Surrogate Models in Expensive Black-Box Optimization: Accelerating Discovery in Biomedicine and Beyond

Abstract

This article explores the transformative role of surrogate models in tackling computationally expensive black-box optimization problems, with a special focus on applications in drug development and biomedical research. We provide a comprehensive foundation, covering the core challenge of optimizing systems where objective functions are implicit and evaluations require costly simulations or physical experiments. The article delves into key methodological approaches, including ensemble techniques and Gaussian Process regression, and examines their successful application in areas like virtual patient generation and force field parameterization. We further address critical troubleshooting and optimization strategies for real-world deployment, and discuss rigorous validation frameworks to ensure model reliability and interpretability. This resource is tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals seeking to leverage surrogate-assisted optimization to accelerate their workflows.

The Black-Box Bottleneck: Why Traditional Optimization Fails in Complex Systems

Defining Expensive Black-Box Functions in Engineering and Biomedicine

In the optimization of complex systems across engineering and biomedicine, researchers often encounter problems classified as expensive black-box functions. A black-box function is an unknown system where users can observe inputs and outputs but cannot see the internal mechanisms or obtain gradient information [1]. These functions are deemed "expensive" because each evaluation is computationally intensive, time-consuming, or financially costly, requiring numerous simulations or physical experiments [2] [1]. The core challenge lies in optimizing these systems where traditional methods fail due to unknown objective function characteristics and prohibitive evaluation costs.

Surrogate-Based Optimization (SO) has emerged as a predominant technique addressing this challenge. SO employs a low-cost surrogate model to approximate the expensive black-box function, guiding the optimization process toward the global optimum while significantly reducing the number of expensive evaluations required [1]. This approach is particularly critical in fields like drug development, where surrogate endpoints act as proxies for clinical outcomes, accelerating research when direct measurement would be impractical or unethical [3] [4]. The fundamental trade-off in SO involves balancing exploration of new regions in the function space with exploitation of areas known to be promising, a balance that becomes particularly complex in batch evaluation settings where multiple function evaluations occur simultaneously [1].

Characteristics and Challenges

Defining Characteristics of Expensive Black-Box Functions

Expensive black-box functions exhibit several distinct characteristics that make them particularly challenging for optimization. The table below summarizes their key attributes and the corresponding challenges for researchers.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Expensive Black-Box Functions

Characteristic	Description	Primary Challenge
Unknown Internal Mechanics	Only inputs and outputs are observable; internal processes are not transparent [1].	Impossible to use derivative-based optimization methods or analytical solutions.
High Evaluation Cost	Each function evaluation requires significant computational resources, time, or financial investment [2] [1].	Limits the number of evaluations that can be practically performed, requiring highly sample-efficient algorithms.
Lack of Gradient Information	The objective function's derivatives are typically unavailable or computationally prohibitive to estimate.	Prevents the use of efficient gradient-based optimization techniques.
Complex Design Landscape	Often characterized by high dimensionality, multi-modality, and noise [1].	Difficult to navigate and easily trapped in local optima rather than finding global optimum.

Domain-Specific Manifestations

The abstract concept of expensive black-box functions manifests differently across engineering and biomedicine domains, though they share fundamental similarities in their optimization challenges.

Table 2: Comparison of Black-Box Functions Across Domains

Aspect	Engineering Applications	Biomedicine Applications
Nature of Function	Computer simulations (e.g., airfoil design), physical experiments [1].	Clinical trial outcomes, biological system responses [3] [4].
Evaluation Cost	Computationally expensive simulations requiring hours to days [2].	Time-consuming clinical trials lasting years, high financial costs, ethical constraints [3].
Typical Surrogates	Machine learning models, simplified physics models [1].	Biomarkers, laboratory measurements, imaging biomarkers [3] [4].
Validation Requirements	Agreement with high-fidelity models, physical experiments [2] [1].	Analytical validation, clinical validation, proof of clinical utility [3] [4].

In engineering, expensive black-box functions appear in problems such as airfoil design and rover trajectory planning, where each simulation requires substantial computational resources [1]. In biomedicine, the relationship between a drug intervention and patient survival represents a black-box function where clinical endpoints (how patients feel, function, or survive) are expensive to measure due to long trial durations and large sample size requirements [3] [4]. In both domains, the fundamental challenge remains the same: optimizing an unknown, costly system with limited evaluation opportunities.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Benchmarking Surrogate Optimization Algorithms

Rigorous experimental evaluation of surrogate-based optimization algorithms requires standardized benchmarking methodologies. The EXPObench library provides a framework for comparing algorithms on real-life, expensive, black-box objective functions, addressing the historical lack of standardization in the field [2]. The following protocol outlines a comprehensive approach for benchmarking:

• Algorithm Selection: Choose diverse surrogate algorithms representing different approaches to the exploration-exploitation trade-off. A recent study compared six different surrogate algorithms on four expensive optimization problems from different real-life applications [2].

• Problem Instances: Select benchmark problems from various domains with different characteristics. The EXPObench library includes problems from domains such as DNA binding, airfoil design, and hyperparameter optimization for MNIST classification [2] [1].

• Evaluation Metrics: Define appropriate performance metrics, including:

  • Convergence speed: The number of expensive function evaluations required to reach a target objective value.
  • Solution quality: The best objective value found within a fixed computational budget.
  • Robustness: Performance consistency across multiple runs and different problem instances.

• Computational Budget: Set limits on the number of expensive function evaluations based on the problem's computational cost and practical constraints [2].

• Statistical Analysis: Perform multiple independent runs of each algorithm on each problem instance to account for random variations, using appropriate statistical tests to determine significant performance differences.

This methodology has revealed that the best algorithm choice depends on evaluation time and available computation budget, with the continuous vs. discrete nature of the problem being less important than previously thought [2].

Validating Biomarkers as Surrogate Endpoints

In biomedical research, the use of surrogate endpoints requires rigorous validation to ensure they reliably predict meaningful clinical outcomes. The FDA outlines a comprehensive framework for biomarker validation [3] [4]:

Table 3: Validation Framework for Biomarkers as Surrogate Endpoints

Validation Stage	Key Activities	Regulatory Consideration
Analytical Validation	Assess assay sensitivity, specificity, precision, and reproducibility [3].	Demonstrates the biomarker can be measured accurately and reliably.
Clinical Validation	Demonstrate the biomarker's ability to detect or predict disease state or treatment response [3].	Establishes a relationship between the biomarker and the clinical outcome of interest.
Clinical Utility Evaluation	Evaluate whether using the biomarker improves patient outcomes or decision-making [3].	Determines if the surrogate endpoint predicts clinical benefit in the specific context of use.

The validation process requires accumulating evidence from epidemiological studies, therapeutic interventions, and pathophysiological research [4]. For a surrogate endpoint to be considered "validated," it must be supported by strong biological rationale and robust empirical evidence linking it to meaningful clinical outcomes [3]. The level of validation determines the regulatory acceptance:

• Candidate Surrogate Endpoints: Still under evaluation for their ability to predict clinical benefit [4].
• Reasonably Likely Surrogate Endpoints: Supported by strong mechanistic and/or epidemiologic rationale but insufficient clinical data for full validation; can support accelerated approval programs [4].
• Validated Surrogate Endpoints: Supported by clear mechanistic rationale and clinical data providing strong evidence that an effect on the surrogate endpoint predicts a specific clinical benefit [4].

Visualization of Core Concepts

Surrogate Optimization Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the iterative process of surrogate-based optimization for expensive black-box functions:

Surrogate Optimization Process

This workflow highlights the critical role of the acquisition function in managing the exploration-exploitation trade-off—a fundamental challenge in surrogate optimization where the algorithm must balance between exploring new regions of the search space and exploiting areas known to be promising [1]. The batch evaluation path is particularly relevant for complex systems where multiple evaluations can be performed simultaneously, adding complexity to the optimization process [1].

Biomarker Validation Pathway

The pathway for developing and validating biomarkers as surrogate endpoints in biomedical research involves multiple stages of evidence generation:

Biomarker Validation Pathway

This pathway emphasizes that biomarker validation is a progressive process requiring different types of evidence at each stage. The context of use is particularly critical, as a biomarker may be validated for one specific application but not others [4]. Regulatory agencies like the FDA require this rigorous validation before accepting surrogate endpoints in place of clinical outcomes for drug approval [3] [4].

Research Reagent Solutions

The experimental investigation and implementation of surrogate-based optimization methods require specific computational tools and resources. The table below outlines key resources mentioned in the research literature.

Table 4: Essential Research Tools for Surrogate Optimization and Biomarker Development

Resource/Tool	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
EXPObench Library	Benchmark Library	Standardized benchmarking of surrogate algorithms on expensive optimization problems [2].	Provides real-life expensive optimization problems for algorithm comparison and development.
Bayesian Optimization	Algorithmic Framework	Sequential design strategy for optimizing black-box functions [2].	Hyperparameter tuning, simulation-based optimization in engineering and biomedicine.
Surrogate Endpoint Table	Regulatory Resource	Lists surrogate endpoints used for drug/biologic approval [4].	Guides drug developers on acceptable surrogate endpoints for specific disease contexts.
Biomarker Qualification Program	Regulatory Pathway	Supports development of biomarkers for specific contexts in drug development [4].	Provides framework for qualifying biomarkers for use in regulatory decision-making.

These resources represent essential infrastructure for researchers working with expensive black-box functions. The EXPObench library addresses the critical need for standardization in evaluating surrogate algorithms [2], while the FDA's Surrogate Endpoint Table and Biomarker Qualification Program provide regulatory clarity for drug developers using surrogate endpoints in clinical trials [4].

Expensive black-box functions represent a fundamental challenge across engineering and biomedicine, where system complexity and evaluation costs prevent traditional optimization approaches. Surrogate-based methods have emerged as powerful strategies for addressing these challenges, employing low-cost models to guide optimization while minimizing expensive evaluations. In engineering, these methods enable efficient optimization of computational simulations and physical experiments, while in biomedicine, surrogate endpoints accelerate drug development when direct clinical outcome measurement is impractical.

The effective use of these approaches requires rigorous methodologies, including standardized benchmarking for optimization algorithms and comprehensive validation frameworks for biomarkers. Visualization of workflows and validation pathways helps researchers navigate these complex processes, while specialized tools and resources provide the necessary infrastructure for implementation. As research in both fields advances, the continued development and refinement of surrogate-based approaches will be essential for tackling increasingly complex optimization challenges in both engineering and biomedicine.

The escalating computational cost of high-fidelity simulations represents a critical bottleneck in scientific and engineering disciplines, from aerodynamics to drug development. This whitepaper examines how surrogate modeling and reduced-order modeling provide mathematically principled frameworks for overcoming this crisis. By constructing efficient approximations of expensive "black-box" functions, these techniques enable rapid exploration of design spaces, real-time simulation, and robust optimization while maintaining acceptable accuracy. The integration of machine learning with traditional physics-based modeling, alongside emerging paradigms like AI-enhanced turbulence modeling and Large Language Model-based optimizers, is creating a transformative pathway toward sustainable computational research.

Computational simulations have become indispensable across industrial and research sectors, but their increasing complexity creates a significant cost crisis.

Table 1: Computational Fluid Dynamics Market Growth and Drivers

Metric	Value & Forecast	Key Drivers
Global Market (2024)	USD 1.5 Billion [5]	Need to reduce prototyping costs and accelerate time-to-market [5]
Projected Market (2032)	USD 3.25 Billion [5]	Rising demand for electric vehicles and efficient thermal management systems [5]
CAGR (2024-2032)	11.9% [5]	Growing complexity of products and need for high-fidelity simulations in defense/aerospace [5]
Alternative Forecast (2029)	Increase of USD 1.23 Billion from 2025 [6]	Cloud-based solutions, AI-powered simulations [6] [7]

This growth reflects not only expanding adoption but also the critical need to address the underlying computational costs. In aerospace, high-fidelity CFD simulations can improve fuel efficiency by 12%, and in automotive engineering, they can lower energy use by 15% [6]. However, achieving these results traditionally requires massive computational resources. Similarly, in pharmaceutical development, Quantitative Systems Pharmacology (QSP) models face intractable complexity when integrating multiscale biological data for personalized treatment optimization [8].

Surrogate Modeling: A Mathematical Foundation for Efficiency

Surrogate modeling addresses the computational cost crisis by constructing fast-to-evaluate approximations of high-fidelity models. These metamodels are built from a limited set of carefully chosen simulations and then used for tasks requiring numerous evaluations, such as optimization, uncertainty quantification, and real-time control.

Core Methodologies and Theoretical Frameworks

The fundamental approaches to surrogate modeling include:

• Physics-Based Reduced-Order Models (ROMs): These techniques project the high-dimensional equations governing a system (e.g., Navier-Stokes equations) onto a lower-dimensional subspace capturing the dominant system behaviors. Methods include Proper Orthogonal Decomposition and Gaussian Process Regression [6] [9].
• Data-Driven Surrogate Models: These models learn the input-output relationship of a system from simulation or experimental data, without explicit knowledge of the underlying physics. Machine Learning methods like Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are particularly powerful for this task [10] [8].
• Hybrid Mechanistic/ML Models: This emerging framework blends mechanistic understanding (e.g., physics-based ODEs) with data-driven ML components, leveraging the strengths of both approaches for systems where first-principles models are incomplete [8].

Experimental Protocols and Quantitative Validation

The development and validation of a surrogate model follow a rigorous, iterative protocol to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Workflow for Surrogate Model Development

The following diagram illustrates the generalized workflow for developing and deploying a surrogate model.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

This protocol addresses the high cost of matrix operations in large-scale CFD surrogate modeling.

• Problem Setup: Define the geometric body and flow conditions for the high-fidelity CFD simulation.
• Local Error-Driven Optimization:
  • Run initial high-fidelity simulations to identify that far-field physical parameters exhibit simpler relationships, while high-error regions are concentrated near geometric bodies [11].
  • Introduce an optimization strategy that captures key points in these high-error regions [11].
  • Construct a local surrogate model to iteratively optimize the shape parameters of a Radial Basis Function (RBF) network, replacing global flow field parameters with locally optimal ones [11].
• Validation: Compare the flow field predictions of the enhanced RBF surrogate against traditional CFD results and global optimization methods.

Quantitative Results: This method achieved a reduction in computational time of over 99% compared to traditional CFD, with the local parameter optimization strategy reducing costs by over 90% compared to global optimization methods, while maintaining an average prediction error below 2% [11].

This protocol details the development of a surrogate for textured journal bearings.

• Data Generation:
  • Develop accurate CFD models employing a dynamic mesh algorithm.
  • Execute simulations across a designed range of texture configurations to generate a comprehensive dataset.
• Model Selection and Training:
  • Train and compare three ML methods: Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Support Vector Regression (SVR), and Gaussian Process Regression (GPR).
  • Select the best-performing method (ANN demonstrated superior prediction performance [10]).
  • Enhance the ANN's prediction accuracy through an architecture design based on cross-validation and further optimization using a genetic algorithm, all without needing additional CFD datasets [10].
• Validation: Assess the final model's accuracy against a held-out test set of CFD results.

Quantitative Results: The genetic algorithm optimization improved the average prediction accuracy from 95.89% to 98.81%, and reduced the maximum error from 13.17% to 3.25% [10].

The LLM-based Entropy-guided Optimization with kNowledgeable priors (LEON) framework is a novel approach for black-box optimization in personalized treatment.

