A similarity-assisted multi-fidelity approach to conceptual design space exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In conceptual design studies engineers typically utilize data-based surrogate models to enable rapid evaluation of design objectives that otherwise would be too computationally expensive and time-consuming to simulate. Due to the computationally expensive simulations, the data-based surrogate models are often trained using small sample sizes, resulting in low-fidelity models which can produce results that are not trustworthy. To mitigate this issue, a similarity-assisted design space exploration method is proposed. The similarity is measured between design points that have been evaluated through lower-fidelity data-based surrogate models and design points that have been evaluated using higher-fidelity physics-based simulations. This similarity information can then be used by design engineers to better understand the trustworthiness of the data produced by the low-fidelity surrogate models. Our numerical experiments demonstrate that such a similarity measurement can be used as an indicator of the trustworthiness of the lower-fidelity model predictions. Moreover, a second similarity metric is proposed for measuring the similarity of new designs to legacy designs, thus highlighting the potential to reuse knowledge, analysis models, and data. The proposed method is demonstrated by means of an aero-engine structural component conceptual design study. An open-source software tool developed to assist in data visualization is also 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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".