XLB's lattice Boltzmann scheme has a known O(Ma²) compressibility floor at high resolutions (documented in mosaic/benchmarks/problems/navier_stokes_grid/exclusions.py). On the forward/cylinder experiment, this manifests as elevated error relative to collocated peers.
Goal: Investigate whether adjusting the Mach number, relaxation parameters, or collision operator improves XLB's accuracy on this experiment.
How to get started:
- Run the baseline:
mosaic run -p ns-grid -e forward/cylinder -s XLB --debug
- Snapshot:
mosaic status --format json > before.json
- Adjust parameters in
mosaic/tesseracts/navier-stokes-grid/xlb/tesseract_api.py or via input_overrides in the problem config
- Compare:
mosaic status --format md --diff-against before.json
Good entry point for someone familiar with lattice Boltzmann methods. See CONTRIBUTING.md — Tuning an existing solver for the full workflow.
XLB's lattice Boltzmann scheme has a known O(Ma²) compressibility floor at high resolutions (documented in
mosaic/benchmarks/problems/navier_stokes_grid/exclusions.py). On theforward/cylinderexperiment, this manifests as elevated error relative to collocated peers.Goal: Investigate whether adjusting the Mach number, relaxation parameters, or collision operator improves XLB's accuracy on this experiment.
How to get started:
mosaic run -p ns-grid -e forward/cylinder -s XLB --debugmosaic status --format json > before.jsonmosaic/tesseracts/navier-stokes-grid/xlb/tesseract_api.pyor viainput_overridesin the problem configmosaic status --format md --diff-against before.jsonGood entry point for someone familiar with lattice Boltzmann methods. See CONTRIBUTING.md — Tuning an existing solver for the full workflow.