Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 84 references

Surrogate-Based Optimization Techniques for Process Systems Engineering

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This chapter benchmarks ten surrogate-based optimization algorithms on unconstrained and constrained test problems plus two chemical engineering case studies, finding that DYCORS leads on synthetic unconstrained problems while CUATRO-pls…

desk verdict Useful tutorial and reproducible code, but the benchmark rankings rest on an unreconciled run-count inconsistency and no variance reporting. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13948 v1 pith:QXSETDXI submitted 2024-12-18 math.OC

Mathias Neufang , Emma Pajak , Damien van de Berg , Ye Seol Lee , Ehecatl Antonio del Rio Chanona This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C5690C3065K05
keywords surrogate-basedoptimizationderivative-freeBayesianradialbasisfunctionstrustregionmethodsprocesssystemsengineeringblack-boxalgorithmbenchmarking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is a book chapter aiming to give process systems engineers a practical guide to surrogate-based optimization, also called model-based derivative-free optimization, with both theoretical background and a comparative performance assessment. It claims to provide reproducible, directional evidence on which algorithms to choose: DYCORS is the best on unconstrained synthetic benchmarks, CUATRO-pls is best on a 32-dimensional CSTR PID controller tuning case, and COBYQA and COBYLA are the best of the tested methods on the constrained Williams-Otto process. The chapter also supplies code so that practitioners can rerun the comparisons on their own problems.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the normalized trajectory scoring metric $r_{k,a}$ and its aggregate $p_a$ (Eqs. 35-36): at each function-evaluation count $k$, the mean best-so-far value of algorithm $a$ is compared to the best and worst values among all algorithms, and this relative score is averaged over the trajectory. This yields a number between 0 and 1 that ranks algorithms on a common normalized scale, enabling cross-algorithm comparison across test functions and case studies with different budgets.

What would settle it

Rerunning the benchmarking code supplied by the authors with 50 or more independent restarts per algorithm and computing confidence intervals on the normalized scores $p_a$ would settle whether the reported orderings are stable; if DYCORS versus SRBF, or COBYQA/COBYLA versus CBO, swap places under this wider sampling, the chapter's directional conclusions would not be supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the chapter's central discovery is an empirical ranking of ten surrogate-based optimization algorithms under a common evaluation protocol using a normalized trajectory score $p_a$ (Eqs. 35-36) that measures how close each algorithm's best-so-far trajectory stays to the best trajectory among the competitors. DYCORS tops the unconstrained synthetic benchmarks across the Ackley, Levy, Rosenbrock, and ill-conditioned Quadratic functions in 2, 5, and 7 dimensions; on the 32-dimensional PID tuning case, the dimensionality-reducing CUATRO-pls is the best performer; and on the constrained Williams-Otto case, COBYQA and COBYLA achieve perfect scores. The chapter also documents that algorithm rankings differ between synthetic functions and engineering case studies, so performance on test functions alone is not a reliable guide.

Load-bearing premise

The rankings assume that a small number of independent runs per algorithm (five in the procedure text, ten in figure captions) is enough to represent each algorithm's typical performance, and the reported score differences are not tested for statistical significance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Practitioners can use DYCORS or SRBF as a first choice for unconstrained, low-to-moderate dimensional expensive black-box problems.
  • For high-dimensional problems with latent low-dimensional structure, such as controller tuning, CUATRO-pls offers a meaningful advantage over standard Bayesian optimization.
  • For constrained problems where constraint satisfaction matters, COBYQA and COBYLA are the safer choices among the tested methods.
  • Synthetic test-function rankings should be supplemented with engineering case studies, since relative performance shifted substantially between the two settings.
  • The normalized score methodology gives a reusable template for comparing derivative-free solvers on a user's own objective.
  • The open-source code released with the chapter allows the benchmarks to be extended to new functions and case studies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported score differences, such as BO at 0.82 versus COBYLA at 0.81 overall, are not backed by statistical tests; a reader rerunning the supplied code with many more restarts could determine whether these orderings are stable.
  • The success of CUATRO-pls hints that many process systems engineering problems have low intrinsic dimensionality, so other subspace-based or dimensionality-reducing surrogate methods could be expected to perform well beyond the PID case studied.
  • The discrepancy between the stated five runs per algorithm in Section 3.1 and the ten repetitions referenced in figure captions and Table 3 should be resolved before treating any of the numerical scores as precise.
  • The comparison framework itself, based on best-so-far trajectory normalization, could be transferred to constrained, multi-objective, or noisy settings as a standardized way to report solver comparisons.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This book chapter surveys surrogate-based (model-based) derivative-free optimization methods for process systems engineering. It presents the mathematical foundations of ten algorithms (Bayesian optimization, ENTMOOT, COBYLA, COBYQA, LSQM, CUATRO/CUATRO-pls, SNOBFIT, DYCORS, SOP, SRBF), then benchmarks them on unconstrained synthetic test functions (Ackley, Levy, Rosenbrock, quadratic) in 2, 5, and 7 dimensions, on constrained synthetic problems, and on two chemical engineering case studies: a 32-dimensional CSTR-PID controller tuning problem and a low-dimensional Williams-Otto reactor problem. The headline empirical claims are that DYCORS is the best unconstrained synthetic solver, CUATRO-pls is the best on the PID case, and COBYQA and COBYLA tie for best on the Williams-Otto case. The chapter also provides a GitHub repository with the benchmarking code and emphasizes that its conclusions are relative to the algorithm set and problem set considered.

