Development of a Common Platform for Testing Metamodel Based Design Optimization Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metamodel based design optimization (MBDO) algorithms have attracted considerable interests in recent years due to their special capability in dealing with complex optimization problems with computationally expensive objective and constraint functions and local optima. Conventional unimodal-based optimization algorithms and stochastic global optimization algorithms either miss the global optimum frequently or require unacceptable computation time. In this work, a generic testbed/platform for evaluating various MBDO algorithms has been introduced. The purpose of the platform is to facilitate quantitative comparison of different MBDO algorithms using standard test problems, test procedures, and test outputs, as well as to improve the efficiency of new algorithm testing and improvement. The platform consists of a comprehensive test function database that contains about 100 benchmark functions and engineering problems. The testbed accepts any optimization algorithm to be tested, and only requires minor modifications to meet the test-bed requirements. The testbed is useful in comparing the performance of competing algorithms through execution of same problems. It allows researchers and practitioners to test and choose the most suitable optimization tool for their specific needs. It also helps to increase confidence and reliability of the newly developed MBDO tools. Many new MBDO algorithms, including Mode Pursuing Sampling (MPS), Pareto Set Pursuing (PSP), and Space Exploration and Unimodal Region Elimination (SEUMRE), were tested in this work to demonstrate its functionality and benefits.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".