Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Wind-Informed Rapid Flight-Planning in Complex Urban Topologies via Machine Learning and Experimental Validation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A machine-learning surrogate trained on CFD can predict urban wind fields fast enough that a cost-minimizing pathfinder can route drones around hazardous flow, and wind-tunnel flights show these flow-informed paths displace less and fly…

desk verdict Integrated surrogate-plus-planner pipeline with a clean Scenario 1 hardware demonstration, but the Scenario 2 safety gain rests on post hoc weight tuning. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10309 v1 pith:WZYMVRSO submitted 2026-08-10 physics.flu-dyn cs.RO

Peter I. Renn , Alejandro A. Stefan-Zavala , Julian Humml , Sabera Talukder , Aysha AlMazrouei , Kresna Aji , Debashisha Mishra , Emanuele Panizio
show 3 more authors
Jennifer Simonjan Yisong Yue Morteza Gharib
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyncs.RO
keywords advancedairmobilityurbanwindflightplanningsurrogatemodelU-Netturbulentkineticenergychallengemetrictunnelvalidation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a flight planner for small aerial vehicles can be made safer by first predicting the wind field around buildings with a machine-learning surrogate, converting that prediction into a scalar 'flight challenge' map, and then routing through the map with a cost-minimizing pathfinder. The claim is supported by wind-tunnel flights: paths planned from wind knowledge kept the test quadrotor closer to its target and steadier than paths planned without wind knowledge. If correct, the result suggests that real-time wind-aware routing in complex urban terrain is within reach using only building geometry and an incident wind reading.

What carries the argument

The central object is the flight challenge metric $F(x,y,z) = w_1(w_2\tilde{G} + \tilde{k})^2 + w_3 D + w_4 D(w_2\tilde{G} + \tilde{k}) + w_0$, where $\tilde{G}$ and $\tilde{k}$ are the min-max normalized velocity-gradient magnitude and turbulent kinetic energy, $D$ is the Gaussian obstacle-proximity penalty, and the $w$ terms are hand-set weights. This scalar field converts a flow prediction into a cost map that encodes shear layers, turbulence, and structure proximity, and it is what makes the pathfinder produce wind-aware routes. The second load-bearing component is a U-Net surrogate that maps a signed-distance encoding of building geometry plus incident wind speed to volumetric three-component velocity and TKE predictions, with a reported test error of 8.71 percent normalized $\ell^2$. A Dijkstra pathfinder then minimizes accumulated $F$ along the route.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to fly several different planned paths through a region whose surrogate-predicted flight challenge is low but whose CFD field shows a sharp shear layer, then measure displacement and angular velocity; if a low-challenge path consistently produces large deviations, the metric's ranking is wrong. The paper's Scenario 2 is already an instance: before weight tuning, the surrogate-informed path crossed the near wake and displaced 6.7 cm, worse than the 5.5 cm naive path. A systematic version would scan a grid of metric weights and check whether the lowest-displacement path aligns with the lowest predicted challenge across multiple geometries.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a flow-informed trajectory generated from a surrogate-predicted wind field is safer and more stable than a flow-naive shortest path. In the first obstacle geometry, the surrogate-informed and CFD-informed paths produced mean displacements of 7.4 cm and 7.7 cm, respectively, while the naive path averaged 18.8 cm and showed trial-to-trial scatter and collisions. In the second geometry, the unadjusted surrogate-informed path passed through a near-wake shear layer and underperformed the naive baseline (6.7 cm versus 5.5 cm), but after increasing the velocity-gradient weight in the flight challenge metric, the surrogate-informed path achieved 4.9 cm mean displacement, beating the 5.5 cm naive path. The authors attribute the need for tuning to oversmoothing in the surrogate's predicted fields.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-tuned flight challenge metric, evaluated on surrogate-predicted time-averaged wind velocity and turbulence fields, correctly ranks aerodynamic hazard for the test vehicle; if the weights or the surrogate's smoothed fields misrank a dangerous shear zone as benign, the planned 'safe' path is not actually safe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wind-aware planning reduces mean trajectory displacement by more than a factor of two relative to a wind-naive baseline in the tested urban-like geometry.
  • The flight challenge metric's correlation with accumulated displacement and angular velocity supports its use as a planning cost rather than only a post-flight diagnostic.
  • A surrogate trained once on CFD can be reused for new geometries and wind speeds without new full-scale simulations, keeping planning fast enough for near-real-time use.
  • The metric's weights need case-by-case tuning when the surrogate output is smoother than CFD; the paper shows one such adjustment recovering performance in the second scenario.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The oversmoothing failure seen in Scenario 2 suggests a testable comparison: adversarially trained or generative surrogates that sharpen wakes should make the fixed-weight metric rank shear layers correctly, removing the manual tuning step.
  • Because the challenge metric is vehicle-agnostic, a natural extension is to replace the fixed weights with vehicle-specific disturbance-response models, so a heavy, slow aircraft and a light, fast one get different routes through the same wind field.
  • The same pipeline could be inverted to define conservative 'no-fly' zones for a fleet with minimum performance guarantees rather than a single trajectory, which would be a direct path to certification-style safety envelopes.
  • A stronger experimental test would fly the same geometries at several incident wind speeds and with the surrogate retrained on higher-resolution data, to see whether the Scenario 2 shear-layer mis-ranking disappears as prediction sharpness improves.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an end-to-end pipeline for wind-aware flight planning: a U-Net surrogate trained on 3392 time-averaged Lattice-Boltzmann flow fields predicts three-dimensional velocity and TKE from building geometry and incident wind; a hand-specified 'flight challenge' scalar field (Eq. 1) combines normalized velocity-gradient magnitude, normalized TKE, and obstacle proximity with weights w0-w4; Dijkstra's algorithm then finds a minimum-cost path. The system is demonstrated in a fan-array wind tunnel on two model urban geometries, comparing surrogate-informed, CFD-informed, and flow-naive trajectories, with three trials per condition. In Scenario 1 the CFD- and surrogate-informed paths have mean displacements of 7.7 cm and 7.4 cm versus 18.8 cm for the naive path. In Scenario 2 the default surrogate-informed path has mean displacement 6.7 cm, worse than the naive path's 5.5 cm; after increasing the velocity-gradient weight w2 in Eq. (1), the surrogate-informed path achieves 4.9 cm. The authors conclude that the flow-informed approach reduces undesired vehicle displacement and improves flight stability.

