Assuring optimality in surrogate‐based optimization: A novel theorem and its practical implementation in pressure swing adsorption optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Surrogate‐based optimization has gained significant traction in several engineering fields, given its ability to handle complex systems without significant computational burdens. However, surrogate models are approximations and may have limitations, including the possibility of artificial minima. The main contribution of this work is the derivation of a robustness test that guarantees the optimality of surrogate‐based optimization. The derivation of this metric is based on the universal approximation theorem. The full framework proposed in this work is also composed by a sampling sizing methodology to randomly select samples within a feasible operating region (FOR) resulting from the optimization population, reducing the computational cost of the analysis and avoiding biases in the robustness calculation. The applicability and importance of this methodology are demonstrated through a case study of a complex chemical process—a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit—which presents a high computational cost to solve optimization problems. The results highlight the need and importance of evaluating the optimality of surrogate‐based optimization schemes.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".