Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 96 references

Exploiting Separability in Multi-Scale Grey-Box Bayesian Optimization

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

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

Pith's one-line read Separating known from unknown variables cuts optimization regret by up to 10^8.

desk verdict A sound separable-grey-box method whose headline claims outrun its own data; referee-worthy, but the abstract and conclusions need an honest rewrite. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03045 v1 pith:3D76C42M submitted 2026-08-04 cs.LG

Joshua E. Hammond , Tyler A. Soderstrom , Brian A. Korgel , Michael Baldea This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG MSC 90C2690C3090C56
keywords Bayesianoptimizationgrey-boxbilevelsurrogatemodelingdimensionalityreductionexactconstraintsatisfactionmulti-scaledesignbenchmarksuite
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 claims that many expensive optimization problems contain a separability that standard Bayesian optimization ignores: some variables enter a cheap, explicitly known set of equations (white-box variables), while others enter only an expensive black-box function whose outputs feed those equations. It proposes reformulating such problems as a bilevel program, with an outer Bayesian loop over the black-box variables alone and an inner global optimizer that solves the white-box subproblem exactly for each candidate. Because the Gaussian-process surrogate now lives in the low-dimensional black-box space instead of the joint space, dimensionality is reduced and white-box constraints are enforced by the inner solver rather than by penalties. On a suite of 13 benchmark problems with verified optima, the bilevel method achieves 11-fold to $10^{8}$-fold lower regret than full-space black-box BO, with equal or better wall time on most problems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bilevel reformulation of the joint grey-box problem: an outer Bayesian optimization loop over black-box variables $x_{BB}$, and an inner nonlinear program over white-box variables $x_{WB}$ that is solved to (near) global optimality by Basin-Hopping or multi-start SLSQP for each candidate. The carrier of the argument is the scalar value function $x_{BB} \mapsto J(x_{WB}^*(x_{BB}), f_{BB}(x_{BB}), x_{BB})$, which replaces the joint objective and lets a single GP with an ARD RBF kernel and Expected Improvement acquisition operate in $\mathbb{R}^{n_{BB}}$ rather than $\mathbb{R}^{n_{WB}+n_{BB}}$. Proposition 1 uses Assumption 1 to show the two formulations share the same global optimum, so dimensionality reduction costs nothing in solution quality; the inner optimizer is what makes constraint satisfaction exact rather than approximate.

What would settle it

Take a separable problem with a cheap black box (e.g., $y = x_{BB}$) and a white-box subproblem with many local minima, run the bilevel method with a fixed inner-solver budget, and compare final regret against the verified global optimum: if the inner solver systematically returns local optima, the value-function surrogate learns the wrong scalar landscape and Proposition 1's optimality preservation fails, showing up as regret no better than black-box BO.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under a separability assumption (the black-box function depends only on $x_{BB}$, and for every fixed $x_{BB}$ the inner white-box subproblem is solvable to global optimality), the paper establishes Proposition 1: the bilevel reformulation preserves the global optimum of the original joint problem and reduces the surrogate domain from $\mathbb{R}^{n_{WB}+n_{BB}}$ to $\mathbb{R}^{n_{BB}}$. The reformulation replaces the joint objective $J(x_{WB}, y, x_{BB})$ with the scalar value function $x_{BB} \mapsto J(x_{WB}^*(x_{BB}), f_{BB}(x_{BB}), x_{BB})$, where the inner solve returns the best feasible $x_{WB}$. This makes white-box constraints exact whenever the inner optimizer converges to a feasible point, with no penalty functions, chance constraints, or moment propagation. Empirically, on 8,450 runs over 13 problems, the SLSQP-inner variant beats black-box BO on all 13 problems with 11x to $10^{8}$x lower regret, and the improvement is robust to initialization size and exploration parameter; the Basin-Hopping inner variant wins on 12 of 13, failing only where its random perturbations overshoot narrow feasible regions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that for every black-box variable choice the inner white-box subproblem can actually be solved to global optimality by a practical optimizer, and that this solve is cheap compared with evaluating the black-box function; the paper's own data show this premise fails on narrow-feasible-region problems, where the Basin-Hopping inner solver regresses or becomes much slower.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When the inner subproblem can be solved globally and cheaply, practitioners can replace a full-space GP with a lower-dimensional GP and obtain the same global optimum at a fraction of the black-box evaluations.
  • On tightly constrained problems such as Heat-Exchanger and Distillation, exact inner constraint handling removes the penalty method's failure mode, yielding regret reductions of 10^6 to 10^8.
  • The choice of inner solver matters: multi-start SLSQP is faster and handles narrow feasible regions, while Basin-Hopping handles multimodal inner landscapes; neither wins everywhere.
  • The method's gains come from problem structure, not from novel surrogate or acquisition choices, since the paper uses the same GP kernel and EI as the black-box baseline.
  • Sample-efficiency crossover shows bilevel BO can match black-box BO's final performance within 0-47 evaluations on 13 problems, meaning multi-hour black-box evaluations can be saved.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the exact-inner-solve premise holds only approximately—inner solves are local, not global—the equality in Proposition 1 degrades; the observed 59-91 percent feasibility on four constrained problems suggests that a deterministic global inner solver would be needed to restore the exactness guarantee in practice.
  • The same decomposition could be applied to other surrogate families: any regression model over $x_{BB}$ plus an exact inner solver would inherit the dimensionality reduction, so the result is not specific to GPs or EI.
  • The value-function viewpoint suggests a testable extension: when the inner problem is solved parametrically offline as a function of $y$, the outer loop could switch from nested solves to direct evaluation of a precomputed value function, eliminating inner cost entirely.
  • For problems with pure black-box constraints not filtered through the white box, the paper's exactness argument stops at the white-box constraints; combining the outer loop with constrained acquisition would be needed, which the paper lists as an open problem.
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. The paper proposes a bilevel reformulation for grey-box optimization problems whose decision variables split into black-box variables x_BB and white-box variables x_WB. An outer Bayesian optimization loop searches over x_BB alone, while an inner global optimizer solves the white-box NLP over x_WB for each outer query. The authors argue that this reduces the GP surrogate domain from R^{n_WB+n_BB} to R^{n_BB}, preserves the global optimum under Assumption 1, and enforces white-box constraints exactly without penalties. They introduce a 13-problem benchmark suite and report 8,450 optimization runs comparing bilevel BO with black-box BO and black-box BH baselines, claiming 11x to 10^8x lower regret with equal or better wall time on most problems.