Significance. If the central claim were established by a prospective, statistically adequate experiment, this would be a meaningful practical demonstration of machine-learning-based wind-aware flight planning in a physical urban-like environment. The paper's strengths include the full-stack validation, the use of a 3D U-Net with a quantified holdout error of 8.71%, and explicit comparison against both CFD-informed and flow-naive baselines. However, the Scenario 2 default result directly contradicts the abstract's claim, the reported improvement is obtained only after post hoc adjustment of the flight-challenge weights, and no uncertainty quantification is provided for any of the displacement means. As presented, the load-bearing evidence is therefore not yet convincing; a prospective evaluation with fixed or cross-validated weights and quantitative error bars is needed. The work is honest about its limitations, but those limitations currently affect the main empirical claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.2, Eq. (1)] With the weights set as described in Section 3.1.2, the surrogate-informed trajectory in Scenario 2 has a mean displacement of 6.7 cm, which is worse than the flow-naive path's 5.5 cm; this contradicts the abstract's claim that the flow-informed approach reduces undesired vehicle displacement. The reported 4.9 cm value is obtained only after increasing w2 following the observed failure, so the same experimental outcome is used both to motivate the re-weighting and to measure the improvement. This is a post hoc fit rather than a prospective comparison. The authors should provide a prospective test with weights fixed before the flight experiments, or a cross-validation in which weights are selected on a separate calibration scenario and then evaluated on held-out flight data.
  2. [Section 2.2, Section 3.1] Only three trials per condition are reported, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. In Scenario 2 the relevant differences are small (5.4 vs 5.5 cm and 4.9 vs 5.5 cm) relative to the spread visible in Figure 8a, so the claimed advantage could easily be sampling noise. The authors should report per-trial displacement values, error bars on all mean displacements, and an appropriate statistical comparison such as a bootstrap or permutation test for the pairwise differences.
  3. [Section 3.1.2, Section 4] The paper attributes the surrogate-informed path's wake crossing to 'overly smooth predictions' and 'artificially inflated flight challenge values' downstream, but no quantitative link is established between the surrogate's prediction error and the resulting path. The difference map in Figure 8c is qualitative, and the text later concedes that tuning 'does not fix the underlying cause.' Without an analysis of which flow-field error component (velocity magnitude, velocity gradient, TKE, or their spatial location) caused the path to cross the shear layer, the conclusion that the surrogate model is the main limiting factor is not supported; the sensitivity of the planned path to plausible surrogate errors should be checked directly.
  4. [Section 2.1, Eq. (1)] The flight challenge metric depends on five manually set weights w0-w4, but the paper does not report the actual weight values, the range of values explored, or a sensitivity analysis. Since the weights are adjusted after observing experimental outcomes, it is impossible to determine how much of the reported improvement reflects the metric formulation rather than the flight planner or the surrogate. The authors should state the exact weights used for each reported trajectory and provide a sensitivity analysis over a plausible weight range showing that the Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 conclusions are robust to reasonable variations in the weights.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Figure 1] The abstract and Figure 1 caption refer to 'time-resolved flow fields,' but the surrogate is trained and evaluated on time-averaged velocity and TKE fields; please use consistent terminology throughout.
  2. [Introduction] There is a typo 'UA V' in the Introduction; also, the hyphenation of 'Lattice-Boltzmann' is inconsistent in a few places.
  3. [Figure 6] The accumulated flight challenge metric in Figure 6 is computed from the CFD-generated field even for the surrogate-informed trajectory; please define how the accumulation is performed and clarify why the surrogate-informed trajectory is evaluated on the CFD field rather than the surrogate field.
  4. [Section 2.1, Eq. (1)] The normalization of the obstacle proximity D is not specified. Please state how the Gaussian-convolved distance field is normalized so that the weight w3 and w4 terms are dimensionally and numerically comparable to the normalized flow terms.
  5. [Section 1, Related Work] The claim of being the 'first real-world demonstration' of wind-aware flight planning should be tempered: Habib et al. [2026] report micro-UAV experiments with wind-adaptive planning around box fans, and Achermann et al. [2024] field-tested a volumetric wind predictor aboard a UAV. The novelty statement should distinguish the present large-fan-array urban-obstacle setting from these prior experimental demonstrations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Scenario 2's flow-informed advantage is established only after post hoc re-weighting of the flight-challenge metric on the same experimental outcome; Scenario 1 remains an independent check.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1.2, Equation (1), Figure 9]
    "The parameters used to this point were set manually using the CFD based flight challenge metric fields. By slightly adjusting the weight of the magnitude of the velocity gradient relative to TKE in the flight challenge metric formulation (increasing w2 in Equation 1), the surrogate-informed path follows a trajectory similar to that of the CFD-informed approach... With this adjustment, the surrogate-informed and CFD-informed trajectories have average displacements of 4.9 cm and 5.3 cm, respectively (the flow-naive path is unchanged, with average displacement of 5.5 cm)."

