Multi-objective Bayesian Optimization With Mixed-categorical Design Variables for Expensive-to-evaluate Aeronautical Applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work aims at developing new methodologies to optimize computational costly complex systems (e.g., aeronautical engineering systems). The proposed surrogate-based method (often called Bayesian optimization) uses adaptive sampling to promote a trade-off between exploration and exploitation. Our in-house implementation, called SEGOMOE, handles a high number of design variables (continuous, discrete or categorical) and nonlinearities by combining mixtures of experts for the objective and/or the constraints. Additionally, the method handles multi-objective optimization settings, as it allows the construction of accurate Pareto fronts with a minimal number of function evaluations. Different infill criteria have been implemented to handle multiple objectives with or without constraints. The effectiveness of the proposed method was tested on practical aeronautical applications within the context of the European Project AGILE 4.0 and demonstrated favorable results. A first example concerns a retrofitting problem where a comparison between two optimizers have been made. A second example introduces hierarchical variables to deal with architecture system in order to design an aircraft family. The third example increases drastically the number of categorical variables as it combines aircraft design, supply chain and manufacturing process. In this article, we show, on three different realistic problems, various aspects of our optimization codes thanks to the diversity of the treated aircraft problems.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it