Locally weighted regression models for surrogate-assisted design optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider engineering design optimization problems where the objective and/or constraint functions are evaluated by means of computationally expensive blackboxes. Our practical optimization strategy consists of solving surrogate optimization problems in the search step of the mesh adaptive direct search algorithm. In this paper, we consider locally weighted regression models to build the necessary surrogates, and present three ideas for appropriate and effective use of locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) models for surrogate optimization. First, a method is proposed to reduce the computational cost of LOWESS models. Second, a local scaling coefficient is introduced to adapt LOWESS models to the density of neighboring points while retaining smoothness. Finally, an appropriate order error metric is used to select the optimal shape coefficient of the LOWESS model. Our surrogate-assisted optimization approach utilizes LOWESS models to both generate and rank promising candidates found in the search and poll steps. The “real” blackbox functions that govern the original optimization problem are then evaluated at these ranked candidates with an opportunistic strategy, reducing CPU time significantly. Computational results are reported for four engineering design problems with up to six variables and six constraints. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the LOWESS models as well as the order error metric for surrogate optimization.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".