Dimensionality Reduction in Surrogate Modeling: A Review of Combined Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surrogate modeling has been popularized as an alternative to full-scale models in complex engineering processes such as manufacturing and computer-assisted engineering. The modeling demand exponentially increases with complexity and number of system parameters, which consequently requires higher-dimensional engineering solving techniques. This is known as the curse of dimensionality. Surrogate models are commonly used to replace costly computational simulations and modeling of complex geometries. However, an ongoing challenge is to reduce execution and memory consumption of high-complexity processes, which often exhibit nonlinear phenomena. Dimensionality reduction algorithms have been employed for feature extraction, selection, and elimination for simplifying surrogate models of high-dimensional problems. By applying dimensionality reduction to surrogate models, less computation is required to generate surrogate model parts while retaining sufficient representation accuracy of the full process. This paper aims to review the current literature on dimensionality reduction integrated with surrogate modeling methods. A review of the current state-of-the-art dimensionality reduction and surrogate modeling methods is introduced with a discussion of their mathematical implications, applications, and limitations. Finally, current studies that combine the two topics are discussed and avenues of further research are presented.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".