Multi-Objective Optimization for High-Dimensional Expensively Constrained Black-Box Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multi-objective optimization (MOO) problems with computationally expensive constraints are commonly seen in real-world engineering design. However, metamodel-based design optimization (MBDO) approaches for MOO are often not suitable for high-dimensional problems and often do not support expensive constraints. In this work, the situational adaptive Kreisselmeier and Steinhauser (SAKS) method was combined with a new multi-objective trust region optimizer (MTRO) strategy to form the SAKS-MTRO method for MOO problems with expensive black-box constraint functions. The SAKS method is an approach that hybridizes the modeling and aggregation of expensive constraints and adds an adaptive strategy to control the level of hybridization. The MTRO strategy uses a combination of objective decomposition and K-means clustering to handle MOO problems. SAKS-MTRO was benchmarked against four popular multi-objective optimizers and demonstrated superior performance on average. SAKS-MTRO was also applied to optimize the design of a semiconductor substrate and 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".