Significance. If the benchmark results are reliable, the chapter offers a useful, reproducible reference for practitioners choosing surrogate-based optimization algorithms in process systems engineering. Its strengths include the public code repository, the inclusion of both off-the-shelf and in-house implementations (some of which perform poorly on several problems, which reduces concern about selective reporting), and the explicit caveat that the rankings are relative to the chosen algorithm and function sets. The tutorial material on algorithm families is generally accurate and well organized. However, the quantitative rankings are the main contribution, and they currently rest on an unreconciled repetition-count discrepancy, an undefined protocol for 7D runs, and the absence of variance or significance reporting. These issues are load-bearing because the practical deliverable is directional algorithm selection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Eq. (35)] The repetition count is inconsistent: Section 3.1 states that each algorithm is run 'five times' and Eq. (35) says ymean is 'derived from the averaging of five optimization runs,' while the captions of Figures 2, 3, 4, 8, and 10 and Table 3 state '10 repetitions from 10 different starting points.' Since every quantitative score p_a in Tables 2, 4, and 5 is computed from the averaged trajectory ymean_{k,a}, this discrepancy directly affects all ranking claims. The authors must state which number of repetitions was actually used, and should report per-algorithm variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Without this, close scores such as BO 0.82 versus COBYLA 0.81 overall in Table 2, or the 0.02-0.11 gaps among ranks 2-6 in Table 4, cannot be distinguished from noise.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Table 1] The evaluation budget and burn-in length are defined only for nx = 2, 5, and 10, but the unconstrained benchmark uses nx = 2, 5, and 7 (Table 1, Figure 2). The budget of '100 function evaluations for nx = 10' and the burn-in of 'nc = 15 for nx = 10' have no stated analogue for the 7-dimensional runs that produce the D7 rows in Table 2. The D7 scores are therefore not reproducible from the described protocol. Please specify the 7D evaluation budget and burn-in, or remove the 7D results.
  3. [Eqs. (35)-(36) and Section 3.2.5] The scoring metric normalizes each trajectory point by the contemporaneous best and worst trajectories among the algorithm set. Because these extrema are themselves noisy estimates, the resulting r and p_a values are not effect sizes with a meaningful absolute scale; near convergence, small absolute differences in objective value can produce large swings in the normalized score. The rankings in Sections 3.2.5, 5.1.2, and 5.2.1 are reported as point estimates with no significance testing. Please add uncertainty quantification (e.g., bootstrap confidence intervals or paired tests) or explicitly temper the ranking claims to directional observations, especially where score gaps are small.
  4. [Section 4.4.1] The constraint-violation threshold of 0.001 is selected after observing that 'when the algorithms commence evaluating alongside the constraint, there are very small constraint violations e.g. 0.0008.' This ex post choice directly affects the constraint-satisfaction percentages in Table 3 and the 'Feasible Samples' column in Table 5. Please report how sensitive those columns are to the threshold, or justify the threshold on an a priori basis independent of the observed violations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.1.2 and Table 4] Section 5 states that the in-house BO implementation is replaced by GPyOpt and TuRBO for the PID case, but Table 4 lists both 'BO' and 'TURBO' as separate rows. Please clarify which implementation the 'BO' row refers to and whether 'TURBO' is the TuRBO algorithm.
  2. [Figure 3] The subcaptions in Figure 3 do not identify which algorithms' trajectories are shown, and the phrase 'exemplary optimization trajectories' does not indicate the specific run or starting point. Please add a legend or state the algorithm names in each subcaption.
  3. [Section 4.4.1] The text refers to an 'Ill-Constrained Quadratic' function; this appears to be a typo for 'Ill-Conditioned Quadratic' and should be corrected for consistency with Section 3.2.1.
  4. [Section 2.10.1, Eq. (34)] The statement that the RBF coefficient matrix is invertible 'if and only if rank(P) = nx + 1' is incomplete; standard RBF interpolation also requires distinct data points and suitable conditions on the kernel (e.g., conditional positive definiteness). Please rephrase to state the conditions accurately.
  5. [Section 5.2.1, Table 5] COBYQA and COBYLA both receive p_a = 1.00, yet they have different feasible-sample rates (81.75% and 84.28%) and mean violations. Please clarify whether p_a is computed over all trajectories or only over feasible ones, and how the constraint-satisfaction metric interacts with the objective-based score.
  6. [Section 7.1] The concluding text says SNOBFIT 'performed much better in this case study,' but Table 4 places SNOBFIT sixth with a score of 0.61, which is mid-pack rather than a clear improvement. Please rephrase to reflect the actual ranking.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the benchmark rankings are empirical outputs of an explicit scoring rule, not constructions implied by its inputs.

full rationale

This chapter is a benchmarking survey rather than a derivation. Its central claims (DYCORS best on unconstrained synthetics, CUATRO-pls best on the PID case, COBYQA/COBYLA tied on Williams-Otto) are empirical outputs of the performance protocol in Section 3.1; the normalized scores p_a of Eqs. 35-36 define an evaluation metric but do not force any particular algorithm's trajectory, so the rankings are not equivalent by construction. The in-house solvers (CUATRO, CUATRO-pls, LSQM, BO/CBO) are benchmarked alongside external implementations, and the same in-house implementations score worst on several blocks (e.g., CBO 0.00 on constrained Rosenbrock, CUATRO near the bottom on unconstrained functions), which is inconsistent with a definitionally forced outcome. Self-citations to the authors' own CUATRO [2], CUATRO-pls [75], and coordination [43] papers are descriptive origins of the algorithms and are not invoked as proofs of the benchmark outcomes. The unresolved 5-versus-10 repetition discrepancy and the absence of variance or significance testing are statistical robustness concerns, not circularity, and the paper itself limits conclusions to directional guidance. No step reduces a prediction to its input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims are empirical rankings, not derived quantities, so the ledger is dominated by benchmark design choices rather than fitted model parameters. The score p_a is relative to the chosen algorithm and function sets; the violation threshold, evaluation budgets, and burn-in are hand-set; and the run count is ambiguous (five in text, ten in captions). No new theoretical entities, particles, forces, or conserved quantities are proposed. The in-house solvers (LSQM, CUATRO, CBO) are software implementations of existing frameworks rather than invented entities.

