Aircraft conceptual design using genetic algorithms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nomenclature Aircraft design is a complex multidisciplinary process to determine aircraft configuration variables that satisfy a set of mission requirements. It is very hard for aircraft designers to foresee the consequences of changing certain variables. Furthermore, conventional optimization processes are limited by the type and number of parameters used, resulting in sub-optimal designs. The objective of this research is to test the functionality and implementation of a multidisciplinary aircraft conceptual design optimization method using an adaptive genetic algorithm (GA), as a feasible alternative to the existing sizing and optimization methods. To illustrate the approach the algorithm is used to optimize a medium range commercial aircraft, with takeoff weight as an optimization goal, subjected to constraints in performance and geometric parameters. Adaptive and traditional formulations for the handling of constraints by the GA are tested and compared. Results show the ability of the adaptive GA to unbiased search through the design space of aircraft conceptual designs, leading to more viable aircraft configurations than the traditional GA approach at reduced timeframes, with a lower cost than current aircraft design optimization procedures.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it