• Problem Formulation: Frame personalized medicine as a conditional black-box optimization problem: find a treatment strategy that optimizes a patient's clinical outcome based on their covariates [12].
• Constrained Optimization:
  • Acknowledge that surrogate models (e.g., digital twins) are imperfect and may fail on unseen patient-treatment combinations [12].
  • Apply constraints to limit the optimization to treatments that (a) have reliable surrogate predictions, and (b) are consistently proposed as high-quality by the LLM based on its embedded domain knowledge (e.g., from medical textbooks) [12].
• Implementation via 'Optimization-by-Prompting':
  • Use the LLM as a stochastic engine to propose treatment designs in natural language.
  • Guide the LLM's proposals using an objective function derived from the LEON framework, which incorporates the surrogate's output and a measure of the LLM's own certainty (entropy over equivalent treatment classes) [12].

Quantitative Results: In experiments on real-world treatment design problems, LEON achieved an average rank of 1.2 when compared against 10 other baseline optimization methods [12].

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Surrogate Model Performance

Application Domain	Surrogate Technique	Computational Saving	Accuracy Achieved
Large-Scale Flow Field Prediction [11]	Enhanced Radial Basis Function (RBF)	>99% vs. traditional CFD; >90% vs. global optimization	Average error < 2%
Friction in Textured Journal Bearings [10]	ANN optimized with Genetic Algorithm	Drastic reduction in CFD runs needed	98.81% average accuracy
Pharmaceutical Process Optimization [13]	Surrogate-based framework (Multi-Objective)	High-fidelity model evaluations reduced	Yield improved by 3.63% with high purity
Personalized Treatment Design [12]	LLM-based Optimizer (LEON)	Avoids costly in-vivo treatment testing	Outperformed 10 traditional & LLM-based methods

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Computational Tools and Platforms

Tool Category	Representative Examples	Primary Function
Commercial CFD Suites	ANSYS Fluent, Siemens STAR-CCM+ [6]	High-fidelity flow simulation, turbulence modeling, and heat transfer analysis.
ML/Deep Learning Frameworks	TensorFlow, PyTorch	Building and training data-driven surrogate models like ANNs.
Optimization Algorithms	Genetic Algorithms [10], LEON [12]	Optimizing surrogate model parameters or directly optimizing designs.
High-Performance Computing (HPC)	GPU-accelerated solvers [14], Cloud-based CFD [6]	Providing the computational power for high-fidelity simulation and training large surrogates.
Reduced-Order Modeling Tools	Operator Inference (OpInf), Sparse Identification (SINDy) [9]	Constructing physics-based low-dimensional models from high-fidelity data.
Belumosudil	Belumosudil, CAS:911417-87-3, MF:C26H24N6O2, MW:452.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
STX140	STX140, CAS:401600-86-0, MF:C19H28N2O7S2, MW:460.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Future Directions and Emerging Trends

The convergence of AI, HPC, and computational modeling is creating a new paradigm for managing the cost crisis.

• AI-Powered CFD and QSP: Deep-learning-based turbulence modeling and AI-based adaptive meshing are poised to dramatically reduce simulation time and cost [7] [14]. In QSP, AI/ML is transitioning from a tool to an "active partner" that can autonomously propose, refine, and validate models [8].
• Quantum Computing for Simulation: Though nascent, quantum computing holds potential to revolutionize computational performance for specific classes of simulation and optimization problems, with quantum-powered CFD identified as a future trend [7].
• Democratization via Cloud and AI: Cloud-native CFD platforms and AI-assisted workflows are democratizing access to advanced simulation, lowering the barrier to entry for researchers without deep expertise in coding or numerical methods [6] [8].

The computational cost crisis in CFD and QSP is a significant challenge, but it is being systematically addressed by sophisticated surrogate modeling strategies. The experimental protocols and results presented demonstrate that it is possible to achieve orders-of-magnitude reduction in computational expense while preserving the predictive accuracy required for robust engineering design and personalized therapeutic optimization. The future lies in the continued development of hybrid models that seamlessly integrate mechanistic principles with data-driven learning, all within an increasingly automated and accessible computational ecosystem.

In the realm of expensive black-box optimization, where the evaluation of the true objective function requires substantial computational resources or costly physical experiments, surrogate models have emerged as a cornerstone methodology. Also known as metamodels or response surface models, a surrogate model is a cheap-to-evaluate approximation of a complex, computationally intensive process or function. The core premise is to build a mathematical model that learns the input-output relationship from a limited set of expensive function evaluations, creating a predictive model that can be exploited to guide the optimization process efficiently. This approach is particularly vital in scientific and engineering domains where a single function evaluation may involve running a high-fidelity simulation for hours or days, conducting a wet-lab experiment, or—as in the context of drug development—executing a rigorous clinical trial simulation or molecular docking study.

The role of surrogate models within expensive black-box optimization research is to drastically reduce the computational burden while maintaining acceptable solution quality. Traditional optimization algorithms often require thousands of function evaluations to converge to a satisfactory solution, which becomes prohibitive when each evaluation is exceptionally costly. By strategically employing surrogate models, researchers can interpolate between known data points, predict promising new candidate solutions and navigate the design space intelligently without invoking the expensive true function at every step. This paradigm has transformed optimization workflows across numerous disciplines, from aerospace engineering and materials science to pharmaceutical development, where it accelerates discovery while containing computational costs.

Mathematical Foundations and Model Types

Theoretical Framework

Surrogate-assisted optimization operates on a fundamental mathematical framework. Let ( f(\mathbf{x}) ) be the expensive black-box function to be minimized (or maximized), where ( \mathbf{x} ) represents a vector of decision variables within a search space ( \Omega ). The goal is to find ( \mathbf{x}^* = \arg\min{\mathbf{x} \in \Omega} f(\mathbf{x}) ). Given the expense of evaluating ( f ), a surrogate model ( \hat{f}(\mathbf{x}) ) is constructed to approximate ( f ) based on a dataset ( \mathcal{D} = {(\mathbf{x}i, f(\mathbf{x}i))}{i=1}^n ) of initial evaluations.

The surrogate modeling process involves two interdependent components: model selection and experimental design. Model selection concerns choosing the functional form of ( \hat{f} ) (e.g., Gaussian process, neural network, polynomial) and fitting its parameters to the observed data ( \mathcal{D} ). Experimental design involves selecting the points ( \mathbf{x}_i ) at which to evaluate the expensive true function to build and refine the surrogate. This is typically done through adaptive sampling strategies that balance exploration (sampling in uncertain regions) and exploitation (sampling where the surrogate predicts good performance).

The general surrogate-assisted optimization loop follows these steps:

• Initial Sampling: Select an initial set of points ( \mathbf{x}1, \mathbf{x}2, ..., \mathbf{x}_n ) using a space-filling design (e.g., Latin Hypercube Sampling) and evaluate them using the expensive function ( f ) to form the initial dataset ( \mathcal{D} ).
• Model Building: Construct the surrogate model ( \hat{f} ) using the collected data ( \mathcal{D} ).
• Surrogate Optimization: Use an efficient optimization algorithm to find candidate points that are optimal according to a criterion (e.g., expected improvement, lower confidence bound) that combines ( \hat{f} ) and its uncertainty.
• Expensive Evaluation: Evaluate the most promising candidate point(s) using the true expensive function ( f ).
• Model Update: Augment the dataset ( \mathcal{D} ) with the new evaluation results and update the surrogate model.
• Termination Check: Repeat steps 3-5 until a convergence criterion is met (e.g., budget exhausted, solution quality achieved).

Types of Surrogate Models

Several statistical and machine learning models are commonly employed as surrogates, each with distinct strengths, weaknesses, and applicability domains.

• Gaussian Processes (GPs): Also known as Kriging, GPs are a Bayesian non-parametric approach that provides not only a prediction but also an estimate of uncertainty (variance) at any point. This built-in uncertainty quantification makes them particularly valuable for optimization, as it naturally facilitates balancing exploration and exploitation. They are especially effective for modeling continuous, smooth functions with limited data but scale poorly to very large datasets and high dimensions due to ( O(n^3) ) computational complexity for training [15].

• Radial Basis Functions (RBFs): RBF models form predictions as a linear combination of basis functions that depend only on the radial distance from the prediction point to the data points. They are flexible interpolators capable of handling irregular, non-linear response surfaces. While they don't naturally provide uncertainty estimates like GPs, they are computationally efficient and have been successfully integrated into global optimization algorithms [16].

• Polynomial Regression Models: These are parametric models that fit a polynomial (linear, quadratic, etc.) to the data. They are simple, fast to build and evaluate, and work well for approximating low-order, smooth functions. However, they may lack the flexibility to capture complex, highly non-linear behavior and can be sensitive to outliers. Tools like ALAMO (Automated Learning of Algebraic Models for Optimization) can automate the process of identifying appropriate polynomial structures [16].

• Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs): ANNs are universal function approximators capable of learning highly complex, non-linear relationships from large volumes of data. They scale well to high-dimensional problems. Their drawbacks include the need for relatively large training datasets, careful tuning of architecture and hyperparameters, and the lack of inherent, well-calibrated uncertainty estimates without specialized variants like Bayesian neural networks [16].

• Random Forests (RF): As an ensemble method, RF constructs multiple decision trees and aggregates their predictions. They are robust to noisy data and can handle mixed variable types (continuous and categorical). However, they are typically not interpolators and may not perfectly fit the training data, which can be a disadvantage if the true function is deterministic [15].

• Support Vector Machines (SVM): SVMs, particularly Support Vector Regression (SVR), seek to find a function that deviates at most by a margin from the observed data. They are effective in high-dimensional spaces and memory efficient, but their performance is sensitive to the choice of the kernel and regularization parameters [15].

The following table provides a comparative summary of these key surrogate model types based on recent benchmark studies:

Table 1: Comparison of Key Surrogate Model Types

Model Type	Key Strengths	Key Limitations	Representative Performance (R²/Accuracy)	Computational Efficiency
Gaussian Process	Built-in uncertainty, strong with limited data	Poor scaling with data size ((O(n^3)))	High accuracy on benchmarks [15]	Low (training), High (prediction)
Radial Basis Functions	Flexible interpolator, computationally efficient	No native uncertainty quantification	High accuracy on training data [16]	High
Polynomial Regression	Simple, fast, interpretable	Limited to low-order nonlinearities	Good balance of efficiency/reliability [16]	Very High
Artificial Neural Networks	Handles complexity & high dimensions	Data-hungry, complex tuning	Fast convergence (e.g., 2 iterations in TRF) [16]	Low (training), High (prediction)
Random Forest	Robust to noise, handles mixed variables	Not an exact interpolator	Comparable to GP on early-stage optimization [15]	Medium
Support Vector Machine	Effective in high dimensions, memory efficient	Sensitive to hyperparameters	Performance varies with kernel choice [15]	Medium

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Detailed Methodologies for Surrogate Construction and Use

Implementing surrogate models effectively requires a structured, iterative protocol. The following workflow details a standard methodology, adaptable to various model types and application domains.

Diagram 1: Surrogate-assisted optimization workflow

Phase 1: Initial Experimental Design and Data Collection

• Objective: To select an initial set of points in the design space that provides maximum information with a minimal number of expensive evaluations.
• Protocol: Use a model-independent, space-filling design such as Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS). For a problem with d dimensions and an initial budget of n points, LHS ensures that each dimension is partitioned into n intervals and each interval is sampled exactly once. This provides better coverage of the design space than random sampling.
• Data Collection: Run the expensive black-box function (e.g., a high-fidelity simulation, a molecular docking calculation like RosettaVS [17], or a clinical trial simulation [18]) at each of the n design points. The result is the initial training dataset ( \mathcal{D} = {(\mathbf{x}i, f(\mathbf{x}i))}_{i=1}^n ).

Phase 2: Surrogate Model Construction and Validation

• Objective: To train a surrogate model Å· that accurately approximates f(x) based on the initial dataset D.
• Protocol:
  • Model Selection: Choose a model type based on the problem characteristics (see Table 1). For instance, use Gaussian Processes for problems with limited data and a need for uncertainty quantification, or Neural Networks for large, high-dimensional datasets.
  • Training: Fit the model parameters to the dataset D. For a Gaussian Process, this involves optimizing the kernel hyperparameters to maximize the marginal likelihood. For a Neural Network, this involves minimizing a loss function (e.g., Mean Squared Error) via gradient descent.
  • Validation: Assess the model's predictive accuracy using techniques like cross-validation or a hold-out test set. Common metrics include R² score, Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), and Kendall's Tau rank correlation [19]. The model must be sufficiently accurate before proceeding to the optimization phase.

Phase 3: Model-Based Optimization and Infill Criterion

• Objective: To use the surrogate model to propose new, promising candidate points for evaluation with the expensive function.
• Protocol:
  • Define an Acquisition Function: An acquisition function a(x), derived from the surrogate model, guides the search by balancing prediction and uncertainty. A common choice is the Expected Improvement (EI): EI(x) = (f_min - ŷ(x)) * Φ(Z) + s(x) * φ(Z) for s(x) > 0, where Z = (f_min - Å·(x)) / s(x), Å·(x) is the surrogate prediction, s(x) is its uncertainty, f_min is the best observed value, and Φ and φ are the standard normal CDF and PDF. This favors points with low predicted values (exploitation) and/or high uncertainty (exploration).
  • Optimize the Acquisition Function: Find the point x_candidate that maximizes a(x). Since a(x) is cheap to evaluate, this inner optimization can be performed aggressively using a standard optimizer like CMA-ES [15] or a multi-start quasi-Newton method.

Phase 4: Expensive Evaluation and Model Update

• Objective: To refine the surrogate model with new data, improving its accuracy in promising regions of the search space.
• Protocol:
  • Evaluate the expensive function at x_candidate to obtain f(x_candidate).
  • Augment the dataset: D = D ∪ (x_candidate, f(x_candidate)).
  • Update the surrogate model with the new, augmented dataset.
• Iteration and Termination: Repeat Phases 3 and 4 until a termination criterion is met. This is typically a maximum number of expensive evaluations, a computational budget, or a stagnation criterion (e.g., no significant improvement in f_min over a number of iterations).

Advanced Strategy: Trust-Region Framework

To enhance the reliability of surrogate-assisted optimization, especially with local surrogate models, a Trust-Region (TRF) framework is often employed [16]. This method constrains the optimization of the acquisition function to a local region where the surrogate is trusted to be accurate. The trust region is dynamically adjusted based on the performance of the candidate points. If a candidate point leads to significant improvement, the trust region may be expanded; if not, it is contracted. This approach prevents the algorithm from making overly ambitious, unreliable steps based on a poor surrogate prediction in a distant region. Studies have shown that within a TRF, models like Kriging and ANN can achieve convergence in as few as two iterations [16].

Case Studies in Scientific Research

Drug Discovery: AI-Accelerated Virtual Screening

The field of drug discovery provides a compelling case for the power of surrogate modeling. Structure-based virtual screening, which involves computationally docking millions of small molecules into a protein target to predict binding affinity, is prohibitively expensive at scale. To address this, researchers developed RosettaVS, a high-accuracy docking method, and integrated it into an AI-accelerated virtual screening platform [17].

• Surrogate Role: In this platform, a surrogate model is used to approximate the docking score from the RosettaVS method. The model is trained on-the-fly using an active learning loop.
• Implementation: The system begins by docking a small, diverse subset of a multi-billion compound library. The results are used to train a surrogate model that predicts the docking score for unseen compounds. This cheap-to-evaluate surrogate then triages the vast chemical space, selecting only the most promising candidates for the expensive, high-precision RosettaVS docking.
• Outcome: This surrogate-assisted strategy enabled the screening of multi-billion compound libraries against two unrelated protein targets in less than seven days, leading to the discovery of several hit compounds with micromolar binding affinity—a task that would be computationally intractable using high-fidelity docking alone [17].

Model Merging in Large Language Models (LLMs)

In machine learning, merging multiple fine-tuned LLMs into a single, more capable model is an emerging technique. This process involves hyperparameters that significantly affect the merged model's performance, creating a black-box optimization problem.

