On the multi-fidelity approach in surrogate-based multidisciplinary design optimisation of high-aspect-ratio wing aircraft
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
Abstract The reduction of computational costs in the context of the Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation of a typical medium-range aircraft was investigated through an assessment of active constraints and the use of multi-fidelity models-based estimation of drag and structural stress. The results show that for this problem, from the set of considered constraints that includes flutter boundary, the active constraint is a 2.5g pull up Maximum Take Off Weight. Results show that the multi-fidelity approach reduced the required high-fidelity aerodynamic number of evaluations, for both drag assessment and stress assessment with sufficient level of accuracy for the former and conservatively for the latter. Further computational cost reduction can be achieved using a surrogate model based Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation. The best configuration attained shows an Aspect Ratio increase of 16%, a reduction of 4.5% in fuel consumption and wing structural weight increase of 2.7% relative to a predefined baseline configuration.
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 | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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