    The load-bearing Scenario 2 comparison is not a prospective test. With the original weights, the surrogate-informed path crossed a near-wake shear layer and had 6.7 cm mean displacement versus 5.5 cm for the flow-naive path. Only after observing that failure was w2 increased, and the rerun's 4.9 cm value is then presented as the flow-informed improvement. The weight w2 is therefore effectively fit to the outcome of the same experiment used to validate the pipeline; the reported 'prediction' reduces to a post hoc re-weighting of Eq. 1. The Discussion's admission that tuning 'does not fix the underlying cause' confirms the fix was empirical. Scenario 1 supplies independent evidence, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The paper's pipeline is largely self-contained: the surrogate is trained on CFD data with a held-out test error of 8.71%, the path planner minimizes the flight-challenge cost defined in Eq. 1, and Scenario 1 provides an independent, untuned comparison in which CFD- and surrogate-informed paths achieve mean displacements of 7.7 cm and 7.4 cm versus 18.8 cm for the naive path. The circularity is concentrated in Scenario 2: the default metric failed, the authors responded by adjusting w2, and then used the adjusted run as evidence for the safety improvement. That is a fitted parameter presented as validation, not a prospective prediction. Self-citations (e.g., Renn et al. 2026 for U-Net suitability and smoothing behavior) are not load-bearing for the central empirical claim, since independent U-Net references and the Scenario 1 benchmark carry the argument. The honest non-circular core is Scenario 1 plus the surrogate holdout evaluation; the Scenario 2 improvement claim is partially circular and should be reported as exploratory rather than confirmatory.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The flight challenge metric is a derived scalar field, not a new entity. The main burden is the hand-tuned challenge weights and the assumption that time-averaged simulated fields, rather than transient or vehicle-specific disturbances, determine flight hazard.