Significance. The structural decomposition idea is attractive and timely: separating a known white-box subproblem from an expensive black-box component is a principled way to reduce surrogate dimension and avoid surrogate-based constraint approximation. The manuscript ships a reproducible benchmark suite, a large number of statistically analyzed runs, and a clearly stated Proposition 1 whose proof is correct under Assumption 1. These are concrete strengths. The empirical evidence is extensive, with multiple hypothesis tests, hyperparameter sweeps, and per-problem convergence plots. However, the significance is reduced by the mismatch between the unconditional claims in the abstract and conclusions and the conditional nature of the underlying assumption, and by the absence of any empirical comparison with the closest grey-box BO baselines, which limits what the benchmark comparison can establish.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §4.3, Table 3, Figure 7] The claims that white-box constraints are satisfied exactly and that performance is robust to inner-solver choice are contradicted by the paper's own results. Table 3 shows Bi-BO (BH) with regret 0.0334 on SFR-1 versus 0.0048 for black-box BO, and wall time 3,130 s versus 273 s on Williams-Otto. Figure 7 reports 59-91% feasibility on Batch-Reactor, Evaporator, SFR-1, and PSA, rather than 100%. Section 7 acknowledges these failures as limitations of the inner solver, but the abstract and conclusion repeat 'exact constraint satisfaction' and 'robust to inner-solver choice' without these caveats. These claims should be reworded as conditional on Assumption 1(ii) holding for the chosen inner solver, or the empirical sections should separately report the failure modes and their frequency.
  2. [§6.1.1, §6.3, §7] The empirical comparison does not include any state-of-the-art grey-box BO baseline. The baselines are a full-space BO with a fixed penalty of 10^6 and a full-space Basin-Hopping solver, but the paper's contributions in Section 1 and Table 1 position the method against COBALT, BOCF, Kieffer et al., and other grey-box approaches. Section 7 states that a direct comparison with COBALT and BOCF is planned for future work. Without such a comparison, the headline '11x-10^8x lower regret' only demonstrates an advantage over a deliberately simple penalty-based baseline; it does not establish the claimed advantage over the closest existing grey-box methods, especially because those methods also reduce input dimensionality in some cases.
  3. [§4.2, Remark 4, Table 3] The paper relies on Assumption 1(ii) for its theoretical guarantee, but the implemented inner solvers (multi-start SLSQP and Basin-Hopping) are heuristics that do not certify global optimality. Moreover, the assumption that the inner solve is cheap relative to the black-box evaluation is not supported by the benchmark data: on Williams-Otto, even Bi-BO (SLSQP) is 1.19x slower than black-box BO, and Bi-BO (BH) is 11.5x slower. These are exactly the cases where the method's practical viability depends on the inner solver being reliable and cheap. The paper should either restrict its claims to settings where the inner solver's global optimality is verifiable, or provide a more careful analysis of when the wall-clock overhead can be tolerated.
  4. [§6.3, Table 3, Appendix J, Figure 6] The headline regret ratios are computed using per-problem, per-method best values of the exploration parameter xi, as stated in Table 3 and Appendix J. This is a favorable selection for both methods, but the specific numbers 11x-10^8x and the geometric mean 3,192x are upper-tail estimates rather than typical performance. Figure 6 shows that Bi-BO (SLSQP) beats black-box BO for all 273 (problem, n_init, xi) configurations, which supports robustness, but the paper should report median or quartile regret ratios across the configuration grid in addition to the best-xi values, so that the headline reflects the distribution of performance rather than a cherry-picked configuration.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'The Gaussian process surrogate used in BO is therefore defined rather than and white-box constraints are satisfied exactly' appears to be missing words; it should read something like 'defined on R^{n_BB} rather than on R^{n_WB+n_BB}'.
  2. [Table 2 and throughout] The naming is inconsistent: 'Small-Feasible-Region 1' and 'Small-Feasible-Region-2' are used interchangeably, and the same inconsistency appears in Table 3 and Figure 7. Please standardize the problem names.
  3. [Appendix F] The verification section says all optima agree to within 2x10^-4 relative error, but for problems with J* = 0 (e.g., Rastrigin and Membrane in Table 18), a relative error is undefined; an absolute tolerance should be specified as well.
  4. [§6.3] Table 3 reports several Bi-BO regret values as exactly 0.0000, but the paper later states a geometric mean improvement of 3,192x; ratios involving zero regret are undefined, so the paper should explain how zero regrets were treated in the aggregate statistics.
  5. [§6.3 and Appendix D] The black-box BH baseline is described as using 1,000 iterations in Section 6.1.1 and Appendix D, but the failure-mode discussion says 'the BH baseline fails on Rastrigin' with the implication that more iterations might help. The number of iterations used in the benchmark should be stated consistently and motivated.
  6. [§7, 'Complementarity with existing grey-box BO'] The statement that a direct comparison with COBALT and BOCF is 'planned for future work' is repeated in the limitations section; given that these methods are close competitors, the paragraph would be stronger if it stated which specific experiments are needed to settle the comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Bilevel equivalence is definitional once Assumption 1 is granted, but the empirical benchmark comparison is an external test and the Baldea self-citation is not load-bearing.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3 (Proposition 1) and Appendix G]
    "Under Assumption 1, the bilevel reformulation (7) preserves the global optimum of (4) and reduces the GP surrogate domain from R^{n_WB+n_BB} to R^{n_BB}."

