Dynamic Geometry Control for Robust Aerodynamic Shape Optimization
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
View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3031.vid This work presents novel progressive and adaptive dynamic geometry control algorithms which seek to improve convergence and reduce user workload by partially automating the design of effective geometry control systems for aerodynamic shape optimization. These algorithms function by beginning in a coarse design space and periodically refining the geometry control with additional design variables when objective improvement becomes asymptotic. When refinement is initiated, progressive geometry control moves through a pre-defined sequence of increasingly fine geometry control schemes, while the adaptive algorithm instead dynamically generates a refined search space. This is accomplished by generating a list of candidate refinements and ranking them based on the minimum of a constrained quadratic suboptimization problem which constitutes an estimate of the maximum objective reduction possible in each candidate search space. The accuracy of this method is first validated on two inviscid problems, after which the progressive and adaptive algorithms are applied to two common aerodynamic shape optimization problems based on the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations, the twist and section optimization of the common research model wing-only geometry, and the planform optimization of a hybrid wing-body aircraft. In both cases, the dynamic geometry control schemes are able to converge to lower drag, often with fewer optimization iterations, compared to the tested static schemes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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