free parameters (1)
  • Flight challenge weights w0, w1, w2, w3, w4 = Set manually; w2 increased in Scenario 2
    Eq. 1 weights are hand-tuned against CFD-derived challenge fields; no values or independent selection procedure are given. The Scenario 2 improvement after increasing w2 shows the reported result depends on this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Lattice-Boltzmann simulations at 4 m uniform resolution produce time-averaged urban wind fields accurate enough to train the surrogate.
    Section 2.3.2 notes relaxation time approaches 0.5 and stability or fidelity may be reduced; the paper assumes no numerical errors in retained data.
  • domain assumption Time-averaged velocity magnitude gradient and TKE, combined with obstacle proximity, capture the hazard experienced by a small quadrotor.
    Eq. 1 uses these quantities; the paper acknowledges TKE lacks length scale and spectrum, and vehicle-specific response is ignored (Section 4).
  • domain assumption The atmospheric boundary layer inlet profile (Richards-Hoxey) applies to all simulated urban geometries.
    Section 2.3.2 states the inlet profile approximates the atmospheric boundary layer; this is a modeling choice inherited from the CFD literature.
  • domain assumption The incident wind in experiments (5 m/s, aligned with the x-axis) matches the CFD and surrogate model input condition.
    Section 3.1 states the inlet wind speed was used to generate CFD and surrogate estimates; no measurement of spatial uniformity or turbulence intensity of the tunnel inlet is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wind-Informed Rapid Flight-Planning in Complex Urban Topologies via Machine Learning and Experimental Validation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WZYMVRSO

@misc{pith2026260810309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wind-Informed Rapid Flight-Planning in Complex Urban Topologies via Machine Learning and Experimental Validation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WZYMVRSO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10309}
}
read the original abstract

Advanced air mobility operations hold the potential to enhance and expand regional transportation of both people and goods in populated areas. However, hazardous flight conditions arising from interactions between wind and the built environment remain a significant challenge for aerial vehicles in urban settings. This work proposes a novel framework towards safe flight planning of aerial vehicles in windy urban environments. A learning-based surrogate model is trained to rapidly predict flow fields from readily available information such as building geometry and incident wind. This surrogate prediction is used to calculate a volumetric flight challenge scalar field based on critical flow parameters and proximity to structures. A safe, flow-informed flight trajectory is then identified through a cost-minimizing pathfinder. The complete system is demonstrated experimentally through flight tests of a micro aerial vehicle through a model urban geometry placed in a large fan-array wind tunnel. Comparing this approach to trajectories generated without knowledge of the wind field, we find the flow-informed approach reduces undesired vehicle displacement and improves flight stability. This work is among the first practical demonstrations of safe, wind-aware methodologies for advanced air mobility in urban environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10309 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed pipeline for AAM flow-informed flight planning. A library of time-resolved flow fields are used to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental facility used for testing. 0.125 0.750 1.38 u component (m/s) 0 2m/s 0 0.4(m/s) 2 Velocity Magnitude TKE Target Predicted Z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Target and predicted fields of velocity magnitude and TKE for one sample of the holdout set. The fields are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of geometry for Scenario 1 with model buildings, fan array wind tunnel, and planned paths shown. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Extent of positions in the streamwise plane across the three trials for the three paths. The desired paths are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Accumulated disturbance and flight challenge metrics as a function of flight time averaged across three trials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overview of geometry for Scenario 2. The magenta rectangular prism represents the allowed flight corridor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a.) Extent of positions in the streamwise plane across the three trials for the three paths. The desired paths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Flight challenge metric, target paths, and range of positions with flight challenge metric recalculated with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Corridor design and separation definition in advanced air mobility: Systematic literature review

    Evgenii Vinogradov, Debashisha Mishra, Mariam Ali Askar Alobeidli, Jamal Khaled Al Ali, Ahmed Saleh Alshehhi, Jennifer Simonjan, and Enrico Natalizio. Corridor design and separation definition in advanced air mobility: Systematic literature review. IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2026