    The preservation claim is obtained by substituting the defining inner problem (7c): for fixed x_BB, x_WB* is declared the argmin of J, so the outer minimum over x_BB equals the joint minimum whenever Assumption 1(ii) guarantees that argmin. The domain-reduction clause is not proved in Appendix G; it is a design choice of Algorithm 1, which fits the GP only to {(x_BB_i, J_i)}. Thus the proposition restates the reformulation's own definitions plus Assumption 1 rather than deriving an independent consequence. The paper's empirical regret gains are measured against an external full-space BO baseline, so the circularity is partial and does not by itself fabricate the benchmark results.

full rationale

The only first-principles claim that reduces to its own setup is Proposition 1's equivalence/domain-reduction statement, which follows immediately from the definition of the inner argmin and from Algorithm 1's choice to model x_BB only; it is a formal restatement rather than a substantive derivation. The headline empirical result (11x-10^8x lower regret than full-space BO) is an external comparison using the same GP kernel, acquisition function, and solver for both methods, so it is not fitted or renamed. The self-citation of Baldea [25] is historical: the framework is fully specified in Section 4, and the citation does not carry the argument. The paper's own data do contradict some robustness and wall-time claims (SFR-1, Williams-Otto, 59-91% feasibility), but contradiction is a correctness concern, not circularity. Overall score 3 reflects one definitional core claim with independent empirical content otherwise.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated; the synthetic benchmark functions are test constructions, not claimed real-world entities. The central claim rests on Assumption 1 (separability and inner global solvability), on the representativeness of the hand-built closed-form black-box surrogates, and on the standard noiseless BO setup. The headline numbers additionally depend on per-problem selection of the exploration parameter xi.

free parameters (2)
  • Per-problem EI exploration parameter xi (best-xi selection) = SFR-1: 0.01, Rastrigin: 1.0, Rosen-Suzuki: 0.05, Evaporator: 0.5, others: mostly 0.001 (Table 22)
    Headline Table 3 reports each method using the xi that minimizes mean final regret on the test problems per problem; this post hoc selection can inflate reported performance relative to a fixed-parameter comparison, though Figure 9 shows robustness across xi.
  • Inner solver effort settings = Multi-start SLSQP: 50 LHS restarts; Basin-Hopping: 100 iterations, T=100
    Manual implementation choices that trade inner-solve quality against wall time; the paper benchmarks alternatives in Appendix E but uses these fixed settings for the main comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1(i): f_BB depends only on x_BB, and for fixed x_BB and y the optimization over x_WB is a well-posed NLP
    Core structural assumption of the reformulation, introduced in Section 4, Assumption 1(i).
  • domain assumption Assumption 1(ii): the inner white-box subproblem is solvable to global optimality by a suitable global optimizer
    Required for Proposition 1 and for the exact constraint satisfaction claim; Section 4, Assumption 1(ii), and Appendix G proof step (i).
  • domain assumption The synthetic black-box surrogates (volcano curves, Langmuir isotherms, Robeson bounds, Lennard-Jones forms) are representative of real expensive physics
    The empirical claims rest on 13 closed-form problems; the paper's own limitation (5) states all black-box functions are closed-form surrogates and real DFT or molecular dynamics validation is needed.
  • domain assumption Black-box evaluations are noiseless and deterministic
    The GP model and EI acquisition assume deterministic observations; noise handling is not addressed in Section 4.2 or Appendix C.
  • standard math Standard GP and BO machinery (ARD RBF kernel, EI acquisition, compact domain) is a valid surrogate model for the value function
    Standard BO practice, invoked in Section 4.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploiting Separability in Multi-Scale Grey-Box Bayesian Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3D76C42M