• The Problem: Evaluating a single merging configuration requires physically merging the models and running benchmark evaluations, which can take several minutes on high-end GPUs. Optimizing these hyperparameters via a brute-force search is therefore infeasible [19].
• Surrogate Solution: Researchers created SMM-Bench, a surrogate benchmark for model merging optimization. They collected a large dataset of merging hyperparameters and their corresponding performance scores on tasks like Japanese mathematics. They then trained surrogate models (e.g., using LightGBM) to predict a merged model's performance directly from its hyperparameters [19].
• Outcome: The resulting surrogate models achieved high prediction accuracy (R² > 0.92), allowing for the development and comparison of hyperparameter optimization algorithms at a fraction of the cost. This enables researchers to efficiently find optimal merging configurations without the need for thousands of time-consuming physical merge-and-evaluate cycles [19].

Table 2: Performance of Surrogate Models in Case Studies

Application Domain	Expensive Function (Black-Box)	Surrogate Model Used	Key Quantitative Result	Efficiency Gain
Drug Discovery (Virtual Screening) [17]	High-precision molecular docking (RosettaVS)	Active learning-based surrogate (AI model)	Discovery of hits with single-digit µM affinity	Screening completed in <7 days for billion-compound library
LLM Model Merging [19]	Physical model merging and benchmark evaluation	LightGBM model predicting accuracy from hyperparameters	Surrogate R² scores: 0.950 - 0.962 on test sets	Enables algorithm development without physical merging

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The following table details key computational tools and platforms that function as essential "reagents" for implementing surrogate-assisted optimization in scientific research.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Surrogate-Assisted Optimization

Tool / Platform Name	Type / Category	Primary Function in Surrogate Modeling	Application Context
ALAMO [16]	Automated Modeling Tool	Automates the development of accurate algebraic (e.g., polynomial) surrogate models from data.	Integration of carbon capture technologies; general chemical process optimization.
CMA-ES [15] [19]	Optimization Algorithm	A state-of-the-art evolutionary strategy often used to optimize the acquisition function in the inner loop of surrogate-assisted optimization.	Black-box optimization benchmarks; hyperparameter tuning for model merging.
RosettaVS & OpenVS [17]	Virtual Screening Platform	Provides a high-accuracy docking function and an open-source platform that uses active learning (surrogate modeling) to triage ultra-large chemical libraries.	Drug discovery, lead compound identification for protein targets like KLHDC2 and NaV1.7.
SMM-Bench [19]	Surrogate Benchmark	A pre-constructed surrogate model that predicts LLM performance after merging, based on hyperparameters, eliminating the need for physical merging during optimization.	Development and testing of hyperparameter optimization algorithms for model merging techniques.
LightGBM [19]	Machine Learning Library	A gradient boosting framework used to build high-performance surrogate models for regression tasks, such as predicting merged model accuracy.	Creating surrogate benchmarks for continuous and mixed-variable optimization problems.
LEON [12]	LLM-based Optimizer	Leverages large language models as black-box optimizers, using their internal knowledge as a prior to propose candidate solutions where surrogate models are unreliable.	Personalized medicine treatment design under distribution shift in patient populations.
SL 0101-1	SL 0101-1, CAS:77307-50-7, MF:C25H24O12, MW:516.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
T-5224	T-5224, CAS:530141-72-1, MF:C29H27NO8, MW:517.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Surrogate models stand as a pivotal technology in the advancement of expensive black-box optimization research. By serving as cheap-to-evaluate approximations, they break the computational bottleneck that hinders progress in fields ranging from drug discovery to artificial intelligence. The continued development of more accurate, data-efficient, and scalable surrogate modeling techniques, coupled with intelligent frameworks like trust regions and active learning, promises to further expand the boundaries of problems we can solve. As evidenced by their transformative impact in virtual screening and model merging, the strategic application of surrogate models is not merely a convenience but a fundamental enabler of modern computational science and engineering.

Surrogate models, also known as metamodels or emulators, are approximation mathematical models used when an outcome of interest cannot be easily measured or computed directly. They are engineering methods designed to mimic the behavior of computationally expensive simulations or physical experiments as closely as possible while being significantly cheaper to evaluate [20]. In the context of expensive black-box optimization, where objective function evaluations may take hours, days, or substantial financial resources, surrogate models provide a practical pathway for design optimization, design space exploration, sensitivity analysis, and "what-if" analysis that would otherwise be impossible due to the computational burden [20].

The fundamental challenge in surrogate modeling is generating a model that is as accurate as possible using as few expensive simulations or experiments as possible [20]. This process typically involves three iterative steps: sample selection through design of experiments (DOE), construction of the surrogate model with optimized parameters, and appraisal of the surrogate's accuracy [20]. The accuracy of the resulting surrogate depends critically on both the number and location of samples in the design space and the choice of surrogate modeling technique appropriate for the problem characteristics [21].

Within the broader thesis on the role of surrogate models in expensive black-box optimization research, understanding the core surrogate families is essential. These models form the foundational approximation capabilities that enable optimization algorithms to navigate complex design spaces with limited function evaluations. Recent benchmarking studies have demonstrated that the best surrogate-based optimization algorithm depends significantly on the evaluation time and available computation budget, highlighting the importance of selecting appropriate surrogate model families for specific problem contexts [2].

Technical Profiles of Primary Surrogate Families

Polynomial Response Surfaces

Polynomial Regression (PR) represents one of the classical and most straightforward approaches to surrogate modeling. This method employs polynomial functions of varying degrees to approximate the relationship between input variables and the response output. The primary advantage of PR lies in its computational efficiency and simplicity in both implementation and interpretation. According to comparative studies on surrogate models for design optimization, PR demonstrates superior efficiency in model generation compared to more complex alternatives [21].

The mathematical formulation of a polynomial response surface typically begins with a first or second-order polynomial, though higher orders are possible. A second-order model with k variables takes the form: y = β₀ + Σβᵢxᵢ + Σβᵢᵢxᵢ² + Σβᵢⱼxᵢxⱼ + ε, where y represents the predicted response, xáµ¢ denotes the input variables, β coefficients are determined through regression techniques, and ε signifies the error term. The coefficients are typically estimated using ordinary least squares regression, which provides a closed-form solution to the parameter estimation problem.

Polynomial response surfaces are particularly valuable for problems with smooth, low-dimensional response surfaces and when computational budget is severely constrained. They also excel in sensitivity analysis, as they readily provide information about the main effects of design variables and their interaction effects. Research comparing surrogate techniques has confirmed that PR is better suited than kriging-based models for determining which design variable has the greatest impact on response [21]. However, PR models struggle with highly nonlinear, irregular, or discontinuous response surfaces, where they may require impractically high polynomial degrees to achieve acceptable accuracy, leading to overfitting and numerical instability.

Radial Basis Functions (RBF)

Radial Basis Function models constitute a flexible class of surrogate models that approximate the target function through a linear combination of basis functions that depend only on the radial distance from specific center points. The general form of an RBF model is f(x) = Σwᵢφ(||x - cᵢ||), where φ represents the radial basis function, cáµ¢ denotes the center points, wáµ¢ represents the weights, and ||x - cáµ¢|| indicates the Euclidean distance between the prediction point and centers. Common choices for the basis function include Gaussian (φ(r) = e^(-εr²)), multiquadric (φ(r) = √(1+(εr)²)), inverse multiquadric (φ(r) = 1/√(1+(εr)²)), and thin plate spline (φ(r) = r²ln(r)) functions.

The key advantage of RBF models lies in their ability to approximate arbitrary functions without requiring explicit knowledge of the underlying function form. They are considered "mesh-free" methods, meaning they do not require structured input data, making them particularly suitable for problems with irregularly spaced sample points. RBF models generally provide more accurate approximations for highly nonlinear functions compared to polynomial response surfaces, though they may be outperformed by kriging for certain function types.

Implementation of RBF models requires selection of an appropriate basis function and determination of the shape parameter ε where applicable. The weights wáµ¢ are typically determined by solving a linear system that ensures exact interpolation at the training points (for interpolating models) or through regularized approaches (for approximating models when noise is present). The Surrogates.jl package in the Julia programming language provides implementation tools for radial basis methods alongside other surrogate modeling techniques [20].

Kriging

Kriging, also known as Gaussian Process Regression, is a powerful geostatistical interpolation method that has gained widespread adoption in surrogate modeling for expensive black-box functions. Kriging provides not only predictions at unknown points but also an estimate of prediction uncertainty, making it particularly valuable for adaptive sampling strategies in optimization. The kriging model consists of two components: a global trend function (often a constant or low-order polynomial) and a departure term representing local variations: f(x) = μ(x) + Z(x), where μ(x) represents the global trend and Z(x) is a stationary Gaussian process with zero mean and covariance Cov(Z(xᵢ), Z(xⱼ)) = σ²R(θ; xᵢ, xⱼ), where R is the correlation function with parameters θ.

A distinctive strength of kriging is its statistical foundation, which provides a measure of uncertainty at any point in the design space. This uncertainty quantification enables the implementation of efficient infill criteria such as Expected Improvement (EI) or Lower Confidence Bound (LCB) that balance exploration (sampling in uncertain regions) and exploitation (sampling near promising observed points). Comparative analyses have concluded that kriging-based models are superior to polynomial regression for assessing max-min search results due to their ability to predict a broader range of objective values [21].

The implementation of kriging requires selection of an appropriate correlation function (typically Gaussian, Exponential, or Matern) and estimation of the correlation parameters θ through maximum likelihood estimation or cross-validation. This parameter estimation can be computationally demanding for large datasets, though recent advancements have addressed this limitation through techniques such as kriging by partial-least squares reduction [20]. Kriging has demonstrated particular effectiveness in benchmarking studies on expensive black-box optimization problems, where its uncertainty quantification capabilities enable more efficient global search [2].

Support Vector Regression (SVR)

Support Vector Regression is a machine learning approach adapted from Support Vector Machines for regression tasks. SVR seeks to find a function that deviates at most by ε from the observed training data while maintaining maximum flatness. The fundamental principle involves mapping input data to a high-dimensional feature space using kernel functions, then performing linear regression in this transformed space. The mathematical formulation of SVR can be expressed as f(x) = Σ(αᵢ - αᵢ*)K(xᵢ, x) + b, where αᵢ and αᵢ* are Lagrange multipliers, b is the bias term, and K(xáµ¢, x) represents the kernel function.

The ε-insensitive loss function used in SVR provides inherent robustness to outliers, as errors smaller than ε are not penalized. This characteristic makes SVR particularly suitable for problems with noisy data or potential outliers. Additionally, the kernel trick enables SVR to handle highly nonlinear relationships without explicitly transforming the input data, with common kernel choices including linear, polynomial, radial basis function, and sigmoid kernels.

SVR implementation requires careful selection of three hyperparameters: the regularization parameter C (controlling the trade-off between model complexity and training error), the insensitivity parameter ε (defining the margin within which errors are ignored), and any kernel-specific parameters (such as γ for the RBF kernel). These parameters are typically optimized through cross-validation techniques. While SVR may be computationally intensive during training for very large datasets, it generally offers strong generalization performance and robustness for moderate-sized experimental designs commonly encountered in expensive black-box optimization problems.

Comparative Analysis

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Table 1: Comparative performance of surrogate models across key metrics

Performance Metric	Polynomial Regression	Radial Basis Functions	Kriging	Support Vector Regression
Training Speed	Fastest [21]	Moderate	Slow	Moderate to Slow
Prediction Speed	Fastest	Fast	Fast	Fast
Accuracy for Smooth Functions	High for low-order polynomials	Moderate to High	High	Moderate to High
Accuracy for Nonlinear Functions	Low unless high degree	High	High	High
Noise Handling	Poor (requires regularization)	Moderate	Good (nugget effect)	Excellent (ε-insensitive loss)
Uncertainty Quantification	Limited (prediction intervals)	Limited	Excellent (posterior distribution)	Limited
Theoretical Foundation	Least-squares regression	Numerical analysis	Gaussian processes	Statistical learning theory

Table 2: Implementation considerations and typical use cases

Aspect	Polynomial Regression	Radial Basis Functions	Kriging	Support Vector Regression
Sample Size Requirements	Small (≥ k+1 for linear)	Moderate to Large	Small to Moderate	Moderate to Large
Dimensionality Handling	Curse of dimensionality	Curse of dimensionality	Curse of dimensionality	Feature selection possible
Implementation Complexity	Low	Moderate	High	Moderate
Best-Suited Applications	Preliminary analysis, sensitivity studies [21]	Scattered data approximation	Global optimization [2]	Noisy data, high-dimensional problems
Software Availability	All major packages	Surrogates.jl [20]	SMT, Surrogates.jl [20]	Various ML libraries

The comparative analysis reveals distinct strengths and limitations for each surrogate family. Polynomial regression demonstrates superior efficiency in model generation, making it particularly valuable when computational resources for surrogate construction are limited [21]. However, its limitations in handling complex nonlinearities restrict its application to relatively smooth, low-dimensional problems.

Kriging-based models excel in scenarios requiring global approximation accuracy and uncertainty quantification, which explains their prevalence in expensive black-box optimization frameworks [2] [21]. The ability to predict a broader range of objective values makes kriging particularly suitable for max-min search operations in optimization contexts [21]. However, this capability comes at the cost of increased computational requirements during model training.

Radial Basis Functions offer a balanced approach with good accuracy for nonlinear functions and straightforward implementation. Support Vector Regression provides distinct advantages for problems with noisy evaluations or potential outliers, thanks to its ε-insensitive loss function. Recent benchmarking studies indicate that the optimal choice of surrogate algorithm depends significantly on the evaluation time of the objective and the available computational budget, rather than simply whether the problem is continuous or discrete [2].

Implementation Methodologies

Experimental Protocol for Surrogate-Assisted Optimization

The effective implementation of surrogate models in expensive black-box optimization follows a structured methodology that balances exploration and exploitation throughout the optimization process. The following workflow outlines the standard experimental protocol for surrogate-assisted optimization:

Diagram 1: Workflow for surrogate-assisted optimization

The process begins with initial sample selection through Design of Experiments (DOE). The selection of appropriate design points significantly impacts surrogate model performance, with both the number and location of design points affecting model accuracy [21]. For initial sampling, space-filling designs such as Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) or orthogonal arrays are commonly employed to maximize information gain from limited expensive evaluations.

Following initial sampling, surrogate model construction proceeds with careful attention to model selection and parameter tuning. As highlighted in benchmarking studies, the best-performing surrogate algorithm depends on both the evaluation time of the objective and the available computational budget [2]. Model hyperparameters are typically optimized through cross-validation techniques, though in Bayesian approaches such as kriging, maximum likelihood estimation is commonly employed.

The optimization phase exploits the cheap-to-evaluate surrogate to identify promising candidate points for subsequent expensive evaluation. The search process may employ various techniques, from mathematical programming for convex problems to evolutionary algorithms or other global search methods for nonconvex problems. Critical to this process is the infill criterion, which determines which points warrant expensive evaluation. For kriging, Expected Improvement is a popular criterion, while for other surrogates, probability of improvement or lower confidence bounds may be employed.

The sequential process of model updating and refinement continues until convergence criteria are met or the evaluation budget is exhausted. Convergence may be determined by improvement thresholds, maximum iterations, or stabilization of the best solution found. Throughout this process, the balance between exploration (sampling in uncertain regions) and exploitation (refining known good solutions) is paramount to optimization efficiency [22].

Model Validation and Error Assessment

Rigorous validation protocols are essential for ensuring surrogate model reliability in optimization contexts. The following procedures represent established methodologies for surrogate model validation:

• Cross-Validation: Particularly k-fold cross-validation, where the available data is partitioned into k subsets, with k-1 sets used for training and the remaining set for validation. This process is repeated k times with different validation sets, and the error metrics are averaged across all folds. For expensive black-box problems where data is scarce, leave-one-out cross-validation (where k equals the number of samples) is often employed.