free parameters (4)
  • constraint_violation_threshold = 0.001
    Section 4.4.1 sets the threshold after observing violations such as 0.0008; the value is chosen post hoc from the data it then classifies as feasible or violated.
  • function_evaluation_budgets = 20 (d=2), 50 (d=5), 100 (d=10)
    Section 3.1 sets budgets proportional to dimension by hand; rankings depend on the budget length.
  • trajectory_burn_in_nc = 5 (d=2), 10 (d=5), 15 (d=10)
    Section 3.1 excludes the first nc evaluations from scoring; this hand-set constant shifts all trajectories and affects the normalized score p_a.
  • repetition_count = 5 or 10 (unresolved)
    Section 3.1 states five runs per algorithm, while figure captions and Table 3 say 10 repetitions; the discrepancy is never explained and affects the variance of every reported score.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Noise model y = f(x) + epsilon with epsilon approximately N(0, sigma_epsilon) (Eq 2).
    Standard assumption for noisy black-box sampling, invoked in Section 2 but not verified for the CSTR simulators used in the case studies.
  • ad hoc to paper The normalized trajectory score r and aggregate p_a (Eqs 35-36) measure algorithm quality relative only to the chosen algorithm set A and function set F.
    The rankings are relative by construction; the authors acknowledge this, but any 'best algorithm' interpretation inherits the arbitrariness of the selected sets.
  • ad hoc to paper A small number of runs (five in the text, ten in captions) adequately characterizes each algorithm's stochastic performance.
    Section 3.1 states five runs; captions say ten. Either way no significance testing is reported, so the ordering may not be stable.
  • standard math Standard results on trust-region convergence (Section 2.2, citing [59]) and RBF interpolation invertibility requiring rank(P) = nx + 1 (Eq 34).
    Background results invoked without proof, appropriate for a tutorial chapter.
  • domain assumption Safe-optimization interpretation: constraints must not be violated during sampling for the constrained case studies (Section 4.1).
    The interpretation of results as 'safe' depends on this premise; the benchmark still count violations, which softens it but does not remove it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surrogate-Based Optimization Techniques for Process Systems Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QXSETDXI

@misc{pith2026241213948,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surrogate-Based Optimization Techniques for Process Systems Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QXSETDXI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13948}
}
read the original abstract

Optimization plays an important role in chemical engineering, impacting cost-effectiveness, resource utilization, product quality, and process sustainability metrics. This chapter broadly focuses on data-driven optimization, particularly, on model-based derivative-free techniques, also known as surrogate-based optimization. The chapter introduces readers to the theory and practical considerations of various algorithms, complemented by a performance assessment across multiple dimensions, test functions, and two chemical engineering case studies: a stochastic high-dimensional reactor control study and a low-dimensional constrained stochastic reactor optimization study. This assessment sheds light on each algorithm's performance and suitability for diverse applications. Additionally, each algorithm is accompanied by background information, mathematical foundations, and algorithm descriptions. Among the discussed algorithms are Bayesian Optimization (BO), including state-of-the-art TuRBO, Constrained Optimization by Linear Approximation (COBYLA), the Ensemble Tree Model Optimization Tool (ENTMOOT) which uses decision trees as surrogates, Stable Noisy Optimization by Branch and Fit (SNOBFIT), methods that use radial basis functions such as DYCORS and SRBFStrategy, Constrained Optimization by Quadratic Approximations (COBYQA), as well as a few others recognized for their effectiveness in surrogate-based optimization. By combining theory with practice, this chapter equips readers with the knowledge to integrate surrogate-based optimization techniques into chemical engineering. The overarching aim is to highlight the advantages of surrogate-based optimization, introduce state-of-the-art algorithms, and provide guidance for successful implementation within process systems engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13948 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fundamental workflow of model-based DFO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convergence plots, showing mean objective function values and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convergence plots, showing mean objective function values and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 2-Dimensional contour plots with exemplary optimization trajectories for the unconstrained case for each test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 2-Dimensional contour plots with exemplary optimization trajectories for the unconstrained case for each test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Convergence plots, showing mean objective function values (left) and constraint function values (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 2-Dimensional trajectory plots with constraint overlay for each constrained test function. The lines show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Diagram of a Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) with PID Control This 32-dimensional case study presents a classical chemical en￾gineering problem involving the dynamic control of a Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) equipped with a cooling jacket. In this syst…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example Training Trajectories of PID Controller [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Trajectories for the CSTR-PID Case Study. The budget (trajectory length) is 150 evaluations. Thick lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Setting for the Williams-Otto benchmarking problem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization for performance on Williams-Otto benchmarking problem: (a) Convergence plot, showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Benchmarking Derivative-Free Optimization Algorithms

    Jorge J. Moré and Stefan M. Wild. “Benchmarking Derivative-Free Optimization Algorithms”. In: SIAM Journal on Optimization 20.1 (Jan. 2009), pp. 172–191. ISSN : 1052-6234, 1095-7189. DOI: 10.1137/080724083 . (Visited on 05/03/2024)

    doi:10.1137/080724083 2009

  2. [2]

    Data-Driven Optimization for Process Systems Engineering Applications

    Damien van de Berg et al. “Data-Driven Optimization for Process Systems Engineering Applications”. In: Chemical Engineering Science 248 (Feb. 2022), p. 117135. ISSN : 00092509. DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2021. 117135. (Visited on 01/25/2023)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ces.2021 2022

  3. [3]

    A Perspective on Smart Process Manufacturing Research Challenges for Process Systems Engineers

    Ian David Lockhart Bogle. “A Perspective on Smart Process Manufacturing Research Challenges for Process Systems Engineers”. In: Engineering 3.2 (Apr. 2017), pp. 161–165. ISSN : 20958099. DOI: 10.1016/J.ENG. 2017.02.003. (Visited on 12/13/2023)

    doi:10.1016/j.eng 2017

  4. [4]

    Multi-Scale Optimization for Process Systems Engineering

    Lorenz T. Biegler, Yi-dong Lang, and Weijie Lin. “Multi-Scale Optimization for Process Systems Engineering”. In: Computers & Chemical Engineering 60 (Jan. 2014), pp. 17–30. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10 . 1016 / j . compchemeng.2013.07.009. (Visited on 12/15/2023)