@misc{pith2026260803045,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploiting Separability in Multi-Scale Grey-Box Bayesian Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3D76C42M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03045}
}
read the original abstract

We consider grey-box optimization problems where the decision variables naturally partition into black-box variables (as arguments to an expensive black-box function) and white-box variables, governed by a set of explicit, closed-form equations that also depend on the output of the black-box function. We exploit this separability through a bilevel reformulation: an outer Bayesian optimization (BO) to optimize the scalar objective as a function of black-box variables alone, while an inner problem solves the white-box subproblem via global optimization. The Gaussian process surrogate used in BO is therefore defined rather than and white-box constraints are satisfied exactly whenever the inner optimizer converges to a feasible point---without penalty functions, chance constraints, or moment approximations. On a suite of 13 benchmark problems, bilevel BO achieves lower regret, with fewer iterations and wall clock time. This advantage is robust to initialization set size, exploration parameters, and inner-solver choice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03045 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow of the multi-scale Bayesian optimization framework. The outer loop uses BO to select black-box [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Small-Feasible-Region 1: search behavior of black-box BO (left) and bilevel BO (right) after 50 initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Small-Feasible-Region 2: same layout as Figure 2. Here the black-box function is nonlinear ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Regret convergence for the two Small-Feasible-Region problems. Each curve uses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Regret convergence for the 11 benchmark problems not shown in Figure 4. Bi-BO (SLSQP) (red) converges [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatter plot of final regret: black-box BO vs. bilevel BO (SLSQP variant). Each point is one (problem, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fraction of evaluations landing in feasible regions across 12 constrained problems ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sample efficiency crossover: number of evaluations for bilevel BO to match black-box BO’s final regret [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Sensitivity to the EI exploration parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peter I. Frazier. A tutorial on Bayesian optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02811, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Fani Boukouvala, M. M. Faruque Hasan, and Christodoulos A. Floudas. Global optimization of general con- strained grey-box models: New method and its application to constrained PDEs for pressure swing adsorption. Journal of Global Optimization, 67(1):3–42, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Fani Boukouvala and Christodoulos A. Floudas. ARGONAUT: AlgoRithms for global optimization of con- strained grey-box computational problems.Optimization Letters, 11:895–913, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    Eason and Lorenz T

    John P. Eason and Lorenz T. Biegler. A trust region filter method for glass box/black box optimization.AIChE Journal, 62(9):3124–3136, 2016. 35 Exploiting Separability in Multi-Scale Grey-Box BOA PREPRINT 0.001 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 ξ Batch CSTR Distill. Evap. HEN Memb. PSA Rast. R-S SFR-1 SFR-2 Hydro. W-O -3.5 -3.5 -3.1 -2.5 -2.4 -2.4 -2.6 -2.9 -2.9 ...

    2016

  5. [5]

    Raul Astudillo and Peter I. Frazier. Bayesian optimization of composite functions. InProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 354–363. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Paulson and Congwen Lu

    Joel A. Paulson and Congwen Lu. COBALT: COnstrained Bayesian optimizAtion of computationaLly expensive grey-box models exploiting derivative information.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 160:107700, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Bonsai: Structure-exploiting robust bayesian optimization for networked black-box systems under uncertainty.Computers & Chemical Engineering, page 109393, 2025

    Akshay Kudva and Joel A Paulson. Bonsai: Structure-exploiting robust bayesian optimization for networked black-box systems under uncertainty.Computers & Chemical Engineering, page 109393, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Burcu Beykal, Styliani Avraamidou, Ioannis P. E. Pistikopoulos, Melis Onel, and Efstratios N. Pistikopoulos. DOMINO: Data-driven optimization of bi-level mixed-integer nonlinear problems.Journal of Global Optimiza- tion, 78:1–36, 2020

    2020

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Bayesian optimization approach of gen- eral bi-level problems

    Emmanuel Kieffer, Grégoire Danoy, Pascal Bouvry, and Anass Nagih. Bayesian optimization approach of gen- eral bi-level problems. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion (GECCO), pages 1614–1621. ACM, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J

    Donald R. Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J. Welch. Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions.Journal of Global Optimization, 13(4):455–492, 1998

    1998

  3. [11]

    Adams, and Nando de Freitas

    Bobak Shahriari, Kevin Swersky, Ziyu Wang, Ryan P. Adams, and Nando de Freitas. Taking the human out of the loop: A review of Bayesian optimization.Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(1):148–175, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Kieslich, Fani Boukouvala, and Christodoulos A

    Chris A. Kieslich, Fani Boukouvala, and Christodoulos A. Floudas. Optimization of black-box problems using Smolyak grids and polynomial approximations.Journal of Global Optimization, 71(4):845–869, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Eason and Lorenz T