• Hold-Out Validation: When sufficient data is available, a hold-out set (typically 20-30% of the data) is reserved before model training and used exclusively for error assessment. This approach provides an unbiased estimate of generalization error but reduces the data available for model construction.

• Predictive Error Metrics: Quantitative assessment employs various error metrics, including Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) for overall accuracy, Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for robustness to outliers, and R² (coefficient of determination) for proportion of variance explained. For deterministic computer experiments without random error, the PRESS statistic (prediction sum of squares) and associated R²_prediction metric are particularly valuable.

• Visual Diagnostic Tools: Graphical analyses including scatter plots of predicted versus actual values, residual plots, and slice plots provide crucial insights into model behavior, revealing patterns such as systematic bias, heteroscedasticity, or regions of poor fit that may not be apparent from numerical metrics alone.

Implementation of these validation techniques ensures that surrogate models provide reliable approximations before their deployment in optimization loops, preventing misleading optimization results due to poor surrogate accuracy.

Applications in Pharmaceutical Research

Surrogate models have found particularly valuable applications in pharmaceutical research and development, where complex biological systems and expensive experimentation create ideal conditions for surrogate-assisted approaches. The pharmaceutical sector increasingly depends on advanced process modeling techniques to streamline drug development and manufacturing workflows, with surrogate-based optimization emerging as a practical and efficient solution for managing computational complexity [13].

In drug development applications, surrogate models enable researchers to navigate complex design spaces with limited experimental iterations, substantially reducing development timelines and costs. For API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) manufacturing process optimization, studies have demonstrated that surrogate-based approaches can achieve significant improvements in key metrics such as yield and process mass intensity while maintaining high purity standards [13]. Single-objective optimization frameworks have achieved 1.72% improvement in yield and 7.27% improvement in process mass intensity, while multi-objective frameworks have managed 3.63% enhancement in yield while maintaining high purity levels [13].

The use of surrogate endpoints represents another critical application of surrogate modeling concepts in pharmaceutical development. Regulatory agencies such as the FDA acknowledge surrogate endpoints as "markers, such as laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure, that is not itself a direct measurement of clinical benefit" but that can predict clinical benefit [23]. Examples include reduction in amyloid beta plaques for Alzheimer's disease, skeletal muscle dystrophin for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and serum insulin-like growth factor-I for acromegaly [23].

Table 3: Exemplary surrogate endpoints in pharmaceutical development

Disease Area	Surrogate Endpoint	Clinical Correlation	Regulatory Status
Alzheimer's Disease	Reduction in amyloid beta plaques	Reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit	Accelerated approval [23]
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy	Skeletal muscle dystrophin	Reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit	Accelerated approval [23]
Cystic Fibrosis	Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)	Known to predict clinical benefit	Traditional approval [23]
Chronic Kidney Disease	Estimated glomerular filtration rate	Known to predict clinical benefit	Traditional approval [23]

Beyond development phases, surrogate models also play crucial roles in pharmaceutical manufacturing optimization. A novel surrogate-based optimization framework for pharmaceutical process systems has demonstrated effectiveness in optimizing complex API manufacturing processes, highlighting particular value in multi-objective optimization contexts where Pareto fronts reveal trade-offs between competing objectives such as yield, purity, and sustainability [13].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential computational tools for surrogate modeling research

Tool Name	Primary Function	Key Features	Access
Surrogate Modeling Toolbox (SMT) [20]	Surrogate model construction and validation	Extensive surrogate model library, derivatives support, gradient-enhanced modeling	Python package
Surrogates.jl [20]	Surrogate modeling implementation	Radial basis methods, kriging, random forests	Julia package
SAMBO Optimization [20]	Sequential optimization	Tree-based models, Gaussian process models, arbitrary model support	Python library
EXPObench [2]	Benchmarking library	Standardized expensive optimization problems, algorithm comparison	Public benchmark library
IEMSO Framework [22]	Explainability metrics	Model-agnostic explainability, transparency assessment	Methodology framework

The computational tools outlined in Table 4 represent essential resources for researchers implementing surrogate modeling approaches. The Surrogate Modeling Toolbox (SMT) deserves particular emphasis as it provides a comprehensive collection of surrogate modeling methods, sampling techniques, and benchmarking functions in a Python environment [20]. Its distinctive focus on derivatives, including training derivatives for gradient-enhanced modeling and prediction derivatives, differentiates it from other surrogate modeling libraries [20].

For benchmarking studies, EXPObench provides standardized expensive optimization problems that enable meaningful comparison of different surrogate algorithms [2]. This benchmarking library addresses the critical need for standardization in evaluating surrogate algorithms on real-life, expensive, black-box objective functions, which has traditionally made it difficult to draw substantive conclusions about algorithmic performance and provide evidence-based recommendations for method selection [2].

The emerging area of explainability in surrogate optimization is addressed by the Inclusive Explainability Metrics for Surrogate Optimization (IEMSO) framework, which offers model-agnostic metrics to enhance transparency, trustworthiness, and explainability of surrogate optimization approaches [22]. This comprehensive set of metrics covers four primary categories: Sampling Core Metrics, Batch Properties Metrics, Optimization Process Metrics, and Feature Importance, providing both intermediate and post-hoc explanations to practitioners throughout the optimization process [22].

The four primary surrogate families—Polynomial Response Surfaces, Radial Basis Functions, Kriging, and Support Vector Regression—each offer distinct advantages and limitations for expensive black-box optimization problems. Polynomial models provide computational efficiency and sensitivity analysis capabilities, RBF offers flexible interpolation for irregularly spaced data, Kriging delivers uncertainty quantification for adaptive sampling, and SVR provides robustness to noisy data. The optimal selection depends critically on problem characteristics including computational budget, evaluation time, nonlinearity, noise presence, and dimensional complexity.

Within pharmaceutical applications, surrogate modeling approaches have demonstrated significant practical impact from drug development through manufacturing optimization. The ability to approximate complex system behaviors while drastically reducing computational or experimental burden makes surrogate-assisted approaches particularly valuable in resource-constrained research environments. Future research directions will likely focus on enhancing model explainability, developing more effective hybrid approaches, and creating standardized benchmarking frameworks to facilitate appropriate method selection across diverse application domains. As surrogate modeling continues to evolve, its role in enabling efficient optimization of expensive black-box functions across scientific and engineering disciplines appears increasingly indispensable.

In computationally expensive domains such as drug development and materials science, optimizing black-box functions presents a fundamental challenge: balancing the accuracy of a model with the high cost of evaluating it. Surrogate models have emerged as a powerful solution, acting as computationally cheap proxies for expensive simulations or physical experiments. This whitepaper explores the central role of surrogate models in managing the accuracy-evaluation cost trade-off. We detail the experimental protocols and methodologies that underpin their success, provide a quantitative analysis of their performance, and visualize the key workflows. Framed within broader thesis research on black-box optimization, this guide equips researchers and scientists with the practical knowledge to implement these techniques effectively, thereby accelerating discovery while managing computational resources.

In many scientific and engineering fields, particularly in drug development and materials science, researchers aim to optimize complex systems—such as a drug's efficacy or an alloy's strength—where the relationship between input parameters and the output objective function is unknown, complex, and expensive to evaluate. This is the realm of expensive black-box optimization (BBO) [24]. Each evaluation of this black-box function could represent a days-long physical experiment, a computationally intensive quantum simulation, or a costly clinical trial.

The primary goal is to find the optimal input parameters that maximize or minimize this expensive function with the fewest possible evaluations. This process is inherently constrained by a fundamental trade-off: the need for high model accuracy, which often requires more data and complex models, versus the prohibitive cost of obtaining that data through function evaluations. Surrogate models, also known as metamodels, address this trade-off by learning an approximation of the expensive black-box function from a limited set of initial evaluations. This model can then be used to inexpensively screen a vast space of possibilities, guiding the optimization process toward promising regions without the constant need for costly evaluations [24] [25] [26].

Technical Foundations: Surrogate Models in Optimization

A surrogate model is a mathematical model trained to approximate the input-output relationship of an expensive black-box function. The core workflow involves a loop of exploration and exploitation, where the surrogate's predictions are used to decide which points to evaluate next in the original expensive function.

Key Surrogate Model Types

Different surrogate models offer varying balances of expressive power, computational overhead, and data efficiency.

• Gaussian Process Regression (GPR): Also known as Kriging, GPR is a cornerstone of Bayesian optimization. It provides not just a prediction but also a measure of uncertainty (variance) at any point in the input space. This allows for a principled balance between exploring uncertain regions and exploiting known promising areas [26].
• Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS): MARS is a non-parametric regression technique that models complex nonlinear relationships by partitioning the input space and fitting simple splines in each region. Its parsimonious nature makes it robust and less prone to overfitting. Enhanced versions like Tree-Knot MARS (TK-MARS) have been specifically tailored for surrogate optimization, improving its performance in high-dimensional spaces [24].
• Radial Basis Functions (RBF): RBF models use a weighted sum of basis functions that depend only on the distance from a center point. They are flexible interpolators commonly used in surrogate optimization algorithms [24].
• Neural Networks (NNs): With their high capacity for modeling complex, high-dimensional relationships, NNs are increasingly used as surrogates, particularly in scenarios with large amounts of training data [26].

The Optimization Workflow

The integration of a surrogate into an optimization framework follows a sequential, iterative process, visually summarized in the diagram below.

Diagram: Surrogate Model Optimization Workflow

This workflow highlights the closed-loop process where data from expensive evaluations continuously refines the surrogate model, which in turn guides the selection of future evaluation points.

Quantitative Analysis of Cost-Accuracy Trade-offs

The choice of surrogate model and optimization strategy directly impacts the efficiency and success of a campaign. The following table synthesizes quantitative findings from various studies, highlighting the performance of different approaches.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Surrogate Models and Optimization Algorithms

Model / Algorithm	Context / Domain	Key Performance Findings	Dimensionality Notes
Tree-Knot MARS (TK-MARS) [24]	General Global Optimization	Outperforms original MARS within a surrogate optimization algorithm; successfully detects important input variables.	Effective in high-dimensional spaces with variable screening.
Gaussian Process (GP) with EI [26]	Materials Design (e.g., HEA)	A common baseline; performance can degrade as search space dimensionality increases, potentially missing promising regions.	Struggles in high-dimensional spaces (D ≥ 6).
Reinforcement Learning (RL) [26]	Materials Design (e.g., HEA)	Consistently outperforms traditional Bayesian Optimization (BO) in high-dimensional cases (D ≥ 6) through more dispersed sampling and better landscape learning.	Particularly promising for high-dimensional spaces (D ≥ 6).
BO/RL Hybrid [26]	Materials Design (e.g., HEA)	Creates a synergistic effect, leveraging BO's early-stage exploration strength with RL's later-stage adaptive self-learning.	Robust across different dimensionalities.
LLMs/MLLMs as Judges [27]	Multimodal Search Relevance	Model performance is use-case dependent; no single model consistently outperforms all others. Inclusion of vision in small models can hinder performance.	Highlights context-dependency of cost-accuracy trade-offs.

A critical finding from recent research is that no single model is universally superior. The performance is often use-case dependent [27]. For instance, in high-dimensional materials design, Reinforcement Learning (RL) demonstrates a statistically significant advantage (p < 0.01) over traditional Bayesian optimization, whereas in other contexts like multimodal search, the optimal model varies significantly with the application [27] [26].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

To ensure the successful application of surrogate-assisted optimization, researchers must follow rigorous experimental protocols. The following sections detail two foundational methodologies.

Virtual Patient Generation in Quantitative Systems Pharmacology (QSP)

In drug development, QSP models simulate disease progression and drug effects. Generating Virtual Patients (VPs)—parameter sets that yield biologically plausible behaviors—is a classic expensive BBO problem. The traditional method of random sampling is inefficient, with a vast majority of model runs typically not resulting in valid VPs [25]. A surrogate-assisted workflow dramatically improves efficiency:

• Stage 1: Generate Training Data Set

  • Step 1.1: Choose Parameters: Select a subset of sensitive model parameters to vary, informed by sensitivity analysis and knowledge of biological variability. For example, a psoriasis QSP model might select 5-20 parameters related to cell proliferation and cytokine clearance [25].
  • Step 1.2: Sample Parameters: Sample the chosen parameters using defined distributions (e.g., uniform fold-change from a reference value).
  • Step 1.3: Simulate QSP Model: Run the full, expensive QSP model for each sampled parameter set under relevant simulated protocols (e.g., untreated disease, treatment response).

• Stage 2: Generate Surrogate Models

  • Train a suite of machine learning models (e.g., using Regression Learner App [25]) where the inputs are the sampled parameters and the outputs are the constrained model responses (e.g., cell population counts at a final timepoint). Each constrained output variable gets its own surrogate model.

• Stage 3: Pre-screen and Validate VPs

  • Pre-screen Phase: Use the trained surrogate models to rapidly predict outcomes for millions of new parameter sets. Only parameter sets where the surrogate predictions pass all biological constraints are accepted as candidate VPs.
  • Validation Phase: Run the full QSP model for the pre-screened candidate VPs to confirm their validity. This workflow ensures that the "overwhelming majority of parameter combinations pre‐vetted using the surrogate models result in valid VPs" when tested in the original model [25].

Dataset Cleansing via Black-Box Optimization

Mislabeled instances in training data can significantly degrade model generalization. A novel approach uses surrogate-based BBO to directly optimize the validation loss by identifying and removing harmful data points [28].

• Task Design: A controlled "noisy majority bit" task is used for evaluation. The training set contains a mix of correctly and incorrectly labeled instances, while the validation and test sets are clean.
• Optimization Setup: A binary selection vector (\varvec{q} \in {0, 1}^{n}) defines any subset of the original training data. The objective is to find the (\varvec{q}) that minimizes the validation loss of a model trained on the subset (D_{\textrm{train}}(\varvec{q})).
• BBO with Postprocessing: A surrogate model (a quadratic approximation) is used to model the relationship between the selection vector and the validation loss. Annealing-based samplers, including quantum annealers, are then used to efficiently propose new, promising selection vectors (\varvec{q}) from the vast combinatorial space. A postprocessing step discards previously explored solutions to encourage exploration [28].
• Outcome: This method demonstrates the "prioritized removal of high-risk mislabeled instances," iteratively improving solution quality and leveraging the sampling diversity of advanced annealers to find better training subsets faster [28].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagents & Computational Solutions

The following table catalogs key computational tools and methodologies that form the essential "reagents" for conducting surrogate-assisted optimization research.