    2014

  5. [5]

    The ALAMO Approach to Machine Learning

    Zachary T. Wilson and Nikolaos V . Sahinidis. “The ALAMO Approach to Machine Learning”. In:Computers & Chemical Engineering 106 (Nov. 2017), pp. 785–795. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017. 02.010. (Visited on 12/15/2023)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017 2017

  6. [6]

    On the Numerical Performance of Finite-Difference-Based Methods for Derivative- Free Optimization

    Hao-Jun Michael Shi et al. “On the Numerical Performance of Finite-Difference-Based Methods for Derivative- Free Optimization”. In: Optimization Methods and Software 38.2 (Mar. 2023), pp. 289–311. ISSN : 1055-6788, 1029-4937. DOI: 10.1080/10556788.2022.2121832. (Visited on 12/14/2023)

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Complete Search in Continuous Global Optimization and Constraint Satisfaction

    Arnold Neumaier. “Complete Search in Continuous Global Optimization and Constraint Satisfaction”. In: Acta Numerica 13 (May 2004), pp. 271–369. ISSN : 0962-4929, 1474-0508. DOI: 10.1017/S0962492904000194. (Visited on 04/19/2024)

    doi:10.1017/s0962492904000194 2004

  8. [8]

    Advances in Surrogate Based Modeling, Feasibility Analysis, and Optimization: A Review

    Atharv Bhosekar and Marianthi Ierapetritou. “Advances in Surrogate Based Modeling, Feasibility Analysis, and Optimization: A Review”. In: Computers & Chemical Engineering 108 (Jan. 2018), pp. 250–267. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.09.017. (Visited on 12/14/2023)

    doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.09.017 2018

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Machine Learning-Based Surrogate Modeling for Data-Driven Optimiza- tion: A Comparison of Subset Selection for Regression Techniques

    Sun Hye Kim and Fani Boukouvala. “Machine Learning-Based Surrogate Modeling for Data-Driven Optimiza- tion: A Comparison of Subset Selection for Regression Techniques”. In: Optimization Letters 14.4 (June 2020), pp. 989–1010. ISSN : 1862-4472, 1862-4480. DOI: 10.1007/s11590-01...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Deterministic Global Process Optimization: Accurate (Single-Species) Properties via Artificial Neural Networks

    Artur M. Schweidtmann et al. “Deterministic Global Process Optimization: Accurate (Single-Species) Properties via Artificial Neural Networks”. In: Computers & Chemical Engineering 121 (Feb. 2019), pp. 67–74. ISSN : 0098-1354. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.10.007. (Visited on...

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Gustafson et al

    Erik J. Gustafson et al. Surrogate Optimization of Variational Quantum Circuits. Apr. 2024. arXiv: 2404.02951 [cond-mat, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph] . (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A Surrogate-based Framework for Feasibility-driven Optimization of Expensive Simulations

    Huayu Tian and Marianthi G. Ierapetritou. “A Surrogate-based Framework for Feasibility-driven Optimization of Expensive Simulations”. In: AIChE Journal 70.5 (May 2024), e18364. ISSN : 0001-1541, 1547-5905. DOI: 10.1002/aic.18364. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Algebraic Surrogate-based Process Optimization Using Bayesian Symbolic Learning

    Tim Forster, Daniel Vázquez, and Gonzalo Guillén-Gosálbez. “Algebraic Surrogate-based Process Optimization Using Bayesian Symbolic Learning”. In: AIChE Journal 69.8 (Aug. 2023), e18110. ISSN : 0001-1541, 1547-5905. DOI: 10.1002/aic.18110. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    Surrogate-Based Optimisation of Process Systems to Recover Resources from Wastewater

    Alex Durkin, Lennart Otte, and Miao Guo. “Surrogate-Based Optimisation of Process Systems to Recover Resources from Wastewater”. In: Computers & Chemical Engineering 182 (Mar. 2024), p. 108584. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2024.108584. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2024

  7. [17]

    Paulson and Calvin Tsay

    Joel A. Paulson and Calvin Tsay. Bayesian Optimization as a Flexible and Efficient Design Framework for Sustainable Process Systems. Jan. 2024. arXiv: 2401.16373 [cs, math] . (Visited on 07/02/2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [18]

    Surrogate Based Optimization of a Process of Polycrystalline Silicon Production

    César Ramírez-Márquez et al. “Surrogate Based Optimization of a Process of Polycrystalline Silicon Production”. In: Computers & Chemical Engineering 140 (Sept. 2020), p. 106870. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10 . 1016 / j . compchemeng.2020.106870. (Visited on 07/01/2024). 38

    2020

  9. [19]

    A Trust Region Framework for Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis with Detailed Individual Heat Exchanger Designs

    Saif R. Kazi, Michael Short, and Lorenz T. Biegler. “A Trust Region Framework for Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis with Detailed Individual Heat Exchanger Designs”. In: Computers & Chemical Engineering 153 (Oct. 2021), p. 107447. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.202...

