Multi-Fidelity Constrained Bayesian Optimization with Application to Aircraft Wing Design
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
Aircraft design relies heavily on solving challenging and computationally expensive Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) problems. In this context, there has been growing interest in multi-fidelity models for Bayesian Optimization to improve the MDO process by balancing computational cost and accuracy through the combination of high- and low-fidelity simulation models, enabling efficient exploration of the design process at a minimal computational effort. In the existing literature, fidelity selection focuses only on the objective function to decide how to integrate multiple fidelity levels, balancing precision and computational cost using variance reduction criteria. In this work, we propose novel multi-fidelity selection strategies. Specifically, we demonstrate how incorporating information from both the objective and the constraints can further reduce computational costs without compromising the optimality of the solution. We validate the proposed multi-fidelity optimization strategy by applying it to three analytical test cases, showcasing its effectiveness. The proposed method is used to solve efficiently a challenging aircraft wing design problem. The proposed setting uses a linear Vortex Lattice Method (VLM) as a low-fidelity model and a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes coupled VLM as a high-fidelity model. We show that employing our proposed multi-fidelity approach can reduce the required computational budget for convergence by up to 65% when compared to a mono-fidelity approach.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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