Table 2: Essential Tools and Methods for Surrogate-Assisted Optimization

Tool / Method	Type	Function in Research
Gaussian Process Regression (GPR)	Statistical Model	Serves as a highly accurate, uncertainty-aware surrogate model; the backbone of standard Bayesian Optimization.
Tree-Knot MARS (TK-MARS) [24]	Statistical Model	A parsimonious, non-interpolating surrogate tailored for optimization; capable of screening unimportant input variables.
Smart-Replication [24]	Algorithmic Strategy	Mitigates uncertainty in black-box outputs by intelligently replicating evaluations only at promising input points; agnostic to the surrogate model choice.
Regression Learner App [25]	Software Tool	Provides a practical environment (e.g., in MATLAB) for rapidly training, comparing, and selecting multiple surrogate model types.
D-Wave Quantum Annealer [28]	Hardware Solver	Used in the postprocessing phase of BBO to sample diverse, high-quality candidate solutions efficiently from complex combinatorial spaces.
Deep Q-Network (DQN) [26]	Reinforcement Learning Model	An RL agent that learns a policy to navigate high-dimensional design spaces by interacting with a surrogate model or experimental environment.
TC AQP1 1	TC AQP1 1, CAS:37710-81-9, MF:C12H10O4, MW:218.2 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
SKI II	SKI II, CAS:312636-16-1, MF:C15H11ClN2OS, MW:302.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Advanced Frameworks: Integration with Reinforcement Learning

The integration of surrogate models with Reinforcement Learning (RL) represents the cutting edge in navigating complex design spaces. This hybrid framework, as explored in materials science, operates through two complementary loops [26]:

• Model-Based RL (Inner Training Loop): The RL agent (e.g., a Deep Q-Network) interacts with a surrogate model of the expensive objective function. The agent learns to assign values to dimensions of the input vector (\vec{x}) and receives rewards based on the surrogate's predictions. This enables highly sample-efficient exploration without constant expensive evaluations. The surrogate model is updated at the end of each design "episode."
• On-the-Fly RL (Direct Interaction Loop): The RL agent interacts directly with the experimental environment (e.g., an automated laboratory or simulation). The agent's actions determine which material is synthesized or simulated, and the resulting performance measurement serves as the environmental reward. This approach is more resource-intensive but provides the most accurate feedback.

The synergy between these approaches and traditional BO is powerful. Research shows that a hybrid strategy, which leverages BO's early-stage exploration strength with RL's later-stage adaptive self-learning, creates a synergistic effect, offering a more robust and efficient optimization strategy [26]. The following diagram illustrates this integrated framework.

Diagram: Integrated RL and Surrogate Model Framework

The fundamental trade-off between model accuracy and evaluation cost is a central challenge in modern computational research. Surrogate-assisted optimization provides a powerful and flexible framework for navigating this trade-off, enabling rapid exploration of high-dimensional design spaces that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. As evidenced by its successful application in drug development (e.g., Virtual Patient generation) and materials science (e.g., high-entropy alloy design), the paradigm is mature for real-world impact. The future of this field lies in the intelligent combination of methods—such as hybrid BO/RL strategies and the application of novel hardware like quantum annealers—to further enhance the efficiency and scope of scientific discovery. For researchers and drug development professionals, mastering these techniques is no longer a niche skill but a critical competency for leading innovation.

From Theory to Therapy: Methodologies and Real-World Biomedical Applications

In the pursuit of optimizing complex systems—from designing new pharmaceuticals to configuring carbon capture storage operations—researchers frequently encounter expensive black-box functions. These are processes, often simulated by intricate computer models, where the relationship between input parameters and output objectives is complex, the internal mechanics are not directly accessible, and a single evaluation can be computationally prohibitive, taking hours or even days [29]. Surrogate modeling has emerged as a cornerstone methodology to tackle this fundamental challenge. By constructing a computationally efficient approximate model of the expensive black-box function, surrogates enable engineers and scientists to explore parameter spaces, perform sensitivity analyses, and drive optimization routines that would otherwise be infeasible [30] [29].

The core principle involves using a limited set of carefully chosen evaluations from the high-fidelity model to train a surrogate that captures the underlying input-output relationship. This surrogate then acts as a proxy, allowing for rapid predictions and uncertainty quantification. The resulting ecosystem of surrogate models is diverse, with each type possessing distinct mathematical foundations, strengths, and weaknesses. The selection of an appropriate surrogate is not a one-size-fits-all decision; it is a critical choice that depends on the problem's properties, such as its dimensionality, the expected smoothness of the response, the presence of noise, and the need for uncertainty estimates to guide optimization procedures like Bayesian Optimization [29] [31]. This guide provides an in-depth technical comparison of major surrogate model types to inform this vital selection process for researchers and development professionals.

The following table synthesizes the core characteristics of the primary surrogate model families, providing a high-level basis for model selection.

Table 1: Comparative overview of major surrogate model types

Model Type	Mathematical Foundation	Key Hyperparameters	Computational Traits	Ideal Use Cases
Gaussian Process (Kriging) [32] [33] [31]	Gaussian stochastic process; Best Linear Unbiased Predictor (BLUP)	Correlation function (e.g., Matérn), trend model	Training: O(n³) for matrix inversion; Prediction: O(n²). Excels at uncertainty quantification.	Low-dimensional (≤20 vars), deterministic, expensive black-box functions where uncertainty quantification is critical [29].
Random Forest [34] [35]	Ensemble of decorrelated decision trees via bagging and feature randomness	n_estimators, max_features, max_depth	Training: Parallelizable; Prediction: Fast. Handles high-dimensional and mixed data types.	High-dimensional problems, non-smooth responses, categorical features, rapid prototyping.
Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) [29]	Neural networks with prior distributions on weights; approximate Bayesian inference	Network architecture, prior distributions, inference method (MCMC, VI)	Training: Very computationally intensive; Prediction: Slower than deterministic NNs. Quantifies epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty.	High-dimensional, complex, non-stationary functions; very large datasets.
Support Vector Regression (SVR) [36]	Kernel-based method; minimizes a loss function insensitive to small errors	Kernel type (linear, RBF), regularization (C), epsilon-tube (ε)	Training: Can be memory-intensive for large n; Prediction: Fast. Robust to noise.	Problems with moderate dimensionality and known kernel similarity.
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) [37] [30]	Neural networks with convolutional layers for spatial feature extraction	Kernel size, number of filters, network depth	Training: Data and compute-intensive; Prediction: Fast once trained. Learns spatial hierarchies.	Surrogates for systems with spatial or image-like inputs (e.g., microstructure homogenization [30]).

Detailed Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Gaussian Process Regression (Kriging)

Mathematical Formulation: Ordinary Kriging, one of the most common forms, assumes the black-box function is a realization of a Gaussian stochastic process of the form: Y(x) = μ + Z(x), where μ is a constant global mean, and Z(x) is a stationary Gaussian process with zero mean and covariance defined by Cov(Z(xⁱ), Z(xʲ)) = σ²R(xⁱ, xʲ) [31]. The correlation matrix R is typically built using a kernel like the Kriging kernel: R(Y(xⁱ), Y(xʲ)) = exp(-∑θₗ|xⁱˡ - xʲˡ|^pₗ).

Experimental Protocol for Implementation:

• Experimental Design & Training Data Generation: Select a space-filling design (e.g., Latin Hypercube Sampling) to generate n input points X = [x₁, x₂, ..., xₙ]ᵀ and run the expensive simulation to obtain outputs y = [y₁, y₂, ..., yₙ]ᵀ.
• Model Training (Hyperparameter Optimization): The hyperparameters of the correlation kernel (e.g., θₗ, pâ‚—) are found by maximizing the Concentrated Log-Likelihood Function [31]:
  • ln(L) = - (n/2) * ln(σ̂²) - (1/2) * ln(|R|)
  • Where the optimal process variance and mean are given by:
    • σ̂² = (y - 1μ̂)áµ€ R⁻¹ (y - 1μ̂) / n
    • μ̂ = (1áµ€ R⁻¹ y) / (1áµ€ R⁻¹ 1)
  • This maximization is a non-convex problem typically solved using global optimizers like Particle Swarm Optimization or BFGS.
• Prediction at a New Point: For a new point x*, the Kriging predictor and its uncertainty are:
  • Prediction: Å·(x) = μ̂ + ráµ€ R⁻¹ (y - 1μ̂)
  • Mean Squared Error: s²(x) = σ̂² [1 - ráµ€ R⁻¹ r + (1 - 1áµ€ R⁻¹ r)² / (1áµ€ R⁻¹ 1)]
  • Here, r is the vector of correlations between x* and the training data X.

Random Forests

Mathematical Foundation: Random Forests are an ensemble method that combines multiple decorrelated decision trees [34]. Decorrelation is achieved through:

• Bagging (Bootstrap Aggregating): Each tree is trained on a unique dataset Dâ‚œ created by sampling n points from the original n-point dataset with replacement.
• Random Feature Selection: At each split in a decision tree, only a random subset of features (e.g., max_features = sqrt(n_features)) is considered [34].

Experimental Protocol for Implementation:

• Bootstrap Sampling: For t = 1 to T (where T = n_estimators), draw a bootstrap sample (Xₜ, yₜ) from the training data (X, y).
• Tree Construction: Grow a decision tree on (Xₜ, yₜ) by recursively repeating the following for each node:
  • Randomly select m features from the total p features.
  • Find the best split among the m features that minimizes an impurity criterion (e.g., Gini impurity for classification, Mean Squared Error for regression).
  • Split the node into two child nodes. The process continues until a stopping criterion is met (e.g., max_depth is reached, or a node has fewer than a minimum number of samples).
• Aggregation of Predictions:
  • For regression, the final forest prediction is the average of the predictions from all individual trees: Å·(x) = (1/T) ∑ áµ€ fâ‚œ(x).
  • For classification, it is the majority vote.

Bayesian Neural Networks

Mathematical Foundation: Unlike standard neural networks that learn point estimates for weights, BNNs place a prior distribution over the weights p(w) (e.g., a Gaussian prior) [29]. After observing data D = (X, y), the goal is to compute the posterior distribution over the weights p(w|D) using Bayes' theorem: p(w|D) = p(D|w) p(w) / p(D). This posterior captures the epistemic uncertainty about the model parameters.

Experimental Protocol for Implementation:

• Architecture and Prior Definition: Define a standard neural network architecture and specify prior distributions for its weights and biases (e.g., Normal(0,1)).
• Approximate Posterior Inference: The true posterior is analytically intractable. Two main classes of approximation methods are used:
  • Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC): A family of algorithms that draw a sequence of samples from the posterior distribution p(w|D). While asymptotically exact, MCMC can be computationally very intensive [29].
  • Variational Inference (VI): A faster, more scalable alternative that posits a simple parametric distribution q_Ï•(w) (e.g., a Gaussian) and optimizes the parameters Ï• to make q_Ï•(w) as close as possible to the true posterior p(w|D), typically by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence.
• Prediction and Uncertainty Quantification: A prediction for a new input x* is made by marginalizing over the posterior, which is approximated as:
  • p(Å·* | x, D) ≈ ∫ p(Å· | x*, w) q_Ï•(w) dw
  • In practice, this is computed via Monte Carlo integration: ŷ* = (1/S) ∑ ˢ f(x*; wˢ) where wˢ is the s-th sample from the approximate posterior q_Ï•(w). The variance of these S predictions provides the model's uncertainty.

Workflow and Uncertainty Quantification

The following diagram illustrates the standard workflow for employing a surrogate model in black-box optimization, highlighting the iterative nature of methods like Bayesian Optimization.

Figure 1: General surrogate-assisted optimization workflow.

A key differentiator between surrogates is how they quantify prediction uncertainty, which is crucial for guiding the selection of new points in Bayesian Optimization. The diagram below contrasts the mechanisms for Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Neural Networks.

Figure 2: Contrasting uncertainty quantification in GPs and BNNs.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Software and Materials

Implementing surrogate models effectively requires leveraging specialized software tools and libraries that handle the complex underlying mathematics and optimization.

Table 2: Key software tools and resources for surrogate modeling research

Tool / Resource	Type / Language	Primary Function	Key Features
OPLT (Optimization & Machine Learning Toolkit) [38]	Python Package	Representing trained ML models (NNs, GBTs) within Pyomo optimization environments.	Enables solving optimization problems with embedded surrogate models as constraints/objectives.
ENTMOOT [38]	Python Framework	Bayesian Optimization using tree-based models (Gradient Boosted Trees).	Uses Gurobi to optimize acquisition functions, combines tree performance with uncertainty guides.
Scikit-Learn [34]	Python Library	General-purpose machine learning.	Provides easy-to-use implementations of Random Forests and SVR.
GPy / GPflow	Python Library	Gaussian Process modeling.	Specialized packages for building and training various GP/Kriging models.
PyTorch / TensorFlow Probability	Python Library	Deep learning and probabilistic modeling.	Essential for building and training complex BNNs with MCMC or Variational Inference.
OPM Flow [29]	C++ / Open-Source	Reservoir simulation.	Example of a high-fidelity simulator used to generate training data for surrogates in geoscience.
UTA1inh-C1	UTA1inh-C1, MF:C22H24N6O4S2, MW:500.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
VAS2870	VAS2870, CAS:722456-31-7, MF:C18H12N6OS, MW:360.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Advanced Topics and Future Directions

Multi-Fidelity and Hybrid Surrogates

To further reduce computational costs, multi-fidelity modeling leverages cheaper, lower-fidelity data (e.g., from a coarser simulation mesh) to inform the surrogate of the high-fidelity process. For instance, CoKriging is a well-established multi-fidelity extension of Kriging [33]. Recent research has also produced models like Co_SVR, a multi-fidelity surrogate based on Support Vector Regression that maps the difference between high- and low-fidelity models using a kernel function, demonstrating competitive performance against CoKriging in numerical case studies [36].

Physics-Informed and Constrained Surrogates

A significant frontier is embedding known physical laws or constraints directly into the surrogate to improve extrapolation and ensure predictions are physically admissible. In materials science, for example, CNN-based surrogates for predicting composite material properties have been trained with an enforced Hashin-Shtrikman bounds—theoretical bounds on material properties—which was shown to eliminate physically inadmissible predictions, especially in extrapolated domains [30]. Similarly, projects like OMLT focus on solving optimization problems where the surrogate model's predictions are constrained by other mechanistic equations, ensuring solutions are not just data-driven but also physically and operationally feasible [38].

Explainability and Ensemble Pruning

While ensemble models like Random Forests are powerful, they are often treated as "black boxes." Research in Explainable AI (XAI) aims to address this. One approach involves transforming a complex Random Forest into a single, simpler, and self-explainable Decision Tree using algorithms like the Forest-Based Tree (FBT). A critical step in this process is ensemble pruning, which reduces the number of trees in the forest before explanation without significantly harming performance. Methods like UMEP and Hybrid pruning have been shown to effectively reduce the computational complexity of this explanation process, making it feasible for larger datasets and forests [35].

In the realm of computational science and engineering, researchers increasingly face the challenge of optimizing complex, expensive black-box problems. These are systems where the relationship between inputs and outputs is unknown or computationally prohibitive to evaluate directly, such as in large-scale finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, and drug discovery simulations [39]. When each function evaluation requires substantial time and resources—sometimes hours or even days of computation—traditional optimization and modeling approaches become impractical.

Within this context, ensemble learning has emerged as a powerful paradigm that significantly enhances prediction accuracy and model robustness. Ensemble methods strategically combine multiple machine learning models to produce a single, superior predictive model. This approach operates on the principle that a collection of weak learners can form a strong learner, capitalizing on their varied strengths while mitigating individual weaknesses [40]. When integrated with surrogate modeling techniques—which create computationally efficient approximations of expensive black-box functions—ensembles become particularly valuable for navigating complex design spaces with limited function evaluations [39] [26].

This technical guide explores the synergistic relationship between ensemble methods and surrogate modeling in expensive black-box optimization research. We examine fundamental concepts, present quantitative performance comparisons across domains, detail experimental methodologies, and provide practical implementation frameworks tailored for research scientists and drug development professionals.

Ensemble Learning Fundamentals

Core Concepts and Mathematical Foundation

Ensemble learning is a machine learning paradigm where multiple models (often called "weak learners") are trained to solve the same problem and combined to obtain better predictive performance. The primary goal is to create a composite model that outperforms any single constituent model [40]. The fundamental ensemble prediction can be mathematically expressed as:

Where f_i(x) is the prediction from the i-th model, N is the total number of models in the ensemble, and y^(x) is the final aggregated prediction [40]. This averaging of predictions (or weighted voting in classification tasks) reduces variance and bias, resulting in a more stable and robust model compared to single-model approaches [40].

