictional contacts is important for a wide range of applications, from cloth simulation to object manipulation. Recent methods using smoothed lagged friction forces have enabled robust and differentiable simulation of elastodynamics with friction. However, the resulting frictional behavior can be inaccurate and may not converge to analytic solutions. Here we evaluate the accuracy of lagged friction models in comparison with implicit frictional contact systems. We show that major inaccuracies near the stick-slip threshold in such systems are caused by lagging of friction forces rather than by smoothing the Coulomb friction curve. Furthermore, we demonstrate how systems involving implicit or lagged friction can be correctly used with higher-order time integration and highlight limitations in earlier attempts. We demonstrate how to exploit forward-mode automatic differentiation to simplify and, in some cases, improve the performance of the inexact Newton method. Finally, we show that other complex phenomena can also be simulated effectively while maintaining smoothness of the entire system. We extend our method to exhibit stick-slip frictional behavior and preserve volume on compressible and nearly-incompressible media using soft constraints.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".