MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404527384 · doi:10.1145/3687946

Trading Spaces: Adaptive Subspace Time Integration for Contacting Elastodynamics

2024· article· en· W4404527384 on OpenAlexafffund
Ty Trusty, Yun Fei, David Levin, Danny M. Kaufman

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersConnaught FundCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSubspace topologyComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We construct a subspace simulator that adaptively balances solution improvement against system size. The core components of our simulator are an adaptive subspace oracle, model, and parallel time-step solver algorithm. Our in-time-step adaptivity oracle continually assesses subspace solution quality and candidate update proposals while accounting for temporal variations in deformation and spatial variations in material. In turn our adaptivity model is subspace agnostic. It allows application across subspace representations and expresses unrestricted deformations independent of subspace choice. We couple our oracle and model with a custom-constructed parallel time-step solver for our enriched systems that exposes a pair of user tolerances which provide controllable simulation quality. As tolerances are tightened our model converges to full-space solutions (with expected cost increases). On the other hand, as tolerances are relaxed we obtain output-bound simulation costs. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach across a wide range of challenging nonlinear materials models, material stiffnesses, heterogeneities, dynamic behaviors, and frictionally contacting conditions, obtaining scalable and efficient simulations of complex elastodynamic scenarios.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207