Summary and Statistical Analysis of the First AIAA Sonic Boom Prediction Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A summary is provided for the First AIAA Sonic Boom Workshop held 11 January 2014 in conjunction with AIAA SciTech 2014. Near-field pressure signatures extracted from computational fluid dynamics solutions are gathered from nineteen participants representing three countries for the two required cases, an axisymmetric body and simple delta wing body. Structured multiblock, unstructured mixed-element, unstructured tetrahedral, overset, and Cartesian cut-cell methods are used by the participants. Participants provided signatures computed on participant generated and solution adapted grids. Signatures are also provided for a series of uniformly refined workshop provided grids. These submissions are propagated to the ground and loudness measures are computed. This allows the grid convergence of a loudness measure and a validation metric (dfference norm between computed and wind tunnel measured near-field signatures) to be studied for the first time. Statistical analysis is also presented for these measures. An optional configuration includes fuselage, wing, tail, flow-through nacelles, and blade sting. This full configuration exhibits more variation in eleven submissions than the sixty submissions provided for each required case. Recommendations are provided for potential improvements to the analysis methods and a possible subsequent workshop.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".