MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391733893 · doi:10.1063/5.0169982

Deep reinforcement learning for propulsive performance of a flapping foil

2023· article· en· W4391733893 on OpenAlexaff
Yan Bao, Xinyu Shi, Zhipeng Wang, Hongbo Zhu, Narakorn Srinil, Ang Li, Dai Zhou, Dixia Fan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsFlappingFOIL methodAerospace engineeringThermodynamicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While it is challenging for a traditional propulsor to achieve a wide range of force profile manipulation and propulsion efficiency, nature provides a solution for a flapping foil such as that found in birds and turtles. In this paper, we introduce a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithm with great potential for solving nonlinear systems during the simulation to achieve a self-learning posture adjustment for a flapping foil to effectively improve its thrust performance. With DRL, a brute-force search is first carried out to provide intuition about the optimal trajectories of the foil and also a database for the following case studies. We implement an episodic training strategy for intelligent agent learning using the DRL algorithm. To address a slow data generation issue in the computational fluid dynamics simulation, we introduce a multi-environment technique to accelerate data exchange between the environment and the agent. This method is capable of adaptively and automatically performing an optimal foil path planning to generate the maximum thrust under various scenarios and can even outperform the optimal cases designed by users. Numerical results demonstrate how the proposed DRL is powerful to achieve optimization and has great potential to solve a more complex problem in the field of fluid mechanics beyond human predictability.

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 score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicBiomimetic flight and propulsion mechanismsFrench-language works237,207