    2021

  10. [20]

    Integrating Graph Neural Network-Based Surrogate Modeling with Inverse Design for Granular Flows

    Yu Jiang et al. “Integrating Graph Neural Network-Based Surrogate Modeling with Inverse Design for Granular Flows”. In: Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 63.20 (May 2024), pp. 9225–9235. ISSN : 0888-5885, 1520-5045. DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.4c00692. (Visited on 07/02/2024)

    2024 doi

  11. [21]

    Algebraic Surrogate-Based Flexibility Analysis of Process Units with Complicating Process Constraints

    Tim Forster et al. “Algebraic Surrogate-Based Flexibility Analysis of Process Units with Complicating Process Constraints”. In: Computers & Chemical Engineering 184 (May 2024), p. 108630. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2024.108630. (Visited on 07/02/2024)

    2024

  12. [22]

    A Quantile Neural Network Framework for Two-stage Stochastic Optimization

    Antonio Alcántara, Carlos Ruiz, and Calvin Tsay. A Quantile Neural Network Framework for Two-stage Stochastic Optimization. Mar. 2024. arXiv: 2403.11707 [math]. (Visited on 07/02/2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Hybrid Semi-parametric Modeling in Separation Processes: A Review

    Kevin McBride, Edgar Ivan Sanchez Medina, and Kai Sundmacher. “Hybrid Semi-parametric Modeling in Separation Processes: A Review”. In:Chemie Ingenieur Technik92.7 (July 2020), pp. 842–855. ISSN : 0009-286X, 1522-2640. DOI: 10.1002/cite.202000025. (Visited on 07/02/2024)

    2020 doi

  14. [24]

    Data-Driven Models and Algorithms for Demand Response Scheduling of Air Separation Units

    Calvin Tsay et al. “Data-Driven Models and Algorithms for Demand Response Scheduling of Air Separation Units”. In: Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. V ol. 44. Elsevier, 2018, pp. 1273–1278.ISBN : 978-0-444- 64241-7. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-64241-7.50207-X . (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2018 doi

  15. [25]

    Data-Driven Optimization of Mixed- Integer Bi-Level Multi-Follower Integrated Planning and Scheduling Problems under Demand Uncertainty

    Burcu Beykal, Styliani Avraamidou, and Efstratios N. Pistikopoulos. “Data-Driven Optimization of Mixed- Integer Bi-Level Multi-Follower Integrated Planning and Scheduling Problems under Demand Uncertainty”. In: Computers & Chemical Engineering 156 (Jan. 2022), p. 107551. ISSN ...

    2022

  16. [26]

    Data-Driven Construction of Convex Region Surrogate Models

    Qi Zhang et al. “Data-Driven Construction of Convex Region Surrogate Models”. In:Optimization and Engi- neering 17.2 (June 2016), pp. 289–332. ISSN : 1389-4420, 1573-2924. DOI: 10.1007/s11081-015-9288-8 . (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2016 doi

  17. [27]

    Data-Driven Strategies for Optimization of Integrated Chemical Plants

    Kaiwen Ma et al. “Data-Driven Strategies for Optimization of Integrated Chemical Plants”. In: Computers & Chemical Engineering 166 (Oct. 2022), p. 107961. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022. 107961. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2022 doi

  18. [28]

    Hierarchical Planning-Scheduling- Control – Optimality Surrogates and Derivative-Free Optimization

    Damien van de Berg, Nilay Shah, and Ehecatl Antonio del Rio-Chanona. Hierarchical Planning-Scheduling- Control – Optimality Surrogates and Derivative-Free Optimization. Oct. 2023. arXiv: 2310.07870 [cs, math] . (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2023 arXiv

  19. [29]

    High-Throughput Screening of Catalytically Active Inclusion Bodies Using Laboratory Automation and Bayesian Optimization

    Laura Marie Helleckes et al. “High-Throughput Screening of Catalytically Active Inclusion Bodies Using Laboratory Automation and Bayesian Optimization”. In: Microbial Cell Factories 23.1 (Feb. 2024), p. 67. ISSN : 1475-2859. DOI: 10.1186/s12934-024-02319-y . (Visited on 07/10/2024)

    2024 doi

  20. [30]

    Into the Unknown: How Computation Can Help Explore Uncharted Material Space

    Austin M. Mroz et al. “Into the Unknown: How Computation Can Help Explore Uncharted Material Space”. In: Journal of the American Chemical Society 144.41 (Oct. 2022), pp. 18730–18743. ISSN : 0002-7863, 1520-5126. DOI: 10.1021/jacs.2c06833. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2022 doi

  21. [31]

    Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimisation Using q -Noisy Expected Hypervolume Improve- ment ( q NEHVI) for the Schotten–Baumann Reaction

    Jiyizhe Zhang et al. “Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimisation Using q -Noisy Expected Hypervolume Improve- ment ( q NEHVI) for the Schotten–Baumann Reaction”. In: Reaction Chemistry & Engineering 9.3 (2024), pp. 706–712. ISSN : 2058-9883. DOI: 10.1039/D3RE00502J. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2024 doi

  22. [32]

    Discrete and Mixed-Variable Experimental Design with Surrogate-Based Approach

    Mengjia Zhu et al. Discrete and Mixed-Variable Experimental Design with Surrogate-Based Approach. Apr

  23. [33]

    Stochastic Data-Driven Model Predictive Control Using Gaussian Processes

    Eric Bradford et al. “Stochastic Data-Driven Model Predictive Control Using Gaussian Processes”. In:Computers & Chemical Engineering 139 (Aug. 2020), p. 106844. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020. 106844. (Visited on 07/15/2024)

    2020 doi

  24. [34]

    Efficient Representation and Approximation of Model Predictive Control Laws via Deep Learning

    Benjamin Karg and Sergio Lucia. “Efficient Representation and Approximation of Model Predictive Control Laws via Deep Learning”. In: IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 50.9 (Sept. 2020), pp. 3866–3878. ISSN : 2168-2267, 2168-2275. DOI: 10.1109/TCYB.2020.2999556. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2020

  25. [35]

    A Data-driven Bayesian Approach for Optimal Dynamic Product Transitions

    Antonio Flores-Tlacuahuac and Luis Fabián Fuentes-Cortés. “A Data-driven Bayesian Approach for Optimal Dynamic Product Transitions”. In: AIChE Journal 70.6 (June 2024), e18428. ISSN : 0001-1541, 1547-5905. DOI: 10.1002/aic.18428. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2024 doi

  26. [36]

    Online Feedback Optimization of Compressor Stations with Model Adaptation Using Gaussian Process Regression

    M. Zagorowska et al. “Online Feedback Optimization of Compressor Stations with Model Adaptation Using Gaussian Process Regression”. In: Journal of Process Control121 (Jan. 2023), pp. 119–133. ISSN : 09591524. DOI: 10.1016/j.jprocont.2022.12.001. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2023 doi