    John P. Eason and Lorenz T. Biegler. Advanced trust region optimization strategies for glass box/black box models.AIChE Journal, 64(11):3934–3943, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Raul Astudillo and Peter I. Frazier. Bayesian optimization of function networks. InAdvances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 14463–14475, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Poompol Buathong, Jiayue Wan, Raul Astudillo, Sam Daulton, Maximilian Balandat, and Peter I. Frazier. Bayesian optimization of function networks with partial evaluations. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 4752–4784, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    González and Victor M

    Leonardo D. González and Victor M. Zavala. BOIS: Bayesian Optimization of Interconnected Systems.IFAC- PapersOnLine, 58(14):446–451, 2024. 36 Exploiting Separability in Multi-Scale Grey-Box BOA PREPRINT

    2024

  9. [17]

    Bayesian optimization of gray-box process models using a modified upper confidence bound acquisition function.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 194:108976, 2025

    Joschka Winz, Florian Fromme, and Sebastian Engell. Bayesian optimization of gray-box process models using a modified upper confidence bound acquisition function.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 194:108976, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Gümü¸ s and Christodoulos A

    Zeynep H. Gümü¸ s and Christodoulos A. Floudas. Global optimization of nonlinear bilevel programming prob- lems.Journal of Global Optimization, 20(1):1–31, 2001

    2001

  11. [19]

    Alexander Mitsos, Benoît Chachuat, and Paul I. Barton. Towards global bilevel dynamic optimization.Journal of Global Optimization, 45:63–93, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    Polyxeni-Margarita Kleniati and Claire S. Adjiman. Branch-and-sandwich: a partially relaxed branch-and-bound algorithm for bi-level problems. Part I: General algorithm.Journal of Global Optimization, 60(3):425–458, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Faísca, Vivek Dua, Berç Rustem, Pedro M

    Nuno P. Faísca, Vivek Dua, Berç Rustem, Pedro M. Saraiva, and Efstratios N. Pistikopoulos. Parametric global optimisation for bilevel programming.Journal of Global Optimization, 38(4):609–623, 2007

    2007

  14. [22]

    Bayesian optimization of bilevel problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18518, 2024

    Omer Ekmekcioglu, Nursen Aydin, and Juergen Branke. Bayesian optimization of bilevel problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18518, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ruth W. T. Chew, Quoc Phong Nguyen, and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. BILBO: BIlevel Bayesian Optimization. InProceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2025. arXiv:2502.02121

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Convergence of Bayesian bilevel optimization

    Shi Fu, Fengxiang He, Xinmei Tian, and Dacheng Tao. Convergence of Bayesian bilevel optimization. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    A multiscale Bayesian optimization framework for process and material codesign.AIChE Journal, 2026

    Michael Baldea. A multiscale Bayesian optimization framework for process and material codesign.AIChE Journal, 2026

    2026

  18. [26]

    Bayesian optimization with inequality constraints

    Jacob Gardner, Matt Kusner, Zhixiang Xu, Kilian Weinberger, and John Cunningham. Bayesian optimization with inequality constraints. In Eric P. Xing and Tony Jebara, editors,Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 32 ofProceedings of Machine...

    2014

  19. [27]

    Gelbart, Jasper Snoek, and Ryan P

    Michael A. Gelbart, Jasper Snoek, and Ryan P. Adams. Bayesian optimization with unknown constraints. In Proceedings of the 30th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), pages 250–259, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Gramacy, Stefan Wild, and Sébastien Le Digabel

    Victor Picheny, Robert B. Gramacy, Stefan Wild, and Sébastien Le Digabel. Bayesian optimization under mixed constraints with a slack-variable augmented Lagrangian. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29, pages 1435–1443, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Energy landscapes (cambridge molecular science), 2003

    DJ Wales. Energy landscapes (cambridge molecular science), 2003

    2003

  22. [30]

    David J Wales and Jonathan PK Doye. Global optimization by basin-hopping and the lowest energy structures of lennard-jones clusters containing up to 110 atoms.The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 101(28):5111–5116, 1997

    1997

  23. [31]

    Monte carlo-minimization approach to the multiple-minima problem in protein folding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 84(19):6611–6615, 1987

    Zhenqin Li and Harold A Scheraga. Monte carlo-minimization approach to the multiple-minima problem in protein folding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 84(19):6611–6615, 1987

    1987

  24. [32]

    Global optimization of clusters, crystals, and biomolecules.Science, 285(5432):1368–1372, 1999

    David J Wales and Harold A Scheraga. Global optimization of clusters, crystals, and biomolecules.Science, 285(5432):1368–1372, 1999

    1999

  25. [33]

    Basin hopping as a general and versatile opti- mization framework for the characterization of biological macromolecules.Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 2012(1):674832, 2012

    Brian Olson, Irina Hashmi, Kevin Molloy, and Amarda Shehu. Basin hopping as a general and versatile opti- mization framework for the characterization of biological macromolecules.Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 2012(1):674832, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    Springer, 2006

    Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J Wright.Numerical optimization. Springer, 2006

    2006

  27. [35]

    A software package for sequential quadratic programming.Forschungsbericht- Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt fur Luft- und Raumfahrt, 1988

