MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381744605 · doi:10.4050/f-0079-2023-1203

Development of a Machine-Learned Cruise Guide Indicator for Rotorcraft

2023· article· en· W4381744605 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsGeneral Dynamics (Canada)
FundersU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial neural networkConvolutional neural networkDeep learningCruiseMemory modelLift (data mining)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a machine-learned virtual cruise guide indicator (vCGI) for Chinook helicopters. Two temporal neural networks were trained and evaluated on measured data from 55 flight tests, one for the fore rotor and another for the aft rotor, to predict a vCGI value, which protects 23 components from fatigue damage during steady-state conditions. Three different classes of machine learning architectures were evaluated for prediction of the vCGI from time sequences: a temporal convolutional neural network with 1D dilated causal convolutions, a long short-term memory recurrent neural network, and an attention-based transformer architecture. The final average model accuracy on unseen flight data is currently greater than 93% for CGI values which could result in fatigue damage and 90% for normal operation CGI values. Model accuracy was improved through a series of advancements in: (1) selection of optimal training data using temporal collective variables and unsupervised learning, (2) dataset augmentation with maximum-entropy temporal collective variables, and (3) implementation of a mixture-of-experts classification-regression approach using an adversarial classification approach to assign maneuver labels. The results are presented for each advancement in model development along with lessons learned in training machine learning models on real-world, time-dependent rotorcraft data.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207