The theoretical justification for ensembles stems from the concept of error decomposition. Individual models typically suffer from either high bias (underfitting) or high variance (overfitting). Ensemble methods effectively reduce variance without increasing bias through mechanisms like bootstrap aggregating, or reduce bias through sequential correction approaches as used in boosting algorithms [40].

Key Ensemble Methodologies

Several well-established ensemble techniques form the foundation of ensemble learning, each with distinct mechanisms for combining models:

• Random Forests: This bagging method constructs multiple decision trees trained on random subsets of data and features, combining their outputs through averaging (regression) or majority voting (classification) [40] [41]. The randomization in both data and feature selection ensures diversity among trees, which is crucial for the ensemble's success.

• AdaBoost (Adaptive Boosting): This boosting approach operates sequentially, focusing on misclassified instances from previous models by adjusting instance weights. The algorithm places more weight on difficult training examples, forcing subsequent models to focus on previously unresolved patterns [40] [42]. The final prediction uses a weighted majority vote based on each model's accuracy.

• Gradient Boosting: A more sophisticated boosting implementation that builds models sequentially, with each new model trained to predict the residuals (errors) of the current ensemble. Gradient boosting optimizes a differentiable loss function using gradient descent, making it highly effective for both regression and classification tasks [40] [41]. Modern implementations like XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost have further enhanced its efficiency and performance.

• Stacking: This advanced technique combines predictions from several heterogeneous models using a meta-learner, which learns the optimal way to integrate base model outputs [40]. The meta-learner is typically trained on cross-validated predictions from the base models to prevent overfitting.

Ensemble Methods in Drug Discovery Applications

Drug discovery presents particularly challenging optimization problems with expensive black-box characteristics. Experimental validation of drug-target interactions requires considerable time and financial resources, making computational approaches essential for prioritizing candidates [43]. Ensemble methods have demonstrated remarkable success in this domain, particularly for predicting drug-target interactions (DTIs)—a critical step in drug development and repurposing.

Performance Comparison in Drug-Target Interaction Prediction

Table 1: Performance of ensemble methods in drug-target interaction prediction

Method	Dataset	Sensitivity	Specificity	AUC	AUPR	GM
HEnsem_DTIs [43]	Dataset 1	0.896	0.954	0.930	0.935	0.924
Ensemble-MFP [44]	Gold Standard	>0.940 (in 3/4 datasets)	-	>0.940 (in 3/4 datasets)	-	-
ADA-DT [42]	Solubility	-	-	-	-	-
ADA-KNN [42]	Gamma	-	-	-	-	-

The HEnsem_DTIs framework represents an innovative heterogeneous ensemble approach specifically designed for drug-target interaction prediction. This method addresses two significant challenges in DTI prediction: high-dimensional feature space and class imbalance [43]. The framework incorporates dimensionality reduction techniques and concepts from recommender systems to improve under-sampling effectiveness. Notably, it employs reinforcement learning to automatically configure the optimal ensemble structure for a given dataset, moving beyond manual algorithm selection based on experience [43].

Another significant approach, Ensemble-MFP, generates multiple negative sets based on Euclidean distances of different feature pairs and employs an ensemble model with optimized weights [44]. This method has demonstrated exceptional performance in new drug prediction, achieving AUC values exceeding 94.0% in three out of four gold standard dataset subcategories [44].

In pharmaceutical formulation development, ensemble methods have also shown superior performance in predicting drug solubility and activity coefficients—critical properties for amorphous solid dispersion design. As shown in Table 1, the ADA-DT model achieved an R² score of 0.9738 for drug solubility prediction, while ADA-KNN attained an R² of 0.9545 for gamma prediction [42].

Workflow of a Heterogeneous Ensemble for Drug-Target Interaction Prediction

The following diagram illustrates the architecture of the HEnsem_DTIs model, showcasing the integration of dimensionality reduction, recommender systems, and reinforcement learning:

Surrogate-Based Optimization with Ensemble Methods

The Expensive Black-Box Optimization Challenge

Many engineering and scientific problems involve optimizing systems where the objective function is computationally expensive to evaluate and lacks an analytical form. These "expensive black-box" problems are common in fields ranging from aerospace engineering to materials science [39] [26]. For instance, a single vehicle crashworthiness simulation might require 24-66 minutes, while an aerodynamic analysis for aircraft design can take 12-109 minutes even with excellent computer hardware [39].

Traditional optimization approaches are impractical for such problems due to the limited number of function evaluations feasible within reasonable time and resource constraints. This limitation has motivated the development of surrogate-based optimization methods, which construct computationally efficient models to approximate the expensive black-box functions [39] [26].

Ensemble Surrogate Methods and Performance

Table 2: Surrogate optimization methods for expensive black-box problems

Method	Core Approach	Application Context	Key Advantage
BOMM [45]	Marginal mean functions with transformed additive Gaussian process	High-dimensional simulator optimization (e.g., neutrino detectors)	Tempers curse-of-dimensionality; consistent optimization rate
Penalized EI [39]	Expected Improvement penalized by improvement variation	Engineering design (e.g., underwater vehicle structures)	Considers improvement distribution beyond expectation
RL + Surrogate [26]	Reinforcement learning with Gaussian process surrogate	High-entropy alloy design in materials science	Better high-dimensional space navigation (D ≥ 6)
SurrogateOpt [46]	Radial basis function surrogate model	Spiking neural network parameter tuning	Sample-efficient exploration; outperforms manual tuning

The Black-box Optimization via Marginal Means (BOMM) approach addresses a critical limitation of traditional "pick-the-winner" solutions in high-dimensional optimization. When evaluations are limited, the best solution from evaluated inputs can be far from optimal, especially as dimensionality increases [45]. BOMM leverages marginal mean functions that can be efficiently inferred with limited runs in high dimensions, selecting solutions beyond evaluated inputs for improved optimization performance [45].

For expensive black-box problems in engineering design, the Penalized Expected Improvement method enhances the classical Efficient Global Optimization algorithm by considering the distribution of improvement rather than merely its expectation [39]. This approach penalizes the expected improvement with the variation of improvement, favoring sample locations where improvement is expected to be large with high confidence [39].

A reinforcement learning framework incorporating surrogate models has demonstrated particular effectiveness in high-dimensional materials design spaces (D ≥ 6). This approach consistently outperforms traditional Bayesian optimization with Expected Improvement acquisition functions through more dispersed sampling patterns and superior landscape learning capabilities [26]. The hybrid strategy combining Bayesian optimization's early-stage exploration with reinforcement learning's adaptive learning creates a synergistic effect, leveraging the complementary strengths of both optimization paradigms [26].

Workflow for Ensemble Surrogate Optimization

The following diagram illustrates the integration of ensemble methods with surrogate-based optimization for expensive black-box problems:

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Implementing Heterogeneous Ensemble for Drug-Target Interaction Prediction

The HEnsem_DTIs framework employs a sophisticated multi-stage methodology for predicting drug-target interactions [43]:

• Data Preprocessing and Transformation:

  • Convert the drug-target interaction matrix from n × m to L × 3 dimensions
  • Apply Cook's distance to remove outliers from the dataset
  • Implement Min-Max scaling to standardize features between 0 and 1

• Addressing Class Imbalance:

  • Utilize recommender systems and k-means algorithm to cluster the majority class
  • Improve under-sampling accuracy through intelligent majority class selection
  • Generate balanced training subsets for base classifier development

• Reinforcement Learning Configuration:

  • Employ Q-learning or policy gradient methods to select optimal classifier combinations
  • Define state space representing current ensemble composition
  • Design reward function based on cross-validation performance metrics
  • Train RL agent to maximize long-term prediction accuracy

• Ensemble Prediction:

  • Train multiple heterogeneous base classifiers (e.g., Decision Trees, SVM, Neural Networks)
  • Aggregate predictions using RL-optimized weighting scheme
  • Generate final drug-target interaction predictions with confidence estimates

Experimental Protocol for Surrogate-Based Optimization

The implementation of surrogate-based optimization with ensemble methods follows this rigorous experimental protocol [39] [26]:

• Initial Experimental Design:

  • Select initial sample points using space-filling designs (e.g., Latin Hypercube Sampling)
  • Ensure adequate coverage of the high-dimensional design space
  • Evaluate initial points using expensive black-box function

• Surrogate Model Construction:

  • Choose appropriate ensemble surrogate model (Gaussian Process, Random Forest, etc.)
  • Train on available function evaluation data
  • Implement cross-validation to assess surrogate prediction accuracy
  • Employ transformed additive Gaussian process for high-dimensional problems [45]

• Infill Criterion Optimization:

  • Define acquisition function (Expected Improvement, Penalized EI, etc.)
  • Implement global optimization of acquisition function
  • Apply penalty terms based on improvement variation [39]
  • Select next evaluation points balancing exploration and exploitation

• Iterative Model Refinement:

  • Evaluate selected points using expensive black-box function
  • Update surrogate model with new data points
  • Monitor convergence based on improvement trends
  • Terminate when convergence criteria met or evaluation budget exhausted

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential computational tools for ensemble methods and surrogate optimization

Tool	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
Scikit-Learn [41]	Library	Accessible ensemble implementations	Random Forest, Gradient Boosting
XGBoost [41]	Library	Optimized gradient boosting	Large-scale data with high performance
LightGBM [41]	Library	Efficient gradient boosting	Large datasets with many features
CatBoost [41]	Library	Gradient boosting with categorical data	Problems with categorical features
RBFOpt [46]	Library	Surrogate optimization	Black-box optimization with radial basis functions
SurrogateOpt [46]	Solver	Surrogate-based optimization	MATLAB-based surrogate modeling
Gaussian Process Regression	Model	Probabilistic surrogate	Uncertainty quantification in optimization

Ensemble methods represent a powerful approach for enhancing prediction accuracy and robustness in computational research, particularly when integrated with surrogate modeling strategies for expensive black-box optimization problems. Through strategic combination of multiple models, ensemble techniques effectively mitigate individual model weaknesses while capitalizing on their collective strengths.

The applications in drug discovery—from drug-target interaction prediction to solubility estimation—demonstrate the significant performance gains achievable through well-designed ensemble frameworks. Similarly, in engineering and materials science, ensemble surrogate methods enable efficient optimization of complex systems where direct evaluation is computationally prohibitive.

As computational challenges continue to grow in scale and complexity, the strategic integration of ensemble learning with surrogate modeling will play an increasingly vital role in accelerating scientific discovery and engineering innovation. The continued development of automated ensemble configuration methods, particularly through reinforcement learning and other meta-learning approaches, promises to further enhance the accessibility and effectiveness of these powerful techniques.

In the realm of expensive black-box optimization, where each function evaluation incurs substantial computational or experimental cost, surrogate modeling has emerged as an indispensable strategy. These models approximate the behavior of complex systems without requiring explicit knowledge of their internal mechanics, thereby dramatically reducing the number of evaluations needed for tasks like optimization, uncertainty propagation, and sensitivity analysis. Among various surrogate modeling techniques, Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) stands out as a particularly powerful probabilistic approach that not only provides point predictions but also quantifies the uncertainty associated with those predictions [47]. This dual capability makes GPR exceptionally valuable for researchers and scientists, particularly in fields like drug development where data is often limited and the cost of experimentation is high [48] [49].

The fundamental challenge in black-box optimization lies in balancing the exploration of uncertain regions with the exploitation of known promising areas. Traditional surrogate models that provide only point estimates fail to capture prediction confidence, potentially leading to premature convergence or missed opportunities. GPR addresses this limitation by representing the unknown function as a probability distribution over functions, enabling principled uncertainty quantification that guides sequential experimental design and decision-making processes [50] [47]. This article explores the mathematical foundations, practical implementation, and diverse applications of GPR, with particular emphasis on its role as a surrogate model in computationally expensive optimization problems across scientific domains, including pharmaceutical development.

Mathematical Foundations of Gaussian Process Regression

From Gaussian Distributions to Gaussian Processes

Gaussian Process Regression extends the concept of multivariate Gaussian distributions to infinite-dimensional function spaces. A Gaussian process (GP) is formally defined as a collection of random variables, any finite number of which have a joint Gaussian distribution [51] [52]. A GP is completely specified by its mean function ( m(\mathbf{x}) ) and covariance function ( k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}') ), where ( \mathbf{x} ) represents the input vector:

[ f(\mathbf{x}) \sim \mathcal{GP}(m(\mathbf{x}), k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}')) ]

For practical regression tasks, the mean function is often set to zero after centering the data, though it can be specified to incorporate prior knowledge about the system being modeled [50]. The covariance function, also known as the kernel function, encodes assumptions about the function's properties such as smoothness, periodicity, and trends [53].

The predictive distribution of GPR for a new test point ( \mathbf{x}* ) derives from the conditional properties of multivariate Gaussian distributions. Given a training dataset with inputs ( \mathbf{X} = {\mathbf{x}1, \ldots, \mathbf{x}N} ) and corresponding outputs ( \mathbf{y} = {y1, \ldots, yN} ), the joint distribution of observed outputs and predicted function value ( f* ) at test point ( \mathbf{x}_* ) is:

[ \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{y} \ f* \end{bmatrix} \sim \mathcal{N}\left( \mathbf{0}, \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{X}) + \sigman^2\mathbf{I} & \mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{x}*) \ \mathbf{K}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{X}) & k(\mathbf{x}_, \mathbf{x}_*) \end{bmatrix} \right) ]

where ( \mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{X}) ) is the ( N \times N ) covariance matrix between all training points, ( \mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{x}*) ) is the covariance vector between training points and test point, ( \sigman^2 ) represents the noise variance, and ( \mathbf{I} ) is the identity matrix [51]. The conditional distribution yields the predictive mean and variance:

[ \begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}[f*] &= \mathbf{K}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{X})[\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{X}) + \sigma_n^2\mathbf{I}]^{-1}\mathbf{y} \ \text{Var}[f_] &= k(\mathbf{x}*, \mathbf{x}) - \mathbf{K}(\mathbf{x}_, \mathbf{X})[\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{X}) + \sigman^2\mathbf{I}]^{-1}\mathbf{K}(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{x}*) \end{aligned} ]

These equations demonstrate how GPR seamlessly provides both predictions and uncertainty estimates—the mean ( \mathbb{E}[f*] ) represents the most likely function value, while the variance ( \text{Var}[f*] ) quantifies the confidence in that prediction [51] [50].

Kernel Functions and Their Properties

The choice of kernel function is crucial in GPR as it determines the properties of the functions that can be modeled effectively. Kernels encode similarity between data points, asserting that nearby inputs should have similar target values [50] [53]. The following table summarizes common kernel functions and their characteristics:

Table 1: Common Covariance Kernels in Gaussian Process Regression

Kernel Name	Mathematical Form	Key Parameters	Function Properties
Radial Basis Function (RBF)	( k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}') = \exp\left(-\frac{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}'|^2}{2\ell^2}\right) )	Length-scale ( \ell )	Infinitely differentiable, stationary
Matérn	( k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}') = \frac{2^{1-\nu}}{\Gamma(\nu)}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2\nu}|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}'|}{\ell}\right)^\nu K_\nu\left(\frac{\sqrt{2\nu}|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}'|}{\ell}\right) )	Length-scale ( \ell ), smoothness ( \nu )	Less smooth than RBF, versatile
Periodic	( k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}') = \exp\left(-\frac{2\sin^2(\pi|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}'|/p)}{\ell^2}\right) )	Length-scale ( \ell ), period ( p )	Periodic patterns, seasonal effects
Rational Quadratic	( k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}') = \left(1 + \frac{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}'|^2}{2\alpha\ell^2}\right)^{-\alpha} )	Length-scale ( \ell ), scale mixture ( \alpha )	Multi-scale phenomena
White Noise	( k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}') = \sigma^2\delta_{\mathbf{x}\mathbf{x}'} )	Noise variance ( \sigma^2 )	Uncorrelated noise

For complex real-world phenomena, kernel composition through addition or multiplication often enhances modeling capability. For instance, summing an RBF kernel with a periodic kernel can model a time series with both long-term trends and seasonal variations [53]. Similarly, multiplying kernels can create non-stationary processes where the length-scale varies with input location. This flexibility in kernel design makes GPR exceptionally adaptable to diverse problem domains, from modeling atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to predicting drug solubility [53].

