An Adaptive Aggregation-Based Approach for Expensively Constrained Black-Box Optimization Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expensive constraints are commonly seen in real-world engineering design. However, metamodel based design optimization (MBDO) approaches often assume inexpensive constraints. In this work, the situational adaptive Kreisselmeier and Steinhauser (SAKS) method was employed in the development of a hybrid adaptive aggregation-based constraint handling strategy for expensive black-box constraint functions. The SAKS method is a novel approach that hybridizes the modeling and aggregation of expensive constraints and adds an adaptive strategy to control the level of hybridization. The SAKS strategy was integrated with a modified trust region-based mode pursuing sampling (TRMPS) algorithm to form the SAKS-trust region optimizer (SAKS-TRO) for single-objective design optimization problems with expensive black-box objective and constraint functions. SAKS-TRO was benchmarked against five popular constrained optimizers and demonstrated superior performance on average. SAKS-TRO was also applied to optimize the design of an industrial recessed impeller.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".