BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Mathieu Balesdent

Mathieu Balesdent contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine Learningmath.OC

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Bayesian optimization of variable-size design space problems

Within the framework of complex system design, it is often necessary to solve mixed variable optimization problems, in which the objective and constraint functions can depend simultaneously on continuous and discrete variables. Additionally, complex system design problems occasionally present a variable-size design space. This results in an optimization problem for which the search space varies dynamically (with respect to both number and type of variables) along the optimization process as a function of the values of specific discrete decision variables. Similarly, the number and type of constraints can vary as well. In this paper, two alternative Bayesian Optimization-based approaches are proposed in order to solve this type of optimization problems. The first one consists in a budget allocation strategy allowing to focus the computational budget on the most promising design sub-spaces. The second approach, instead, is based on the definition of a kernel function allowing to compute the covariance between samples characterized by partially different sets of variables. The results obtained on analytical and engineering related test-cases show a faster and more consistent convergence of both proposed methods with respect to the standard approaches.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Multi-fidelity modeling with different input domain definitions using Deep Gaussian Processes

Multi-fidelity approaches combine different models built on a scarce but accurate data-set (high-fidelity data-set), and a large but approximate one (low-fidelity data-set) in order to improve the prediction accuracy. Gaussian Processes (GPs) are one of the popular approaches to exhibit the correlations between these different fidelity levels. Deep Gaussian Processes (DGPs) that are functional compositions of GPs have also been adapted to multi-fidelity using the Multi-Fidelity Deep Gaussian process model (MF-DGP). This model increases the expressive power compared to GPs by considering non-linear correlations between fidelities within a Bayesian framework. However, these multi-fidelity methods consider only the case where the inputs of the different fidelity models are defined over the same domain of definition (e.g., same variables, same dimensions). However, due to simplification in the modeling of the low-fidelity, some variables may be omitted or a different parametrization may be used compared to the high-fidelity model. In this paper, Deep Gaussian Processes for multi-fidelity (MF-DGP) are extended to the case where a different parametrization is used for each fidelity. The performance of the proposed multifidelity modeling technique is assessed on analytical test cases and on structural and aerodynamic real physical problems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Overview of Gaussian process based multi-fidelity techniques with variable relationship between fidelities

The design process of complex systems such as new configurations of aircraft or launch vehicles is usually decomposed in different phases which are characterized for instance by the depth of the analyses in terms of number of design variables and fidelity of the physical models. At each phase, the designers have to compose with accurate but computationally intensive models as well as cheap but inaccurate models. Multi-fidelity modeling is a way to merge different fidelity models to provide engineers with accurate results with a limited computational cost. Within the context of multi-fidelity modeling, approaches relying on Gaussian Processes emerge as popular techniques to fuse information between the different fidelity models. The relationship between the fidelity models is a key aspect in multi-fidelity modeling. This paper provides an overview of Gaussian process-based multi-fidelity modeling techniques for variable relationship between the fidelity models (e.g., linearity, non-linearity, variable correlation). Each technique is described within a unified framework and the links between the different techniques are highlighted. All the approaches are numerically compared on a series of analytical test cases and four aerospace related engineering problems in order to assess their benefits and disadvantages with respect to the problem characteristics.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access