MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402686170 · doi:10.2514/6.2024-4504

Parallel Exascale Mesh Generation by Subdivision

2024· article· en· W4402686170 on OpenAlexaff
Sajedeh Kebriti, Carl Ollivier‐Gooch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubdivisionParallel computingComputer scienceMesh generationExascale computingComputer graphics (images)SupercomputerPhysicsFinite element methodEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mesh generation requires substantial computational resources in terms of both CPU time and memory. Computational cost becomes especially pronounced when considering the scale of advanced industrial applications, in which mesh sizes can reach ten billion cells and growing. Examesh, introduced in 2019, aimed to develop a fast and reliable methodology for generating large-scale meshes. Presently, the software has demonstrated successful generation of 347 billion cells. However, the resulting mesh files for such large cell counts are expected to be on the order of terabytes (TB). Storing such massive mesh files is not practical. To address this challenge, we have enhanced the software’s performance by parallelizing through the integration of the Message Passing Interface (MPI) framework. This speeds up mesh generation, but perhaps more importantly generates the parallel mesh in situ, removing the requirement to store it on disk or transport it between machines. The most challenging part of parallelizing mesh generation software that we addressed in this research work is establishing topological relationships between mesh entities at the part boundaries. We successfully generated meshes in parallel with as many as hundreds of billions of cells on as many as thousands of processors.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreMethods

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 topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207