  27. [37]

    A Data-driven Optimization Algorithm for Differential Algebraic Equations with Numerical Infeasibilities

    Burcu Beykal et al. “A Data-driven Optimization Algorithm for Differential Algebraic Equations with Numerical Infeasibilities”. In: AIChE Journal 66.10 (Oct. 2020), e16657. ISSN : 0001-1541, 1547-5905. DOI: 10.1002/ aic.16657. (Visited on 07/01/2024). 39

    2020

  28. [38]

    Data-driven Decision-focused Surrogate Modeling

    Rishabh Gupta and Qi Zhang. “Data-driven Decision-focused Surrogate Modeling”. In: AIChE Journal 70.4 (Apr. 2024), e18338. ISSN : 0001-1541, 1547-5905. DOI: 10.1002/aic.18338. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    Global and Preference-based Optimization with Mixed Variables Using Piecewise Affine Surrogates

    Mengjia Zhu and Alberto Bemporad. Global and Preference-based Optimization with Mixed Variables Using Piecewise Affine Surrogates. June 2023. arXiv: 2302.04686 [cs, math] . (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Surrogate-Based Branch-and-Bound Algorithms for Simulation-Based Black-Box Optimization

    Jianyuan Zhai and Fani Boukouvala. “Surrogate-Based Branch-and-Bound Algorithms for Simulation-Based Black-Box Optimization”. In: Optimization and Engineering 24.3 (Sept. 2023), pp. 1463–1491. ISSN : 1389-4420, 1573-2924. DOI: 10.1007/s11081-022-09740-5 . (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2023 doi

  31. [41]

    Assuring Optimality in Surrogate-based Optimization: A Novel Theorem and Its Practical Implementation in Pressure Swing Adsorption Optimization

    Carine Menezes Rebello et al. “Assuring Optimality in Surrogate-based Optimization: A Novel Theorem and Its Practical Implementation in Pressure Swing Adsorption Optimization”. In: The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering (Sept. 2024), cjce.25512. ISSN : 0008-4034, 1939-01...

    2024 doi

  32. [42]

    A Bayesian Optimization Approach for Data-driven Mixed-integer Nonlinear Programming Problems

    Javier Morlet-Espinosa and Antonio Flores-Tlacuahuac. “A Bayesian Optimization Approach for Data-driven Mixed-integer Nonlinear Programming Problems”. In: AIChE Journal (June 2024), e18448. ISSN : 0001-1541, 1547-5905. DOI: 10.1002/aic.18448. (Visited on 07/02/2024)

    2024 doi

  33. [43]

    Data-driven Coordination of Subproblems in Enterprise-wide Optimization under Organizational Considerations

    Damien Van De Berg et al. “Data-driven Coordination of Subproblems in Enterprise-wide Optimization under Organizational Considerations”. In: AIChE Journal 69.4 (Apr. 2023), e17977. ISSN : 0001-1541, 1547-5905. DOI: 10.1002/aic.17977. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2023 doi

  34. [44]

    Derivative-Free Optimization Methods

    Jeffrey Larson, Matt Menickelly, and Stefan M. Wild. “Derivative-Free Optimization Methods”. In: Acta Numerica 28 (May 2019), pp. 287–404. ISSN : 0962-4929, 1474-0508. DOI: 10.1017/S0962492919000060. (Visited on 12/14/2023)

    2019 doi

  35. [45]

    Derivative-Free Optimization Methods

    Jeffrey Larson, Matt Menickelly, and Stefan M. Wild. “Derivative-Free Optimization Methods”. In: Acta Numerica 28 (May 2019), pp. 287–404. ISSN : 0962-4929, 1474-0508. DOI: 10.1017/S0962492919000060. arXiv: 1904.11585 [math]. (Visited on 04/19/2024)

    2019 arXiv

  36. [46]

    Model-Based Derivative-Free Optimization Methods and Software

    Tom M Ragonneau. “Model-Based Derivative-Free Optimization Methods and Software”. PhD thesis. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2022

    2022

  37. [47]

    GPyOpt: A Bayesian Optimization Framework in Python

    The GPyOpt authors. GPyOpt: A Bayesian Optimization Framework in Python. 2016

    2016

  38. [48]

    SOP: Parallel Surrogate Global Optimiza- tion with Pareto Center Selection for Computationally Expensive Single Objective Problems

    Tipaluck Krityakierne, Taimoor Akhtar, and Christine A. Shoemaker. “SOP: Parallel Surrogate Global Optimiza- tion with Pareto Center Selection for Computationally Expensive Single Objective Problems”. In: Journal of Global Optimization 66.3 (Nov. 2016), pp. 417–437. ISSN : 092...

    2016 doi

  39. [49]

    A Stochastic Radial Basis Function Method for the Global Optimization of Expensive Functions

    Rommel G. Regis and Christine A. Shoemaker. “A Stochastic Radial Basis Function Method for the Global Optimization of Expensive Functions”. In: INFORMS Journal on Computing 19.4 (Nov. 2007), pp. 497–509. ISSN : 1091-9856, 1526-5528. DOI: 10.1287/ijoc.1060.0182. (Visited on 07/15/2024)

    2007

  40. [50]

    ENTMOOT: A Framework for Optimization over Ensemble Tree Models

    Alexander Thebelt et al. “ENTMOOT: A Framework for Optimization over Ensemble Tree Models”. In:Comput- ers & Chemical Engineering 151 (Aug. 2021), p. 107343. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng. 2021.107343. arXiv: 2003.04774 [cs, math, stat] . (Visited on 07/06/2024)

    2021

  41. [51]

    SNOBFIT – Stable Noisy Optimization by Branch and Fit

    Waltraud Huyer and Arnold Neumaier. “SNOBFIT – Stable Noisy Optimization by Branch and Fit”. In: ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software35.2 (July 2008), pp. 1–25. ISSN : 0098-3500, 1557-7295. DOI: 10.1145/1377612.1377613. (Visited on 05/23/2024)

