MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320361506 · doi:10.2514/6.2008-5806

A Newton-Krylov Approach for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Wings

2008· article· en· W2320361506 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue12th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerodynamicsComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Aerospace engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Newton-Krylov algorithm is presented for aerodynamic shape optimization in three dimensions using the Euler equations. An inexact-Newton method is used in the flow solver, a discrete-adjoint method to compute the gradient, and a quasi-Newton method to find the optimum. The Krylov subspace method flexible generalized minimal residual is used with approximate-Schur preconditioning to solve both the flow equation and the adjoint equation in a parallel computing environment. The wing geometry is parameterized by a B-spline control net, and a fast algebraic algorithm is used for grid movement. The discrete-adjoint gradient can be obtained in approximately one-fourth the time required for a converged flow solution. The accuracy of the gradient is compared against finite differencing and is found to be comparably accurate. A single-point test case is presented for a cruise configuration optimization at transonic speed. This example as well as an inverse design demonstrate that the optimizer is able to decrease the objective function and gradient by several orders of magnitude efficiently for problems with over 170 design variables. I.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.214 · 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