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Advanced air mobility: Opportunities and challenges deploying evtols for air ambulance service

    Rohit Goyal and Adam Cohen. Advanced air mobility: Opportunities and challenges deploying evtols for air ambulance service. Applied Sciences, 12 0 (3): 0 1183, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Advanced air mobility: Innovations, applications, challenges, and future potential

    Waleed Raza, Justus Renkhoff, Olayemi Ogirimah, Gurvir Kaur Bawa, and Richard S Stansbury. Advanced air mobility: Innovations, applications, challenges, and future potential. Journal of Air Transportation, 33 0 (2): 0 169--187, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Ten questions concerning the use of drones in urban environments

    Simon Watkins, Jane Burry, Abdulghani Mohamed, Matthew Marino, Samuel Prudden, Alex Fisher, Nicola Kloet, Timothy Jakobi, and Reece Clothier. Ten questions concerning the use of drones in urban environments. Building and Environment, 167: 0 106458, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Physics and modeling of large flow disturbances: discrete gust encounters for modern air vehicles

    Anya R Jones, Oksan Cetiner, and Marilyn J Smith. Physics and modeling of large flow disturbances: discrete gust encounters for modern air vehicles. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 54 0 (1): 0 469--493, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Gusts encountered by flying vehicles in proximity to buildings

    Abdulghani Mohamed, Matthew Marino, Simon Watkins, Justin Jaworski, and Anya Jones. Gusts encountered by flying vehicles in proximity to buildings. Drones, 7 0 (1): 0 22, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Urban morphology and wind effects on uav flight risks: A cfd-based risk mapping framework

    Xiaotian Geng and Zhonghua Gou. Urban morphology and wind effects on uav flight risks: A cfd-based risk mapping framework. Sustainable Cities and Society, page 107396, 2026

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Turbulence-aware uav path planning in urban environments

    Enrique Aldao Pensado, Gabriel Fontenla Carrera, Fernando Veiga L \'o pez, Higinio Gonz \'a lez Jorge, and Elena Mart \' n Ortega. Turbulence-aware uav path planning in urban environments. In 2024 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), pages 280--285. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Estimating the impacts of the wind field size, wind speed, turbulence, and no-fly zones on unmanned aerial vehicle flights in urban areas

    Ziyong Cao, Xuelin Zhang, AU Weerasuriya, Zhijun Wang, and Jianping Guo. Estimating the impacts of the wind field size, wind speed, turbulence, and no-fly zones on unmanned aerial vehicle flights in urban areas. Physics of Fluids, 38 0 (1), 2026

    2026

  2. [11]

    Machine learning for fluid mechanics

    Steven L Brunton, Bernd R Noack, and Petros Koumoutsakos. Machine learning for fluid mechanics. Annual review of fluid mechanics, 52 0 (1): 0 477--508, 2020

    2020

  3. [12]

    Machine learning for urban wind simulation: A comprehensive review

    Ilker Karadag, Danny Smyl, and Patrick Kastner. Machine learning for urban wind simulation: A comprehensive review. Available at SSRN 6484578, 2026

    2026

  4. [13]

    Evaluating a deep learning-based surrogate model for predicting wind distribution in urban microclimate design

    Houzhi Wang, Wei Ma, Jianlei Niu, and Ruoyu You. Evaluating a deep learning-based surrogate model for predicting wind distribution in urban microclimate design. Building and Environment, 269: 0 112426, 2025

    2025

  5. [14]

    Fastflow: Ai for fast urban wind velocity prediction

    Shi Jer Low, Venugopalan SG Raghavan, Harish Gopalan, Jian Cheng Wong, Justin Yeoh, and Chin Chun Ooi. Fastflow: Ai for fast urban wind velocity prediction. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), pages 147--154. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  6. [15]

    From large-eddy simulations to deep learning: A u-net model for fast urban canopy flow predictions

    Themistoklis Vargiemezis and Catherine Gorl \'e . From large-eddy simulations to deep learning: A u-net model for fast urban canopy flow predictions. Sustainable Cities and Society, page 107005, 2025

    2025

  7. [16]

    Fourier neural operator for real-time simulation of 3d dynamic urban microclimate