GPR as a Surrogate Model in Black-Box Optimization

Uncertainty Quantification in Computer Models

In uncertainty quantification (UQ) for computational models, two primary types of uncertainty must be addressed: aleatory uncertainty, which stems from inherent randomness in the system, and epistemic uncertainty, which arises from limited knowledge or data [47]. GPR excels at quantifying both types, making it particularly valuable for UQ tasks including uncertainty propagation, risk estimation, and optimization under uncertainty.

For uncertainty propagation, where the goal is to understand how input uncertainties affect model outputs, GPR serves as an efficient surrogate for expensive computer models. The standard Monte Carlo approach requires numerous model evaluations, which becomes computationally prohibitive for complex systems. GPR circumvents this limitation by providing a cheap-to-evaluate approximation that maintains accurate uncertainty characterization [47]. Similarly, for risk estimation problems—particularly failure probability estimation where the probability of a system exceeding safety thresholds must be assessed—GPR enables efficient identification of regions near failure boundaries through active learning strategies [47].

In the context of optimization under uncertainty, GPR forms the foundation of Bayesian optimization, which has emerged as a powerful framework for optimizing expensive black-box functions. By maintaining a posterior distribution over the objective function, GPR enables the computation of acquisition functions (e.g., Expected Improvement, Probability of Improvement) that balance exploration and exploitation, systematically guiding the search toward optimal regions while accounting for prediction uncertainty [54].

Comparison with Alternative Surrogate Models

While numerous surrogate modeling techniques exist, GPR offers distinct advantages for uncertainty quantification in black-box optimization. Recent comparative studies demonstrate that GPR provides superior uncertainty quantification compared to many alternatives, though the emerging technique of conformal prediction has shown promise in specific scenarios.

Table 2: Comparison of Surrogate Modeling Techniques for Uncertainty Quantification

Model Type	Uncertainty Quantification	Data Efficiency	Computational Complexity	Best-Suited Applications
Gaussian Process Regression	Native probabilistic predictions with well-calibrated uncertainty intervals	High for small to medium datasets	( O(N^3) ) for exact inference; approximations available for large N	Data-starved scenarios, adaptive design, optimization
Conformal Prediction	Distribution-free confidence intervals with finite-sample coverage guarantees	Moderate; requires separate calibration set	Typically lower than GPR	Complex output distributions, high-dimensional targets
Bayesian Additive Regression Trees	Uncertainty via Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling	Moderate	Varies with tree depth and number	Mixed-feature spaces, non-smooth functions
Artificial Neural Networks	Requires modifications (e.g., Bayesian neural networks, dropout)	Low; typically requires large datasets	High for training; moderate for prediction	Very large datasets, high-dimensional problems

A recent study on chromatography modeling found that while conformal prediction methods like conformalised quantile regression (CQR) and locally adaptive conformal predictors (LACP) could outperform GPR for complex output distributions, GPR remained highly competitive, particularly when enhanced with mechanistic knowledge [55]. The study also demonstrated that incorporating kinetic parameters as additional inputs significantly reduced epistemic uncertainty in GPR models, supporting the concept of hybrid "gray-box" modeling that combines data-driven approaches with domain knowledge [55].

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Standard GPR Workflow Protocol

Implementing GPR for surrogate modeling follows a systematic workflow that balances mathematical rigor with practical considerations. The following protocol outlines key steps for effective GPR implementation:

• Data Preprocessing: Normalize both input and output variables to zero mean and unit variance, or apply Z-score normalization to eliminate outliers and ensure numerical stability during optimization [49]. For datasets with known outliers, the Z-score method with a threshold of 2-3 standard deviations effectively identifies and removes anomalous data points.

• Kernel Selection: Choose an appropriate kernel based on prior knowledge of function properties. The RBF kernel serves as a good default for smooth functions, while the Matérn kernel family offers flexibility for controlling smoothness. For periodic patterns, incorporate exponential sine squared components [53].

• Hyperparameter Optimization: Estimate kernel hyperparameters by maximizing the log marginal likelihood:

  [ \log p(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{X}, \theta) = -\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{y}^\top(\mathbf{K} + \sigman^2\mathbf{I})^{-1}\mathbf{y} - \frac{1}{2}\log|\mathbf{K} + \sigman^2\mathbf{I}| - \frac{N}{2}\log 2\pi ]

  where ( \theta ) represents all hyperparameters. Gradient-based optimizers like L-BFGS-B are commonly employed, though global optimization techniques like the Fireworks Algorithm have shown promise in avoiding local minima [49].

• Model Validation: Assess model performance using cross-validation techniques and application-specific metrics. For uncertainty quantification, verify calibration by checking if approximately 95% of test points fall within the 95% predictive intervals.

• Active Learning Integration: For expensive black-box optimization, embed the GPR within an active learning loop where acquisition functions (e.g., Expected Improvement, Upper Confidence Bound) guide sequential data collection [48].

GPR Implementation Workflow: This diagram illustrates the iterative process for developing and deploying Gaussian Process Regression models, highlighting the integration with active learning for optimization tasks.

Adaptive Design of Experiments with GPR

A key advantage of GPR in black-box optimization is its compatibility with adaptive design of experiments (ADOE), which strategically selects evaluation points to maximize information gain while minimizing computational expense [56]. The following protocol outlines a proven ADOE approach for sensitivity analysis:

• Initial Space Exploration: Begin with 100-150 Latin Hypercube samples across the input parameter space to establish an initial surrogate model [56].

• Iterative Refinement: In each iteration, generate a large number (e.g., 10,000) of candidate points via Latin Hypercube sampling and evaluate their predictive uncertainty using the current GPR model.

• Strategic Point Selection: Partition the input space into equivolume bins (e.g., 27 bins for a 3D parameter space) and identify the most uncertain point within each bin.

• Model Update and Convergence Monitoring: Evaluate the true function at selected points, augment the training dataset, and update the GPR model. Continue iterations until sensitivity indices stabilize below a predetermined threshold (e.g., absolute error < 0.1) [56].

This approach was successfully applied to patient-specific 3D computational fluid dynamics models of liver radioembolization, where it identified systolic duration as the most influential waveform shape parameter (sensitivity index: 0.407) with significantly fewer model evaluations than traditional approaches [56].

Pharmaceutical Applications and Case Studies

Drug Solubility and Dissolution Modeling

GPR has demonstrated remarkable performance in pharmaceutical applications, particularly in predicting drug solubility and dissolution behavior—critical factors in drug formulation development. In a comprehensive study comparing regression models for predicting drug solubility in polymer and API-polymer interactions, GPR outperformed alternatives including Support Vector Regression, Bayesian Ridge Regression, and Kernel Ridge Regression [49].

The study utilized a dataset of 24 input features encompassing molecular descriptors and thermodynamic properties with over 12,000 data points. After preprocessing with Z-score outlier detection (threshold: 3), the GPR model achieved exceptional performance with R² scores of 0.9980 and 0.9950 for training and test data respectively, along with the lowest MSE and MAE among all evaluated models [49]. The implementation employed the Fireworks Algorithm for hyperparameter optimization, demonstrating how modern metaheuristics can enhance GPR model performance.

In dissolution modeling, GPR enabled the development of predictive models with significantly reduced data requirements through active learning frameworks. A retrospective analysis of dissolution data for compound B found that GPR provided higher-fidelity predictions of dissolution profiles compared to traditional polynomial models when trained on the same experimental data [48]. Furthermore, Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) analysis of the GPR model successfully identified critical process parameters, demonstrating how interpretable machine learning techniques can extract mechanistic insights from data-driven models.

Chromatography Process Modeling

In chromatography modeling—a crucial unit operation in biopharmaceutical manufacturing—GPR serves as an effective surrogate for mechanistic models that are computationally expensive to develop and simulate. Recent research has validated GPR for uncertainty quantification in black-box chromatography modeling, though comparative studies indicate that conformal prediction methods may outperform standard GPR for certain complex output distributions [55].

A significant finding from chromatography applications is that incorporating mechanistic parameters as additional features in GPR models substantially reduces epistemic uncertainty and improves predictive accuracy. This hybrid approach, which combines data-driven modeling with domain knowledge, creates "gray-box" models that leverage the strengths of both paradigms [55]. For instance, including kinetic parameters related to adsorption isotherms in chromatography models enhanced GPR performance, supporting the hypothesis that enriching machine learning predictors with relevant mechanistic features reduces uncertainty stemming from limited data.

Table 3: GPR Performance in Pharmaceutical Applications

Application Domain	Key Input Parameters	Performance Metrics	Comparative Advantage
Drug Solubility Prediction	24 molecular descriptors and thermodynamic properties	R²: 0.9950 (test), Lowest MSE and MAE	Superior accuracy compared to SVR, BRR, KRR
Dissolution Modeling	5 tableting/processing parameters	Higher fidelity than polynomial models	Better identification of critical process parameters via SHAP analysis
Chromatography Modeling	Process inputs and kinetic parameters	Reduced epistemic uncertainty, improved accuracy	Effective as surrogate for mechanistic models; enhanced by hybrid approach

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Implementing GPR effectively requires both theoretical understanding and practical tools. The following table outlines key components of the GPR research toolkit:

Table 4: Essential Components for Gaussian Process Regression Implementation

Component	Function	Implementation Considerations
Covariance Kernels	Define similarity between data points and determine function properties	Select based on function characteristics; compose for complex behaviors
Hyperparameter Optimization	Estimate kernel parameters and noise level	Use marginal likelihood maximization; consider global optimizers for multi-modal landscapes
Active Learning Framework	Guide sequential data acquisition for efficient optimization	Implement acquisition functions (EI, UCB, PI) balanced with constraints
Uncertainty Quantification Metrics	Assess calibration and quality of predictive uncertainty	Use proper scoring rules, interval coverage, and sharpness measures
Model Interpretation Tools	Extract insights from trained GPR models	Apply SHAP analysis, partial dependence plots, and sensitivity analysis
Thioflosulide	Thioflosulide, CAS:158205-05-1, MF:C16H13F2NO3S2, MW:369.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
SQ22536	SQ 22536|9-(Tetrahydrofuran-2-yl)-9H-purin-6-amine	9-(Tetrahydrofuran-2-yl)-9H-purin-6-amine (SQ 22536). Explore this purine derivative for cancer research and corrosion inhibition. For Research Use Only. Not for human use.

Gaussian Process Regression stands as a versatile and powerful approach for uncertainty quantification in surrogate-based optimization of expensive black-box functions. Its inherent probabilistic formulation, which provides naturally calibrated uncertainty estimates alongside predictions, makes it particularly valuable for data-starved scenarios common in scientific and engineering applications, including pharmaceutical development. While emerging techniques like conformal prediction offer competitive performance for specific problem classes, GPR remains a cornerstone method in the uncertainty quantification toolbox, especially when enhanced with mechanistic knowledge through gray-box modeling approaches.

The continuing evolution of GPR methodology—including advanced kernel design, scalable approximation algorithms, and integration with other machine learning paradigms—promises to further expand its applicability across scientific domains. For researchers engaged in optimizing complex, computationally expensive systems, mastery of GPR provides a formidable advantage in the quest to extract maximum insight from limited data while rigorously quantifying uncertainty in predictions.

The pharmaceutical industry increasingly relies on Model-Informed Drug Discovery and Development (MID3) to enhance productivity amidst prolonged timelines and high failure rates [57]. Central to this paradigm is Quantitative Systems Pharmacology (QSP), which integrates drug action mechanisms and disease complexities to predict clinical outcomes [58]. A critical component of QSP is clinical trial simulation using virtual patients (VPs)—computer-generated models that mimic the clinical characteristics of real patients, enabling in silico testing of drug efficacy and safety [57].

However, VP generation faces significant challenges, primarily due to patient heterogeneity and the high computational cost of simulating complex biological systems. These simulations often involve expensive black-box functions, where the relationship between inputs and outputs is complex and resource-intensive to evaluate [58] [59]. This is where surrogate models—efficient approximations of these expensive functions—play a transformative role. This case study explores a hybrid framework that leverages Bayesian optimization and machine learning surrogates to accelerate VP generation, demonstrating more than a 10-fold improvement in efficiency and framing this advancement within the broader context of surrogate-based optimization for expensive black-box problems [58].

The Core Challenge: Virtual Patient Generation as a Black-Box Problem

Virtual patient generation is a cornerstone of modern in silico trials. VPs can be created using various methodologies, including agent-based modeling (ABM), AI/ML techniques, digital twins, and biosimulation/statistical methods [57]. The overall process for designing and implementing a virtual clinical trial is inherently iterative, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Workflow for a Virtual Clinical Trial. This cyclical process involves defining the clinical question, building a mathematical model, conducting parameter analyses, creating the virtual patient cohort, executing the trial, and analyzing results. The process is repeated until model predictions achieve sufficient accuracy [60].

A principal challenge in VP cohort creation is the parameter sampling problem. To simulate a realistic, heterogeneous population, model parameters must be sampled from high-dimensional, complex distributions. Evaluating a single parameter set's viability often requires running a full, computationally expensive QSP simulation. With conventional parameter sampling methods like random search, the probability of generating a physiologically plausible VP is low. In one cited study, a traditional random search achieved an acceptance rate of only 2.5%, meaning 97.5% of the computational resources were wasted on generating non-viable virtual patients [58]. This inefficiency makes VP generation a prime example of an expensive black-box optimization problem, where the objective function (VP viability) is costly to evaluate and its analytical properties are unknown [59].

Proposed Solution: A Hybrid Bayesian Optimization and Surrogate Model Framework

To address this challenge, researchers have proposed a hybrid method that combines Bayesian optimization (BO) with a machine learning surrogate model [58]. This framework is part of a broader class of Surrogate-Based Optimization (SBO) algorithms, which are designed to tackle expensive black-box problems by using efficient approximations [59].

The Surrogate Model Paradigm

In surrogate-based optimization, the core idea is to replace an expensive, black-box function g(x) with a cheap-to-evaluate surrogate model g_φ(x) learned from offline data [61]. The general process for offline optimization using a surrogate is outlined in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Offline Black-Box Optimization with a Surrogate Model. The process involves learning a surrogate model from an existing dataset and then using it to find optimal inputs, which are subsequently validated with a limited number of expensive true function evaluations [61].

In the context of VP generation, the "expensive black-box function" is the QSP model simulation that determines whether a given parameter set produces a physiologically plausible VP. The surrogate model is trained to predict the outcome of this simulation, thereby screening parameter sets before they are passed to the full, expensive model.

Ensemble of Surrogates (EoS) for Robustness

A significant difficulty in SBO is that no single surrogate model is best for all problems [59]. To improve robustness, an Ensemble of Surrogates (EoS) is often employed. An EoS combines multiple individual surrogate models (e.g., Polynomial Response Surface, Radial Basis Functions, Kriging) by allocating a weight to each, representing its importance in the final prediction [59]. The general formulation of an EoS is:

ŷ_E(x) = Σ_{i=1}^M w_i * ŷ_i(x)

where Σ_{i=1}^M w_i = 1 [59]. This approach leverages the strengths of different surrogate types, acting as an "insurance policy" against poor performance from any single model [59].