    2008

  42. [52]

    ARGONAUT: AlgoRithms for Global Optimization of coNstrAined Grey-Box compUTational Problems

    Fani Boukouvala and Christodoulos A. Floudas. “ARGONAUT: AlgoRithms for Global Optimization of coNstrAined Grey-Box compUTational Problems”. In: Optimization Letters 11.5 (June 2017), pp. 895–913. ISSN : 1862-4472, 1862-4480. DOI: 10.1007/s11590-016-1028-2 . (Visited on 04/19/2024)

    2017 doi

  43. [53]

    Surrogate-based Superstructure Optimization Framework

    Carlos A. Henao and Christos T. Maravelias. “Surrogate-based Superstructure Optimization Framework”. In: AIChE Journal 57.5 (May 2011), pp. 1216–1232. ISSN : 0001-1541, 1547-5905. DOI: 10.1002/aic.12341 . (Visited on 04/19/2024)

    2011 doi

  44. [54]

    Multi-Fidelity Data-Driven Design and Analysis of Reactor and Tube Simulations

    Tom Savage et al. “Multi-Fidelity Data-Driven Design and Analysis of Reactor and Tube Simulations”. In:Com- puters & Chemical Engineering 179 (Nov. 2023), p. 108410. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng. 2023.108410. (Visited on 04/19/2024)

    2023

  45. [55]

    An Algorithm for the Use of Surrogate Models in Modular Flowsheet Optimization

    José A. Caballero and Ignacio E. Grossmann. “An Algorithm for the Use of Surrogate Models in Modular Flowsheet Optimization”. In: AIChE Journal 54.10 (Oct. 2008), pp. 2633–2650. ISSN : 0001-1541, 1547-5905. DOI: 10.1002/aic.11579. (Visited on 04/19/2024)

    2008 doi

  46. [56]

    Real-Time Optimization Meets Bayesian Optimization and Derivative-Free Optimization: A Tale of Modifier Adaptation

    E. A. Del Rio Chanona et al. “Real-Time Optimization Meets Bayesian Optimization and Derivative-Free Optimization: A Tale of Modifier Adaptation”. In: Computers & Chemical Engineering 147 (Apr. 2021), p. 107249. ISSN : 00981354. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2021.107249. (Visited...

    2021

  47. [57]

    A Radial Basis Function Method for Global Optimization

    H.-M. Gutmann. “A Radial Basis Function Method for Global Optimization”. In: Journal of Global Optimization 19.3 (2001), pp. 201–227. ISSN : 09255001. DOI: 10.1023/A:1011255519438. (Visited on 04/19/2024). 40

    2001 doi

  48. [58]

    RBFOpt: An Open-Source Library for Black-Box Optimization with Costly Function Evaluations

    Alberto Costa and Giacomo Nannicini. “RBFOpt: An Open-Source Library for Black-Box Optimization with Costly Function Evaluations”. In: Mathematical Programming Computation 10.4 (Dec. 2018), pp. 597–629. ISSN : 1867-2949, 1867-2957. DOI: 10.1007/s12532-018-0144-7 . (Visited on ...

    2018 doi

  49. [59]

    Global Convergence of General Derivative-Free Trust-Region Algorithms to First- and Second-Order Critical Points

    Andrew R. Conn, Katya Scheinberg, and Luís N. Vicente. “Global Convergence of General Derivative-Free Trust-Region Algorithms to First- and Second-Order Critical Points”. In: SIAM Journal on Optimization 20.1 (Jan. 2009), pp. 387–415. ISSN : 1052-6234, 1095-7189. DOI: 10.1137/...

    2009 doi

  50. [60]

    A Progressive Barrier Derivative-Free Trust-Region Algorithm for Constrained Opti- mization

    Charles Audet et al. “A Progressive Barrier Derivative-Free Trust-Region Algorithm for Constrained Opti- mization”. In: Computational Optimization and Applications 71.2 (Nov. 2018), pp. 307–329. ISSN : 0926-6003, 1573-2894. DOI: 10.1007/s10589-018-0020-4 . (Visited on 04/19/2024)

    2018 doi

  51. [61]

    Bayesian Optimization with Inequality Constraints

    Jacob R Gardner, Matt J Kusner, and Gardner Jake. “Bayesian Optimization with Inequality Constraints”. In: ()

  52. [62]

    Derivative-free Optimization for Expensive Constrained Problems Using a Novel Expected Improvement Objective Function

    Fani Boukouvala and Marianthi G. Ierapetritou. “Derivative-free Optimization for Expensive Constrained Problems Using a Novel Expected Improvement Objective Function”. In: 60.7 (2014)

    2014

  53. [63]

    Advanced Trust Region Optimization Strategies for Glass Box/ Black Box Models

    John P. Eason and Lorenz T. Biegler. “Advanced Trust Region Optimization Strategies for Glass Box/ Black Box Models”. In: AIChE Journal 64.11 (Nov. 2018), pp. 3934–3943. ISSN : 0001-1541, 1547-5905. DOI: 10.1002/aic.16364. (Visited on 12/15/2023)

    2018 doi

  54. [64]

    Safe Real-Time Optimiza- tion Using Multi-Fidelity Gaussian Processes

    Panagiotis Petsagkourakis, Benoit Chachuat, and Ehecatl Antonio Del Rio-Chanona. “Safe Real-Time Optimiza- tion Using Multi-Fidelity Gaussian Processes”. In: 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). Austin, TX, USA: IEEE, Dec. 2021, pp. 6734–6741. ISBN : 978-1-...

