MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415742456 · doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.114485

Development of a new THINC/WLIC method based on a separate evaluation of the geometrical fidelity and the interface sharpness

2025· article· en· W4415742456 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Takanari Fukuda, Susumu Yamashita, Hiroyuki Yoshida

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Atomic Energy AgencyCardiff UniversityPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsDevelopment (topology)Interface (matter)High fidelityFidelity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper puts forward a novel approach for the evaluation of the geometrical fidelity and the interface sharpness of the VOF advection schemes separately and quantitatively. This new evaluation has elucidated the trade-off relationship of the geometrical fidelity and the interface sharpness between the existing schemes of the original THINC and the THINC/WLIC. By investigating and resolving this trade-off relationship, we have developed a novel THINC-based scheme that exhibits high performance with regard to both geometrical fidelity and interface sharpness, despite employing an algorithm as concise as those of the original THINC and the THINC/WLIC. The novel scheme, designated as "THINC/Advanced WLIC (THINC/AWLIC)," has been developed by redefining the weight function of the preceding THINC/WLIC so that the contribution of the first-order upwind flux can be variably blended with the usage of the control parameter. The results of the multiple benchmark tests in two and three dimensions demonstrate that both the geometrical fidelity and the interface sharpness are significantly enhanced if the control parameter is appropriately determined. Furthermore, the effectiveness of THINC/AWLIC has been confirmed in numerical tests with intricate velocity fields and practical multiphase flow simulations. These results support the applicability of THINC/AWLIC not only in canonical benchmarks but also in realistic fluid simulations.

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)0.002
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 score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.379
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational PhysicsSame topicNumerical methods in engineeringFrench-language works237,207