MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097445752

Untangling the Prometheus Nightmare

2015· article· en· W7097445752 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Stability (learning theory)SpeedupImplementationEvent (particle physics)Interface (matter)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Numerous bush and forest fire simulators have been developed in the last two decades based on elliptical spread and Huygens ’ principle. Unfortunately, all such implementations are plagued by topological complications. For example, sampling issues on the evolving front, represented in the Canadian simulator Prometheus as a set of polygons, evolving under the differential equations derived by Gwynfor Richards from Huygens ’ principle, lead to tangling and other non-physical singularities. In order to maintain stability of the numerical scheme, and to produce realistic fire fronts, these artefacts must be systematically removed between time steps. In the literature on interface tracking, this is called delooping or untangling the computed front. Recently, an automated untangling routine has been developed for Prometheus based on the so-called 2-colour Theorem. Not only is this approach more intuitive than previous algorithms (which were based on scan lines and winding number calculations), it has proved to be more accurate and faster on all test cases employed by Prometheus developers (from 10 to 90 percent speedup compared to previous generation codes, depending on the examples). It is based on a concise and easy-to-implement set of rules that do not introduce the many special cases that previous methods required. This report presents a brief review of fire simulation models in general, and on their various approaches to

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207