MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058247523 · doi:10.2514/1.j051835

Multimodality and Global Optimization in Aerodynamic Design

2013· article· en· W2058247523 on OpenAlexafffund
Oleg Chernukhin, David W. Zingg

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMitacsCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMathematical optimizationAirfoilSobol sequenceCMA-ESLocal optimumAerodynamicsOptimization problemShape optimizationMathematicsGlobal optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmEvolutionary algorithmEvolution strategyFinite element methodEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two optimization algorithms are presented that are capable of finding a global optimum in a computationally efficient manner: a gradient-based multistart algorithm based on Sobol sampling and a hybrid optimizer combining a genetic algorithm with a gradient-based algorithm. The optimizers are used to investigate multimodality in aerodynamic-shape-optimization problems. The performance of each algorithm is tested on an analytical test function as well as several aerodynamic-shape-optimization problems in two and three dimensions. In each problem the primary objectives are to classify the problem according to the degree of multimodality and to identify the preferred optimization algorithm for the problem. The results show that multimodality should not always be assumed in aerodynamic-shape-optimization problems. Typical two-dimensional airfoil-optimization problems are unimodal. Three-dimensional shape-optimization problems may contain local optima. The number of local optima tends to increase with increasing geometric degrees of freedom and design space bounds. For problems with a modest number of local optima, which we term somewhat multimodal, the gradient-based multistart Sobol algorithm is the most efficient method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations144
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207