    Wenhui Peng, Shaoxiang Qin, Senwen Yang, Jianchun Wang, Xue Liu, and Liangzhu Leon Wang. Fourier neural operator for real-time simulation of 3d dynamic urban microclimate. Building and Environment, 248: 0 111063, 2024

    2024

  8. [18]

    Learning local urban wind flow fields from range sensing

    Spencer Folk, John Melton, Benjamin WL Margolis, Mark Yim, and Vijay Kumar. Learning local urban wind flow fields from range sensing. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9 0 (9): 0 7413--7420, 2024

    2024

  9. [19]

    Stable fluids

    Jos Stam. Stable fluids. In Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2, pages 779--786. ACM, 2023

    2023

  10. [20]

    Spencer Folk, John Melton, Benjamin W. L. Margolis, Mark Yim, and Vijay Kumar. Towards safe and energy-efficient real-time motion planning in windy urban environments. In 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2787--2793, 2025. doi:10.1109/...

    2025

  11. [21]

    Reconstructing fine-scale 3d wind fields with terrain-informed machine learning

    Chensen Lin, Ruian Tie, Shihong Yi, Dongqing Liu, Xiaohui Zhong, Zixin Hu, and Hao Li. Reconstructing fine-scale 3d wind fields with terrain-informed machine learning. Nature Communications, 2026

    2026

  12. [22]

    Windseer: real-time volumetric wind prediction over complex terrain aboard a small uncrewed aerial vehicle

    Florian Achermann, Thomas Stastny, Bogdan Danciu, Andrey Kolobov, Jen Jen Chung, Roland Siegwart, and Nicholas Lawrance. Windseer: real-time volumetric wind prediction over complex terrain aboard a small uncrewed aerial vehicle. Nature Communications, 15 0 (1): 0 3507, 2024

    2024

  13. [23]

    Hybrid cfd-deep learning approach for urban wind flow predictions and risk-aware uav path planning

    Gonzalo Veiga-Pi \ n eiro, Enrique Aldao-Pensado, and Elena Mart \' n-Ortega. Hybrid cfd-deep learning approach for urban wind flow predictions and risk-aware uav path planning. Drones, 9 0 (11): 0 791, 2025

    2025

  14. [26]

    Xlb: A differentiable massively parallel lattice boltzmann library in python

    Mohammadmehdi Ataei and Hesam Salehipour. Xlb: A differentiable massively parallel lattice boltzmann library in python. Computer Physics Communications, 300: 0 109187, 2024

    2024

  15. [27]

    Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models using the k- turbulence model

    PJ Richards and RP Hoxey. Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models using the k- turbulence model. Journal of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics, 46: 0 145--153, 1993

    1993

  16. [28]

    Learning turbulent flows with generative models for super resolution and sparse flow reconstruction

    Vivek Oommen, Siavash Khodakarami, Aniruddha Bora, Zhicheng Wang, and George Em Karniadakis. Learning turbulent flows with generative models for super resolution and sparse flow reconstruction. Nature Communications, 17 0 (1): 0 3707, 2026

    2026

  17. [29]

    Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition (ICFHR), 2014 14th International Conference on , pages=

    Real-time segmentation of on-line handwritten arabic script , author=. Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition (ICFHR), 2014 14th International Conference on , pages=. 2014 , organization=

    2014

  18. [30]

    Soft Computing and Pattern Recognition (SoCPaR), 2014 6th International Conference of , pages=

    Fast classification of handwritten on-line Arabic characters , author=. Soft Computing and Pattern Recognition (SoCPaR), 2014 6th International Conference of , pages=. 2014 , organization=

    2014

  19. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09028 , year=

    Estimate and Replace: A Novel Approach to Integrating Deep Neural Networks with Existing Applications , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09028 , year=

    arXiv

  20. [32]

    Building and Environment , volume=

    Ten questions concerning the use of drones in urban environments , author=. Building and Environment , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  21. [33]

    Applied Sciences , volume=

    Advanced air mobility: Opportunities and challenges deploying eVTOLs for air ambulance service , author=. Applied Sciences , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  22. [34]

    PeerJ , volume=

    scikit-image: image processing in Python , author=. PeerJ , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  23. [35]

