MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232386013 · doi:10.1115/1.4035503

Brass Instruments Design Using Physics-Based Sound Simulation Models and Surrogate-Assisted Derivative-Free Optimization

2016· article· en· W4232386013 on OpenAlexafffund
Robin Tournemenne, Jean-François Petiot, Bastien Talgorn, Michael Kokkolaras, Joël Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanical Design · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesMinistère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche
KeywordsSurrogate modelIntonation (linguistics)Computer scienceUnavailabilityMathematical optimizationEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method for design optimization of brass wind instruments. The shape of a trumpet's bore is optimized to improve intonation using a physics-based sound simulation model. This physics-based model consists of an acoustic model of the resonator, a mechanical model of the excitator, and a model of the coupling between the excitator and the resonator. The harmonic balance technique allows the computation of sounds in a permanent regime, representative of the shape of the resonator according to control parameters of the virtual musician. An optimization problem is formulated in which the objective function to be minimized is the overall quality of the intonation of the different notes played by the instrument. The design variables are the physical dimensions of the resonator. Given the computationally expensive function evaluation and the unavailability of gradients, a surrogate-assisted optimization framework is implemented using the mesh adaptive direct search algorithm (MADS). Surrogate models are used both to obtain promising candidates in the search step of MADS and to rank-order additional candidates generated by the poll step of MADS. The physics-based model is then used to determine the next design iterate. Two examples (with two and five design optimization variables) demonstrate the approach. Results show that significant improvement of intonation can be achieved at reasonable computational cost. Finally, the perspectives of this approach for computer-aided instrument design are evoked, considering optimization algorithm improvements and problem formulation modifications using for instance different design variables, multiple objectives and constraints or objective functions based on the instrument's timbre.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanical DesignSame topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207