MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033734338

A relative adequacy framework for multi-model management in single- and multidisciplinary design optimization

2020· dissertation· en· W7033734338 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary design optimizationMultidisciplinary approachScalabilityRange (aeronautics)Optimization problemReduction (mathematics)FidelityMulti-objective optimizationEngineering optimization
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a novel multi-model management method for numerical design optimization.The goal is to determine whether any of the analysis models associated with lower computational cost (that are typically expected to have inferior predictive capability relative to models associated with higher computational cost) can be used in certain areas of the design space as the latter is being explored during the optimization process.The framework quantifies and utilizes relative errors among available models regardless of their expected fidelity to enhance the predictive capability of inexpensive models and reduce the use of expensive ones.We implement our strategy by means of a trust-region management framework that utilizes the mesh adaptive direct search derivative-free optimization algorithm.We first present the methodology for single-disciplinary design optimization problems and demonstrate it using a cantilevered flexible beam example.Results show significant reduction in the computational cost of the optimization process.We also investigate the scalability of the proposed method using an airfoil shape optimization problem.We then proceed to extend our method to solve multidisciplinary design optimization problems with particular emphasis on strongly-coupled fluid-structure interaction.We illustrate that interactions can have a significant impact on multi-model management as models that could have been selected in a single-disciplinary analysis environment can be inadequate in a multidisciplinary analysis context.We implement our method for two multidisciplinary design optimization architectures: the monolithic multidisciplinary feasible formulation (also known as all-at-once) and a penalty-based distributed interdisciplinary feasible formulation.Finally, we extend the method to allow the consideration of time-dependent multidisciplinary design optimization problems.The algorithms are modified to automate the search for adequate modeling parameters during the time-dependent multidisciplinary analysis.We demonstrate the proposed time-invariant and time-dependent multidisciplinary design optimization methods by means of three problems: a flexible plate fluid-structure interaction problem, a flexible beam fluid-structure interaction problem, and a transonic fan flow problem.Results show that both methods are accurate and efficient and result in significant cost savings, especially in the presence of strongly-coupled disciplines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicAcademic Publishing and Open AccessFrench-language works237,207