    Preiss* and Wolfgang H\"onig* and Gaurav S

    James A. Preiss* and Wolfgang H\"onig* and Gaurav S. Sukhatme and Nora Ayanian , title =. 2017 , url =. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2017.7989376 , note =

    2017

  24. [36]

    IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems , year=

    Corridor Design and Separation Definition in Advanced Air Mobility: Systematic Literature Review , author=. IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems , year=

  25. [37]

    Annual review of fluid mechanics , volume=

    Machine learning for fluid mechanics , author=. Annual review of fluid mechanics , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  26. [38]

    Available at SSRN 6484578 , year=

    Machine Learning for Urban Wind Simulation: A Comprehensive Review , author=. Available at SSRN 6484578 , year=

  27. [39]

    Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , volume=

    Physics and modeling of large flow disturbances: discrete gust encounters for modern air vehicles , author=. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  28. [40]

    Drones , volume=

    Gusts encountered by flying vehicles in proximity to buildings , author=. Drones , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  29. [41]

    Nature Communications , volume=

    Learning turbulent flows with generative models for super resolution and sparse flow reconstruction , author=. Nature Communications , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  30. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14725 , year=

    Generative Urban Flow Modeling: From Geometry to Airflow with Graph Diffusion , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14725 , year=

  31. [43]

    Nature Communications , volume=

    WindSeer: real-time volumetric wind prediction over complex terrain aboard a small uncrewed aerial vehicle , author=. Nature Communications , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  32. [44]

    Nature Communications , year=

    Reconstructing fine-scale 3D wind fields with terrain-informed machine learning , author=. Nature Communications , year=

  33. [45]

    Building and Environment , volume=

    Fourier neural operator for real-time simulation of 3D dynamic urban microclimate , author=. Building and Environment , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  34. [46]

    Building and Environment , volume=

    Evaluating a deep learning-based surrogate model for predicting wind distribution in urban microclimate design , author=. Building and Environment , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  35. [47]

    2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) , pages=

    FastFlow: AI for fast urban wind velocity prediction , author=. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) , pages=. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  36. [48]

    Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2 , publisher=

    Stable fluids , author=. Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2 , publisher=

  37. [49]

    Folk, Spencer and Melton, John and Margolis, Benjamin W. L. and Yim, Mark and Kumar, Vijay , booktitle=. Towards Safe and Energy-Efficient Real-Time Motion Planning in Windy Urban Environments , year=

  38. [50]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , volume=

    Learning local urban wind flow fields from range sensing , author=. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  39. [51]

    Journal of Air Transportation , volume=

    Advanced air mobility: Innovations, applications, challenges, and future potential , author=. Journal of Air Transportation , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  40. [52]

    Journal of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics , volume=

    Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models using the k- turbulence model , author=. Journal of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics , volume=. 1993 , publisher=

    1993

  41. [53]

    Physics of Fluids , volume=

    Estimating the impacts of the wind field size, wind speed, turbulence, and no-fly zones on unmanned aerial vehicle flights in urban areas , author=. Physics of Fluids , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  42. [54]

    Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

    Film: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

  43. [55]

    Computer Physics Communications , volume=

    XLB: A differentiable massively parallel lattice Boltzmann library in Python , author=. Computer Physics Communications , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  44. [56]

    Sustainable Cities and Society , pages=

    Urban morphology and wind effects on UAV flight risks: A CFD-based risk mapping framework , author=. Sustainable Cities and Society , pages=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  45. [57]

    2024 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) , pages=

    Turbulence-aware UAV path planning in urban environments , author=. 2024 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    2024

  46. [58]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.09194 , year=

    WESPR: Wind-adaptive Energy-Efficient Safe Perception & Planning for Robust Flight with Quadrotors , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.09194 , year=

  47. [59]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.10848 , year=

    Data-driven surrogate models for forecasting experimentally measured fluid flows , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.10848 , year=

    arXiv

  48. [60]

    Drones , volume=

    Hybrid CFD-Deep Learning Approach for Urban Wind Flow Predictions and Risk-Aware UAV Path Planning , author=. Drones , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  49. [61]

    Sustainable Cities and Society , pages=

    From large-eddy simulations to deep learning: A U-net model for fast urban canopy flow predictions , author=. Sustainable Cities and Society , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.