    2021

  55. [65]

    Dimensionality Reduction for Production Optimization Using Polynomial Approximations

    Nadav Sorek et al. “Dimensionality Reduction for Production Optimization Using Polynomial Approximations”. In: Computational Geosciences 21.2 (Apr. 2017), pp. 247–266. ISSN : 1420-0597, 1573-1499. DOI: 10.1007/ s10596-016-9610-3 . (Visited on 12/15/2023)

    2017

  56. [66]

    Batch Bayesian Optimization via Local Penalization

    Javier Gonzalez et al. “Batch Bayesian Optimization via Local Penalization”. In: ()

  57. [67]

    Bayesian Optimization for Synthetic Gene Design

    Javier González et al. Bayesian Optimization for Synthetic Gene Design. May 2015. arXiv: 1505.01627 [stat]. (Visited on 07/15/2024)

    2015 arXiv

  58. [68]

    GLASSES: Relieving The Myopia Of Bayesian Optimisation

    Javier Gonzalez, Michael Osborne, and Neil D Lawrence. “GLASSES: Relieving The Myopia Of Bayesian Optimisation”. In: ()

  59. [69]

    Scalable Global Optimization via Local Bayesian Optimization

    David Eriksson et al. “Scalable Global Optimization via Local Bayesian Optimization”. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2019, pp. 5496–5507

    2019

  60. [70]

    LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree

    Guolin Ke et al. “LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree”. In: ()

  61. [71]

    Classification And Regression Trees

    Leo Breiman et al. Classification And Regression Trees. 1984

    1984

  62. [72]

    Michael J. D. Powell. 29 July 1936—19 April 2015

    M. D. Buhmann et al. “Michael J. D. Powell. 29 July 1936—19 April 2015”. In: Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 64 (June 2018), pp. 341–366. ISSN : 0080-4606, 1748-8494. DOI: 10.1098/rsbm. 2017.0023. (Visited on 04/19/2024)

    1936

  63. [73]

    A Direct Search Optimization Method That Models the Objective and Constraint Functions by Linear Interpolation

    M. J. D. Powell. “A Direct Search Optimization Method That Models the Objective and Constraint Functions by Linear Interpolation”. In: Advances in Optimization and Numerical Analysis. Ed. by Susana Gomez and Jean- Pierre Hennart. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1994, pp. 51–6...

    1994 doi

  64. [74]

    CVXPY: A Python-Embedded Modeling Language for Convex Optimization

    Steven Diamond and Stephen Boyd. CVXPY: A Python-Embedded Modeling Language for Convex Optimization. June 2016. arXiv: 1603.00943 [math]. (Visited on 07/15/2024)

    2016 arXiv

  65. [75]

    High-Dimensional Derivative-Free Opti- mization via Trust Region Surrogates in Linear Subspaces

    Damien van de Berg, Nilay Shah, and Antonio del Rio-Chanona. “High-Dimensional Derivative-Free Opti- mization via Trust Region Surrogates in Linear Subspaces”. In: Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Ed. by Flavio Manenti and Gintaras V . Reklaitis. V ol. 53. 34 European Symp...

    2024 doi

  66. [76]

    Combining Radial Basis Function Surrogates and Dynamic Coordinate Search in High-Dimensional Expensive Black-Box Optimization

    Rommel G. Regis and Christine A. Shoemaker. “Combining Radial Basis Function Surrogates and Dynamic Coordinate Search in High-Dimensional Expensive Black-Box Optimization”. In:Engineering Optimization 45.5 (May 2013), pp. 529–555. ISSN : 0305-215X, 1029-0273. DOI: 10.1080/0305...

    2013

  67. [77]

    A Radial Basis Function Method for Global Optimization

    “A Radial Basis Function Method for Global Optimization”. In: ()

  68. [78]

    Parallel Stochastic Global Optimization Using Radial Basis Functions

    Rommel G. Regis and Christine A. Shoemaker. “Parallel Stochastic Global Optimization Using Radial Basis Functions”. In: INFORMS Journal on Computing 21.3 (Aug. 2009), pp. 411–426. ISSN : 1091-9856, 1526-5528. DOI: 10.1287/ijoc.1090.0325. (Visited on 07/15/2024)

    2009

  69. [79]

    Dynamically Dimensioned Search Algorithm for Computationally Efficient Watershed Model Calibration

    Bryan A. Tolson and Christine A. Shoemaker. “Dynamically Dimensioned Search Algorithm for Computationally Efficient Watershed Model Calibration”. In: Water Resources Research43.1 (Jan. 2007), 2005WR004723. ISSN : 0043-1397, 1944-7973. DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004723. (Visited on 07/...

    2007 doi

  70. [80]

    David H. Ackley. A Connectionist Machine for Genetic Hillclimbing. Ed. by Tom M. Mitchell. V ol. 28. The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. Boston, MA: Springer US, 1987. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4613-1997-9 . (Visited on 04/08/2024)

    1987 doi

  71. [81]

    Le mouvement brownien

    Paul Lévy. “Le mouvement brownien”. In: Mémorial des sciences mathématiques 126 (1954)

    1954

  72. [82]

    An Automatic Method for Finding the Greatest or Least Value of a Function

    H. H. Rosenbrock. “An Automatic Method for Finding the Greatest or Least Value of a Function”. In: The Computer Journal 3.3 (Mar. 1960), pp. 175–184. ISSN : 0010-4620, 1460-2067. DOI: 10.1093/comjnl/3.3

    1960 doi

  73. [83]

    Random Optimization

    Arpad Matyas. “Random Optimization”. In: Automation and Remote Control 26.1 (1965), pp. 246–252

    1965

  74. [84]

    Assessing the Reliability of Different Real-time Optimization Methodologies

    Diego Fernando Mendoza et al. “Assessing the Reliability of Different Real-time Optimization Methodologies”. In: The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering94.3 (Mar. 2016), pp. 485–497.ISSN : 0008-4034, 1939-019X. DOI: 10.1002/cjce.22402. (Visited on 07/15/2024). 42

    2016 doi

  75. [175]

    (Visited on 04/08/2024)

    2024

  76. [2024]

    (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    DOI: 10.26434/chemrxiv-2024-h37x4. (Visited on 07/01/2024)

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.