    Dieter Kraft. A software package for sequential quadratic programming.Forschungsbericht- Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt fur Luft- und Raumfahrt, 1988

    1988

  28. [36]

    SIAM, 1995

    Charles L Lawson and Richard J Hanson.Solving least squares problems. SIAM, 1995

    1995

  29. [37]

    P. N. Suganthan, N. Hansen, J. J. Liang, K. Deb, Y .-P. Chen, A. Auger, and S. Tiwari. Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2005 special session on real-parameter optimization. Technical report, Nanyang Technological University, 2005

    2005

  30. [38]

    COCO: A platform for comparing continuous optimizers in a black-box setting.Optimization Methods and Software, 36(1):114–144, 2021

    Nikolaus Hansen, Anne Auger, Raymond Ros, Olaf Mersmann, Tea Tušar, and Dimo Brockhoff. COCO: A platform for comparing continuous optimizers in a black-box setting.Optimization Methods and Software, 36(1):114–144, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Admmbo: Bayesian optimization with un- known constraints using admm.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(123):1–26, 2019

    Setareh Ariafar, Jaume Coll-Font, Dana Brooks, and Jennifer Dy. Admmbo: Bayesian optimization with un- known constraints using admm.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(123):1–26, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Stephen J. Wright. Coordinate descent algorithms.Mathematical Programming, 151(1):3–34, 2015. 37 Exploiting Separability in Multi-Scale Grey-Box BOA PREPRINT

    2015

  33. [41]

    An overview of bilevel optimization.Annals of Operations Research, 153(1):235–256, 2007

    Benoît Colson, Patrice Marcotte, and Gilles Savard. An overview of bilevel optimization.Annals of Operations Research, 153(1):235–256, 2007

    2007

  34. [42]

    R. B. Gramacy, G. A. Gray, S. Le Digabel, H. K. H. Lee, P. Ranjan, G. Wells, and S. M. Wild. Modeling an augmented lagrangian for blackbox constrained optimization.Technometrics, 58(1):1–11, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    L. A. Rastrigin. Systems of extremal control.Nauka, 1974

    1974

  36. [44]

    Rosenbrock

    H. Rosenbrock. An automatic method for finding the greatest or least value of a function.The Computer Journal, 3(3):175–184, 1960

    1960

  37. [45]

    Yee and Ignacio E

    Timothy F. Yee and Ignacio E. Grossmann. Simultaneous optimization models for heat integration—II. Heat exchanger network synthesis.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 14(10):1165–1184, 1990

    1990

  38. [46]

    Peters and Klaus D

    Max S. Peters and Klaus D. Timmerhaus.Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. McGraw-Hill, 4th edition, 1991

    1991

  39. [47]

    Mizutani, Fernando L

    Fabiana T. Mizutani, Fernando L. P. Pessoa, Eduardo M. Queiroz, Steinar Hauan, and Ignacio E. Grossmann. Mathematical programming model for heat-exchanger network synthesis including detailed heat-exchanger de- signs.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 42(17):4009–4018, 2003

    2003

  40. [48]

    Mauro A. S. S. Ravagnani and José A. Caballero. A MINLP model for the rigorous design of shell and tube heat exchangers using the TEMA standards.Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 85(10):1423–1435, 2007

    2007

  41. [49]

    Biegler, and Stephen E

    Anshul Agarwal, Lorenz T. Biegler, and Stephen E. Zitney. Superstructure-based optimal synthesis of pres- sure swing adsorption cycles for precombustion CO2 capture.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 49(11):5066–5079, 2010

    2010

  42. [50]

    Ruthven, Shamsuzzaman Farooq, and Kent S

    Douglas M. Ruthven, Shamsuzzaman Farooq, and Kent S. Knaebel.Pressure Swing Adsorption. VCH Publish- ers, New York, 1994

    1994

  43. [51]

    Burns, Kasturi Nagesh Pai, Sai Gokul Subraveti, Sean P

    Tyler D. Burns, Kasturi Nagesh Pai, Sai Gokul Subraveti, Sean P. Collins, Mykhaylo Krykunov, Arvind Ra- jendran, and Tom K. Woo. Process-level modelling and optimization to evaluate metal-organic frameworks for post-combustion capture.Molecular Systems Design & Engineering, 5:...

    2020

  44. [52]

    Berend Smit and Theo L. M. Maesen. Molecular simulations of zeolites: Adsorption, diffusion, and shape selectivity.Chemical Reviews, 108(10):4125–4184, 2008

    2008

  45. [53]

    David Dubbeldam and Randall Q. Snurr. Design, parameterization, and implementation of atomic force fields for adsorption in nanoporous materials.Advanced Theory and Simulations, 2(11):1900135, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    The adsorption of gases on plane surfaces of glass, mica and platinum.Journal of the American Chemical Society, 40(9):1361–1403, 1918

    Irving Langmuir. The adsorption of gases on plane surfaces of glass, mica and platinum.Journal of the American Chemical Society, 40(9):1361–1403, 1918

    1918

  47. [55]

    Adsorption process optimization and adsorbent evaluation based on Langmuir isotherm model.Langmuir, 39(46):16404–16414, 2023

