Comparative Study of First-Order Moving Asymptotes Optimizers for the Moving Morphable Components Topology Optimization Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning-accelerated topology optimization faces the challenge of generating large amounts of optimal topologies for supervised learning on a training dataset. This data generation step is challenging for the method of Moving Morphable Components (MMC) which presents an oscillatory behavior near local optimum that negatively affects its convergence speed and therefore present a high data generation cost. This paper presents a comparative study of the most-used first-order optimizers applied to minimum compliance problems under the MMC framework for topology optimization. The Method of Moving Asymptotes (MMA), its Globally Convergent version (GCMMA) and the hybrid MMA-GCMMA optimizer are compared using their final compliance and the total number of iterations until convergence as performance metrics. An extensive set of diversified boundary conditions for a rectangular beam minimum compliance problem is used as case study. The method of performance profiles is utilized to provide for each solver a probability distribution of outperforming its counterparts. Numerical results show that using a hybrid optimizer can accelerate the convergence speed of the MMC framework while still producing equally compliant topologies when compared to the MMA optimizer.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".