Learn to flap: foil non-parametric path planning via deep reinforcement learning
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
To optimize flapping foil performance, in the current study we apply deep reinforcement learning (DRL) to plan foil non-parametric motion, as the traditional control techniques and simplified motions cannot fully model nonlinear, unsteady and high-dimensional foil–vortex interactions. Therefore, a DRL training framework is proposed based on the proximal policy optimization algorithm and the transformer architecture, where the policy is initialized from the sinusoidal expert display. We first demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed DRL-training framework, learning the coherent foil flapping motion to generate thrust. Furthermore, by adjusting reward functions and action thresholds, DRL-optimized foil trajectories can gain significant enhancement in both thrust and efficiency compared with the sinusoidal motion. Last, through visualization of wake morphology and instantaneous pressure distributions, it is found that DRL-optimized foil can adaptively adjust the phases between motion and shedding vortices to improve hydrodynamic performance. Our results give a hint of how to solve complex fluid manipulation problems using the DRL method.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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