MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416437488 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.01564

An Adaptive Flux Reconstruction Scheme for Robust Shock Capturing

2025· preprint· W4416437488 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sai Shruthi Srinivasan, Siva Nadarajah

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsDissipationClassification of discontinuitiesFlux limiterEntropy (arrow of time)Control theory (sociology)SmoothingSpurious relationshipConservation lawStability (learning theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the case of hyperbolic conservation laws, high-order methods, such as the classical DG method, experience the phenomenon of unwanted high-frequency oscillations in the vicinity of a shock. Shock-capturing methods such as artificial dissipation, solution, flux, or TVD limiting are generally used to eliminate non-physical oscillations and provide bounds on physical quantities. For entropy-stable schemes, the additional objective would be to retain provable entropy dissipation guarantees of the underlying scheme, i.e. subcell limiting or entropy filtering [1, 2, 3, 4]. The nonlinearly-stable flux reconstruction (NSFR) semi-discretization given in Eq. 7 with a suitable flux reconstruction scheme has been demonstrated to mitigate spurious oscillations in the presence of shock discontinuities and at CFL values substantially larger than the DG variant of the NSFR scheme whilst retaining the property of entropy stability [5]. NSFR schemes achieve this by introducing an alternative lifting operator for surface numerical flux penalization, albeit at the expense of accuracy. In this technical note, we present an adaptive approach to the choice of the lifting operator employed, which maintains higher accuracy and allows for larger CFL values while retaining the underlying provable attributes of the scheme. While it cannot eliminate oscillations such as the aforementioned shock-capturing methods, together with a positivity-preserving limiter, the scheme provides for solutions that are essentially oscillation-free.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueArXiv.orgSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207