Higher Order Two Dimensional Aerodynamic Optimization Using Unstructured Grids and Adjoint Sensitivity Computations
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
*† We present early results from an aerodynamic optimization scheme based on a high-order accuracy finitevolume solver. The flow solution sensitivity is calculated using the adjoint approach; the higher order method is shown to be more accurate in calculating sensitivity values than traditional second order accurate computations, when each is compared to the finite difference sensitivity for a flow solver of the same order of accuracy. We take advantage of the exact Jacobian matrix to simplify this process. To avoid re-generating the grid around the airfoil for each optimization iteration, we instead deform the mesh when the geometry is change. We use the semi-torsional mesh movement scheme because of its simplicity and robustness. We use The Quasi-Newton optimization line search method with BFGS approximation of the Hessian matrix as an optimization scheme. We present two unconstrained optimization test cases: one with angle of attack as the sole design variable, and the other an inverse design shape optimization problem. Both the 2 nd and 4 th order schemes reach their corresponding optimal solutions with identical optimization convergence rates. The 2 nd and 4 th order schemes produces similar airfoil shapes for the inverse design test case in subsonic conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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