MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W70371667

On domain decomposition with space filling curves for the parallel solution of the coupled Maxwell/Vlasov equations

2008· article· en· W70371667 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian Konrad

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetisDomain decomposition methodsSolverMaxwell's equationsDecomposition method (queueing theory)Computer scienceContext (archaeology)Mathematical optimizationFinite element methodScalabilityVlasov equationGraph partitionApplied mathematicsConstraint satisfaction problemDomain (mathematical analysis)MathematicsGraphAlgorithmTheoretical computer sciencePhysicsMathematical analysisDiscrete mathematicsProbabilistic logic
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Space filling Curves (SFCs) are increasingly used for combinatorial scientific computing and in particular for designing fast domain decomposition (partitioning) methods. In the context of parallel particle simulations for solving the system of Maxwell/Vlasov equations with a coupled FE/PIC (Finite Element/Particle-In-Cell) unstructured mesh based solver, one has to deal with a two-constraint partitioning problem. Moreover, this problem has to be solved several times during the simulation. Therefore, a fast and scalable partitioning problem is required. For this purpose, we propose here a new SFC based method which is well adapted to multi-constraint partitioning problems. This method is compared to graph based partitioning methods from the widely used MeTiS tool. Experimental results show that the proposed SFC based method is at least 100 times faster than MeTiS to the disadvantage of edge-cuts that are between 2 to 4 times worse than those achieved by the MeTiS methods.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
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 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207