MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403778429 · doi:10.1080/15502287.2024.2408291

Uncertainty propagation of initial conditions in thermal models

2024· article· en· W4403778429 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Bünger, Roland W. Herzog, Andreas Naumann, Martin Stoll

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Computational Methods in Engineering Science and Mechanics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftCalifornia Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsStatistical physicsComputer scienceMathematicsApplied mathematicsEconometricsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The operation of machine tools often demands a highly accurate knowledge of the tool center point’s (TCP) position. The displacement of the TCP over time can be inferred from coupled thermal models, which comprise a set of geometrically coupled heat equations. Each of these equations represents the temperature in part of the machine, and they are often formulated on complicated geometries. The accuracy of the TCP prediction depends highly on the accuracy of the model parameters, such as heat exchange parameters, and the initial temperature. Thus it is of utmost interest to determine the influence of these parameters on the TCP displacement prediction. In turn, the accuracy of the parameter estimate is essentially determined by the measurement accuracy and the sensor placement. Determining the accuracy of a given sensor configuration is a key prerequisite of optimal sensor placement. In this paper, we develop a thermal model for the discretization of realistic machine tool. On top of this model we propose two numerical algorithms to evaluate any given thermal sensor configuration with respect to its accuracy. We compute the posterior variances from the posterior covariance matrix with respect to an uncertain initial temperature field. The full matrix is dense and potentially very large, depending on the size of the discretized model. We first present a way to compute this approximation, which relies on the computation of the model sensitivities with respect to the initial values. Additionally, we present a low-rank tensor method which exploits the underlying system structure. We compare the efficiency of both algorithms with respect to runtime and memory requirements and discuss their respective advantages with regard to optimal sensor placement 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 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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 venueInternational Journal for Computational Methods in Engineering Science and MechanicsSame topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207