    Yiwen Wang, Jie Chen, Xiang Li, and Wei Zhang. Adsorption process optimization and adsorbent evaluation based on Langmuir isotherm model.Langmuir, 39(46):16404–16414, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    Yang.Gas Separation by Adsorption Processes

    Ralph T. Yang.Gas Separation by Adsorption Processes. Butterworths, Boston, 1987

    1987

  49. [57]

    M. M. Faruque Hasan, Eric L. First, and Christodoulos A. Floudas. Cost-effective CO2 capture based on in silico screening of zeolites and process optimization.Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 15(40):17601–17618, 2013

    2013

  50. [58]

    Leperi, Randall Q

    Kaitlin T. Leperi, Randall Q. Snurr, and Fengqi You. Surrogate models based on artificial neural networks to simulate and optimize pressure swing adsorption cycles for CO2 capture.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 58(39):18241–18252, 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

    J. M. Smith, Hendrick C. Van Ness, Michael M. Abbott, and Mark T. Swihart.Introduction to Chemical Engi- neering Thermodynamics. McGraw-Hill Education, 8th edition, 2018

    2018

  52. [60]

    Parulekar

    Satish J. Parulekar. Yield optimization for multiple reactions.Chemical Engineering Science, 43(8):2131–2139, 1988

    1988

  53. [61]

    Rein Luus, Jens Dittrich, and Frerich J. Keil. Towards practical optimal control of batch reactors.Chemical Engineering Science, 54(17):4137–4145, 1999

    1999

  54. [62]

    Scott Fogler.Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering

    H. Scott Fogler.Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering. Prentice Hall, 5th edition, 2016

    2016

  55. [63]

    Ali Hussain Motagamwala and James A. Dumesic. Microkinetic modeling: A tool for rational catalyst design. Chemical Reviews, 121(2):1049–1076, 2021

    2021

  56. [64]

    Hideshi Ooka, Jun Huang, and Kai S. Exner. The Sabatier principle in electrocatalysis: Basics, limitations, and extensions.Frontiers in Energy Research, 9:654460, 2021. 38 Exploiting Separability in Multi-Scale Grey-Box BOA PREPRINT

    2021

  57. [65]

    Wodrich, Benjamin Sawatlon, Michael Busch, and Clémence Corminboeuf

    Matthew D. Wodrich, Benjamin Sawatlon, Michael Busch, and Clémence Corminboeuf. Microkinetic molecular volcano plots for enhanced catalyst selectivity and activity predictions.ACS Catalysis, 14:3523–3532, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    A systematic synthesis framework for extractive distillation processes.Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 86(7):781–792, 2008

    Stefan Kossack, Korbinian Kraemer, Rafiqul Gani, and Wolfgang Marquardt. A systematic synthesis framework for extractive distillation processes.Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 86(7):781–792, 2008

    2008

  59. [67]

    COSMO-CAMPD: A framework for integrated design of molecules and processes based on COSMO-RS.Molec- ular Systems Design & Engineering, 3(4):645–657, 2018

    Jan Scheffczyk, Lorenz Fleitmann, André Schwarz, Maximilian Hoppe, Kai Leonhard, and André Bardow. COSMO-CAMPD: A framework for integrated design of molecules and processes based on COSMO-RS.Molec- ular Systems Design & Engineering, 3(4):645–657, 2018

    2018

  60. [68]

    Merrell R. Fenske. Fractionation of straight-run Pennsylvania gasoline.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 24(5):482–485, 1932

    1932

  61. [69]

    Arthur J. V . Underwood. Fractional distillation of multicomponent mixtures.Chemical Engineering Progress, 44(8):603–614, 1948

    1948

  62. [70]

    Kamath, Lorenz T

    Ramkumar S. Kamath, Lorenz T. Biegler, and Ignacio E. Grossmann. An equation-oriented approach for han- dling thermodynamics based on group methods in process optimization.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 34(12):2085–2096, 2010

    2010

  63. [71]

    Gilliland

    Edwin R. Gilliland. Multicomponent rectification: Estimation of the number of theoretical plates as a function of the reflux ratio.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 32(9):1220–1223, 1940

    1940

  64. [72]

    Grossmann, Pio A

    Ignacio E. Grossmann, Pio A. Aguirre, and Matías Barttfeld. Optimal synthesis of complex distillation columns using rigorous models.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 29(6):1203–1215, 2005

    2005

  65. [73]

    Shortcut methods for nonideal multicomponent distillation: 3

    Stefan Bruggemann and Wolfgang Marquardt. Shortcut methods for nonideal multicomponent distillation: 3. Extractive distillation columns.AIChE Journal, 50(6):1129–1149, 2004

    2004

  66. [74]

    Hillenbrand and Arthur W

    James B. Hillenbrand and Arthur W. Westerberg. The synthesis of multiple-effect evaporator systems using minimum utility insights.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 12(6):611–624, 1988

    1988

  67. [75]

    Multiple effect evaporators.https://swensontechnology.com/ multiple-effect-evaporators/, 2024

    Swenson Technology. Multiple effect evaporators.https://swensontechnology.com/ multiple-effect-evaporators/, 2024. Accessed: 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Grossmann

