High-Fidelity Surrogate Based Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The employment of conventional optimization procedures that must be repeatedly invoked during the optimization process in real-world engineering applications is hindered despite significant gains in computing power by computationally expensive models. As a result, surrogate models that require far less time and resources to analyze are used in place of these time-consuming analyses. In multi-objective optimization (MOO) problems involving pricey analysis and simulation techniques such as multi-physics modeling and simulation, finite element analysis (FEA), and computational fluid dynamics (CFD), surrogate models are found to be a promising endeavor, particularly for the optimization of complex engineering design problems involving black box functions. In order to reduce the expense of fitness function evaluations and locate the Pareto frontier for MOO problems, the automated multiobjective surrogate based Pareto finder MOO algorithm (AMSP) is proposed. Utilizing data samples taken from the feasible design region, the algorithm creates three surrogate models. The algorithm repeats the process of sampling and updating the Pareto set, by assigning weighting factors to those surrogates in accordance with the values of the root mean squared error, until a Pareto frontier is discovered. AMSP was successfully employed to identify the Pareto set and the Pareto border. Utilizing multi-objective benchmark test functions and engineering design examples such airfoil shape geometry of wind turbine, the unique approach was put to the test. The cost of computing the Pareto optima for test functions and real engineering design problem is reduced, and promising results were obtained.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".