Convolutional neural network-based optimization model for bird flight aerodynamic simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the aerodynamics of fluttering flight of birds through their body structure characteristics.A convolutional neural network is combined with a bird-like flight aerodynamic model.By analyzing the symmetric and asymmetric motion laws of birds in flight, the three-dimensional model and equations of motion of the wing-fluttering motion are established, the aerodynamic simulation study of bird wing-fluttering flight under Computational Fluid Dynamics(CFD) and train it by convolutional neural network.When the model trained to 12 rounds, the loss values on both the training and validation sets converge to about 3.5%, the training effect is good.The predicted values of the lift-to-drag ratio by the model in this paper are close to the CFD calculated values, and the average relative errors of the validation set test set are 0.483% and 0.486%, respectively.In addition, the model predicts the pressure coefficient of the flow field better, and the prediction error of the vast majority of the positions is less than 1.2%.In conclusion, the convolutional neural network can significantly improve the performance of bird flight aerodynamic simulation model.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".