    Elvis Ahmetovi ´c, Zdravko Kravanja, and Ignacio E. Grossmann. Simultaneous optimisation and heat integration of evaporation systems including mechanical vapour recompression and background process.Energy, 158:1160– 1191, 2018

    2018

  69. [77]

    Atul Sharma, V . V . Tyagi, C. R. Chen, and D. Buddhi. Review on thermal energy storage with phase change materials and applications.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(2):318–345, 2009

    2009

  70. [78]

    Marín, Luisa F

    Belén Zalba, José M. Marín, Luisa F. Cabeza, and Harald Mehling. Review on thermal energy storage with phase change: Materials, heat transfer analysis and applications.Applied Thermal Engineering, 23(3):251–283, 2003

    2003

  71. [79]

    Rongxin Qi and Michael A. Henson. Membrane system design for multicomponent gas mixtures via MINLP optimization.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 24(12):2719–2737, 2000

    2000

  72. [80]

    Lloyd M. Robeson. Correlation of separation factor versus permeability for polymeric membranes.Journal of Membrane Science, 62(2):165–185, 1991

    1991

  73. [81]

    Lloyd M. Robeson. The upper bound revisited.Journal of Membrane Science, 320(1–2):390–400, 2008

    2008

  74. [82]

    Benny D. Freeman. Basis of permeability/selectivity tradeoff relations in polymeric gas separation membranes. Macromolecules, 32(2):375–380, 1999

    1999

  75. [83]

    Wijmans and Richard W

    Johannes G. Wijmans and Richard W. Baker. The solution-diffusion model: A review.Journal of Membrane Science, 107(1–2):1–21, 1995

    1995

  76. [84]

    Barnett, Connor R

    Jason W. Barnett, Connor R. Bilchak, Yiwen Wang, Brian C. Benicewicz, Laura A. Murdock, Taner Berber, and Sanat K. Kumar. Designing exceptional gas-separation polymer membranes using machine learning.Science Advances, 6(20):eaaz4301, 2020

    2020

  77. [85]

    Robeson, Menachem Elimelech, and Benny D

    Ho Bum Park, Jovan Kamcev, Lloyd M. Robeson, Menachem Elimelech, and Benny D. Freeman. Maximizing the right stuff: The trade-off between membrane permeability and selectivity.Science, 356(6343):eaab0530, 2017

    2017

  78. [86]

    Cohen and David Turnbull

    Morrel H. Cohen and David Turnbull. Molecular transport in liquids and glasses.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 31(5):1164–1169, 1959

    1959

  79. [87]

    Diffusion in polymer-diluent systems.Fortschritte der Hochpolymeren-Forschung, 3:1–47, 1961

    Hiroshi Fujita. Diffusion in polymer-diluent systems.Fortschritte der Hochpolymeren-Forschung, 3:1–47, 1961

    1961

  80. [88]

    Freeman, and Ingo Pinnau

    Scott Matteucci, Yuri Yampolskii, Benny D. Freeman, and Ingo Pinnau. Transport of gases and vapors in glassy and rubbery polymers.Materials Science of Membranes for Gas and Vapor Separation, pages 1–47, 2006. 39 Exploiting Separability in Multi-Scale Grey-Box BOA PREPRINT

    2006

  81. [89]

    W. M. Lee. Selection of barrier materials from molecular structure.Polymer Engineering & Science, 20(1):65– 69, 1980

    1980

  82. [90]

    A. Bondi. van der Waals volumes and radii.The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 68(3):441–451, 1964

    1964

  83. [91]

    Daramola

    Natsayi Chiwaye, Thokozani Majozi, and Michael O. Daramola. Superstructure-based optimization of membrane gas separation processes: A review.Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 64:13905–13919, 2025

    2025

  84. [92]

    T. J. Williams and R. E. Otto. A generalized chemical processing model for the investigation of computer control.Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Part I: Communication and Electronics, 79(5):458–473, 1960

    1960

  85. [93]

    Simulation and optimal control of the Williams-Otto process using Pyomo.Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 92(11):1728–1740, 2020

    Jochen Schmid, Katrin Teichert, Moncef Chioua, Thorsten Schindler, and Michael Bortz. Simulation and optimal control of the Williams-Otto process using Pyomo.Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 92(11):1728–1740, 2020

    2020

  86. [94]

    Differential evolution – a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces.Journal of Global Optimization, 11(4):341–359, 1997

    Rainer Storn and Kenneth Price. Differential evolution – a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces.Journal of Global Optimization, 11(4):341–359, 1997

    1997

  87. [95]

    Endres, Carl Sandrock, and Walter W

    Stefan C. Endres, Carl Sandrock, and Walter W. Focke. A simplicial homology algorithm for Lipschitz optimi- sation.Journal of Global Optimization, 72(2):181–217, 2018

    2018

  88. [96]

    Xiang, D

    Y . Xiang, D. Y . Sun, W. Fan, and X. G. Gong. Generalized simulated annealing algorithm and its application to the Thomson model.Physics Letters A, 233(3):216–220, 1997. 40

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.