Detailed Experimental Protocol: The Hybrid BO-ML Workflow

The specific hybrid framework for accelerating VP generation involves a multi-stage process, integrating active learning and surrogate ensembles [58]. The following provides a detailed, technical protocol suitable for replication.

• Initial Experimental Design (DOE):

  • Action: Select an initial set of parameter samples (candidate VPs) using a space-filling design, such as Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) [62]. This ensures the initial data points are well-spread across the parameter space.
  • Purpose: To build a preliminary surrogate model with a minimal number of expensive QSP simulations.

• Surrogate Model Training (Ensemble):

  • Action: Run the full QSP simulation for the initial sample points to obtain labels (e.g., "accepted" or "rejected" VP). Train an ensemble of surrogate models (e.g., Kriging, RBF, Polynomial Regression) on this dataset. The ensemble's weights can be determined based on cross-validation performance or local error measures [59].
  • Purpose: To create a fast, approximate function that can predict the likelihood of a parameter set leading to an accepted VP.

• Bayesian Optimization Loop (Active Learning):

  • This is the core iterative loop for accelerating the process. The steps are as follows:
    • Acquisition Function Optimization: Use an acquisition function (e.g., Expected Improvement), which is informed by the surrogate model's predictions and its uncertainty, to propose the next most promising parameter set to evaluate. This function balances exploration (sampling from uncertain regions) and exploitation (sampling near currently predicted optima) [58].
    • Cheap Screening: Evaluate the proposed parameter set using the cheap surrogate model first.
    • Expensive Evaluation: Select the top candidates from the surrogate screening and run the full, expensive QSP simulation only on these.
    • Database Update: Add the new (parameter set, outcome) pairs to the training dataset.
    • Model Update: Periodically retrain the surrogate model with the updated, enriched dataset [58] [63].

• Termination and Output:

  • Action: The loop continues until a predefined stopping criterion is met, such as a target number of accepted VPs or a maximum number of iterations.
  • Output: A final cohort of accepted virtual patients, generated with a significantly reduced computational burden.

This framework's logical flow and how it drastically reduces the number of expensive function calls is visualized in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Hybrid BO-ML Framework for VP Generation. The integration of Bayesian optimization with a machine learning surrogate creates an active learning loop, minimizing the number of costly QSP simulations required to generate a viable virtual patient cohort [58] [63].

Results and Quantitative Performance

The implementation of this hybrid framework has demonstrated substantial improvements over traditional methods. The key quantitative results from a cited study are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of VP Generation Methods

Metric	Conventional Random Search	Hybrid BO-ML Framework	Improvement
Acceptance Rate	2.5% [58]	27.5% [58]	11-fold increase
Computational Efficiency	Baseline (Inefficient)	Dramatically reduced number of expensive QSP simulations [58]	> 10x improvement [58]

This performance leap is achieved because the surrogate model, guided by Bayesian optimization, acts as an efficient pre-screening tool. It intelligently navigates the parameter space, avoiding regions that are likely to produce non-viable VPs and focusing computational resources on the most promising candidates [58]. This result aligns with the broader goal in black-box optimization of finding high-quality solutions with a minimal number of expensive function evaluations [61] [62].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Implementing the described framework requires a combination of computational tools and methodological components. Table 2 details these essential "research reagents" and their functions.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents for Surrogate-Assisted VP Generation

Research Reagent	Function & Purpose	Key Characteristics
QSP/PD Model	The core, expensive black-box function. It simulates disease pathophysiology and drug pharmacology to determine VP viability [60].	Mechanistic or fit-for-purpose; incorporates PK/PD principles; computationally expensive to evaluate [60].
Surrogate Models (Ensemble)	Fast approximations of the QSP model used for parameter screening. Common types include Kriging, Radial Basis Functions (RBF), and Polynomial Regression [59] [62].	Cheap to evaluate; "assembled" into a weighted ensemble for improved robustness and accuracy [59].
Bayesian Optimizer	The decision-making engine. It uses an acquisition function to intelligently propose the next parameter set to evaluate, balancing exploration and exploitation [58].	Manages the active learning loop; relies on probabilistic surrogate models to quantify prediction uncertainty.
Design of Experiments (DOE)	A strategy for selecting the initial sampling points in the parameter space before any optimization begins [62].	Examples: Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS); aims to maximize information from a minimal initial sample set [62].
Infill Criterion (Acquisition Function)	A rule (e.g., Expected Improvement) used by the Bayesian optimizer to select new evaluation points based on the surrogate's predictions [62].	Balances exploration (sampling uncertain regions) and exploitation (sampling near predicted optima).
STING-IN-2	STING-IN-2, MF:C15H16N2O4, MW:288.30 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
5-trans U-46619	5-trans U-46619, CAS:56985-40-1, MF:C21H34O4, MW:350.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Applications and Impact on Drug Development

The acceleration of VP generation has profound implications across the drug development pipeline. Its applications extend beyond efficiency gains to enabling studies that were previously impractical.

• Informing Early-Phase Decisions: Virtual trials with VPs can simulate Phase I and II studies to refine dose projections and assess the potential for efficacy before moving a drug candidate into the clinic, de-risking costly late-stage failures [64]. For example, Sanofi used a virtual asthma patient population to predict the outcome of a Phase 1b trial, with the model's results showing a good match to the actual clinical data [64].
• Addressing Rare Diseases: In rare diseases, patient recruitment is a major barrier. Virtual cohorts can be generated using data from one patient subtype to simulate treatment effects in another, providing evidence of potential efficacy where randomized controlled trials are not feasible [64].
• Optimizing Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: The principles of surrogate-based optimization are also applied in downstream processes. For instance, a unified surrogate-based framework has been used to optimize an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) manufacturing process, improving yield and process mass intensity [13].

The integration of Bayesian optimization and machine learning surrogates for virtual patient generation represents a significant advancement in the field of expensive black-box optimization. By framing the VP sampling problem as a black-box optimization challenge, researchers can leverage powerful SBO paradigms to achieve over an 11-fold improvement in acceptance rates [58]. This case study demonstrates how a well-designed surrogate-assisted framework can overcome critical bottlenecks in computational biology and pharmaceutical development. As these technologies mature, particularly with the growth of digital twin methodologies and more sophisticated AI [64], the role of surrogate models in accelerating and refining in silico clinical trials will undoubtedly expand, paving the way for more efficient, personalized, and successful drug development.

Accurate molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are indispensable in computational biophysics and drug discovery, providing atomic-level insights into biological processes and molecular interactions. The fidelity of these simulations hinges on the force field—a mathematical model describing the potential energy surface of a molecular system. A significant and persistent challenge in MD is the parameterization of force fields, particularly the optimization of non-bonded interaction terms, such as Lennard-Jones (LJ) parameters, against experimental physical property data [65]. Traditional optimization methods that rely directly on expensive molecular dynamics simulations are computationally prohibitive, severely limiting the exploration of high-dimensional parameter spaces and often trapping optimizations in local minima [65]. This case study examines how multi-fidelity optimization, leveraging Gaussian process surrogate models, overcomes these barriers. Framed within a broader thesis on surrogate-assisted optimization, we detail how this strategy enables a more global and efficient search for optimal force field parameters, culminating in improved accuracy and transferability for molecular models [65].

The Force Field Parameterization Challenge

The Critical Role of Force Fields

In fixed-charge force fields, the potential energy is decomposed into bonded (bonds, angles, torsions) and non-bonded terms (electrostatics and van der Waals interactions). The Lennard-Jones (LJ) potential is commonly used to describe van der Waals dispersion–repulsion interactions [65]. The accuracy of a force field is governed by hundreds of empirical parameters that dictate interaction strengths. While bonded and electrostatic parameters can often be trained against quantum mechanical (QM) data, optimizing LJ parameters typically requires reproduction of experimental physical properties like density, enthalpy of vaporization, and free energy of solvation [65]. This necessity introduces significant computational cost and complexity into the parameterization process.

The Computational Bottleneck

Training LJ parameters against physical property data presents a substantial computational burden for two main reasons:

• Costly Simulations: Calculating physical properties like solvation free energies or dielectric constants requires equilibrium simulations in one or more phases, sometimes employing alchemical techniques, which are inherently computationally intensive [65].
• Limitations of Local Optimization: Traditional optimization methods, such as regularized least-squares with the L-BFGS-B algorithm, require numerous simulation-based objective function evaluations. The high computational cost severely limits the number of parameter sets that can be evaluated, often forcing the optimization to terminate prematurely in a local minimum near the initial guess [65]. This bottleneck has, in many cases, led to the stagnation of LJ parameter development in major force fields for over two decades [65].

Multi-Fidelity Optimization: Theory and Workflow

Multi-fidelity optimization addresses the computational bottleneck by employing a hierarchy of models with varying costs and accuracies. In force field parameterization, this involves using an inexpensive surrogate model to approximate the objective function, guided and validated by sporadic, high-fidelity simulations.

Core Theoretical Components

The optimization aims to minimize an objective function, χ(θ), which measures the discrepancy between simulation results and experimental data for a parameter set θ [65]. The multi-fidelity approach uses two distinct evaluation levels:

• Simulation-Level Fidelity: The "ground truth" evaluation, where physical properties are computed directly via molecular dynamics simulations. This level is accurate but carries a high computational cost and some statistical uncertainty [65].
• Surrogate-Level Fidelity: A fast, approximate evaluation where the objective function is estimated using a surrogate model—a simplified mathematical model trained on a limited set of simulation-level data. This introduces systematic error but enables rapid parameter space exploration [65].

Gaussian process (GP) surrogate modeling is a particularly powerful technique for this application. GPs are probabilistic models that provide a prediction and an associated uncertainty estimate at any point in the parameter space, making them ideal for data-sparse regimes and for guiding the selection of new evaluation points [65] [66].

The Iterative Optimization Framework

The multi-fidelity optimization process is an iterative loop, as illustrated in the workflow below.

This workflow can be broken down into the following detailed steps:

• Initial Sampling and Surrogate Construction: The process begins by running a limited number of high-fidelity simulations (molecular dynamics) for an initial set of parameter points, θ, selected via a space-filling design. A Gaussian process surrogate model is then trained on this {parameter set -> objective function} data to create a fast approximation of the expensive response surface [65] [67].
• Surrogate-Level Global Optimization: A global optimization algorithm, such as Differential Evolution, is applied to the surrogate model [65]. This algorithm can perform thousands of inexpensive evaluations on the surrogate to efficiently search the parameter space and propose promising candidate parameter sets likely to minimize the objective function. This step is key to escaping local minima.
• Simulation-Level Validation: The top candidate parameter sets identified by the surrogate are validated by running full molecular dynamics simulations. This step checks the true performance of the parameters and provides new, high-fidelity data points [65].
• Surrogate Model Refinement: The results from the validation simulations are added to the training dataset, and the Gaussian process surrogate is updated. This iterative refinement improves the surrogate's accuracy, particularly in the most promising regions of the parameter space [65] [67].
• Convergence Check: The process repeats until the objective function no longer improves significantly or a computational budget is exhausted. The output is a parameter set that has been thoroughly vetted by high-fidelity simulation [65].

Experimental Protocols and Key Findings

Detailed Methodology from an OpenFF Case Study

A study optimizing a subset of 12 LJ parameters for the OpenFF 1.0.0 (Parsley) force field exemplifies this protocol [65]. The following table summarizes the key reagents and computational tools essential for replicating such an experiment.

Table 1: Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Fidelity Force Field Optimization

Item Name	Function / Description	Relevance to Protocol
OpenFF Evaluator	Automated simulation workflow driver [65]	Automates the calculation of physical properties from parameters, standardizing the high-fidelity evaluation step.
ForceBalance	Parameter optimization package [65]	Provides the framework for defining the objective function and can interface with optimization algorithms.
Training Data Set	Curated set of experimental physical properties (e.g., densities, enthalpies of vaporization) [65]	Defines the target χ(θ) that the optimization aims to minimize.
Gaussian Process (GP) Model	Surrogate model using algorithms like Kriging [65] [66]	Acts as the fast, low-fidelity evaluator to approximate the objective function during optimization.
Differential Evolution	Population-based global optimization algorithm [65]	Efficiently searches the surrogate model's response surface to propose improved parameter sets.
Molecular Dynamics Engine	Software like GROMACS, OpenMM, or AMBER [65]	Executes the underlying molecular dynamics simulations for high-fidelity validation.

The experimental workflow proceeded as follows:

• Training Set: The optimization used a training set of 56 pure compound physical properties curated from the literature [65].
• Initialization: An initial Gaussian process surrogate was built from a limited number of simulation-level evaluations.
• Iteration: The framework performed global optimization with differential evolution on the surrogate, selected candidate parameter sets, validated them using the OpenFF Evaluator to run simulation-level calculations, and then refined the surrogate [65].
• Validation: The performance and transferability of the newly optimized force field were assessed against separate test sets of molecular properties [65].

Quantitative Results and Performance

The multi-fidelity approach demonstrated significant advantages over traditional, simulation-only methods. The following table summarizes key quantitative findings from the cited literature.

Table 2: Comparative Performance of Optimization Strategies

Study / Method	Key Metric	Performance Outcome	Computational Implication
Multi-fidelity GP (OpenFF) [65]	Ability to find improved parameters	Found parameter sets with lower objective function values than local, simulation-based methods.	Enabled escape from local minima.
Multi-fidelity GP (OpenFF) [65]	Exploration of parameter space	Discovered distinct parameter minima with performance as accurate as the original set.	Increased robustness and provided multiple valid parameterization options.
Multi-fidelity GP (OpenFF) [65]	Transferability	Optimized parameters performed well on a hold-out test set of similar molecules.	Suggested improved generalizability of the force field.
Multi-fidelity Coarse-Graining [67]	Data efficiency	Produced an accurate emulator of a high-fidelity water model using only a few high-fidelity samples.	Reduced the required number of costly simulations.
Surrogate-based Process Opt. [13]	Process improvement	Achieved a 1.72% yield improvement and 7.27% improvement in Process Mass Intensity.	Demonstrated tangible optimization gains in an applied setting.

The primary finding was that the multi-fidelity technique could search more broadly across the parameter space and locate improved parameter sets that a purely local, simulation-based optimizer could not find [65]. Furthermore, it often identified significantly different parameter minima that performed equally well, enhancing robustness. In most cases, these optimized parameters proved transferable to other similar molecules in a test set [65].

Discussion: Implications for Black-Box Optimization

The success of multi-fidelity optimization for force fields offers broader insights for expensive black-box optimization research.

• Synergy of Multi-Fidelity and Surrogate Modeling: This case study demonstrates a powerful synergy. The surrogate model makes frequent global optimization feasible, while the multi-fidelity framework ensures final validation against the true high-cost function, maintaining rigor [65] [67]. This strategy directly tackles the trade-off between exploration (aided by the surrogate) and exploitation (validated by simulation).
• A Template for Other Domains: The core workflow is highly generalizable. Similar strategies are being applied in pharmaceutical process optimization [13] [68] and medical device design [66], where high-fidelity simulations (e.g., CFD, FEA) are also computationally burdensome. The method is particularly valuable when even low-fidelity evaluations are expensive, making pure surrogate-based approaches less effective [67].
• The Evolving Role of Machine Learning: While this case study focuses on Gaussian processes, newer approaches are emerging. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are now being used to predict force field parameters directly from molecular structure in an end-to-end manner [69]. Furthermore, Large Language Models (LLMs) are being explored as black-box optimizers that can incorporate unstructured domain knowledge, a technique with potential applications in personalized medicine [12]. These methods represent a shift towards more integrated, data-driven parameterization.

This case study demonstrates that multi-fidelity optimization, centered on Gaussian process surrogate models, is a transformative methodology for force field parameterization. By strategically combining fast, approximate evaluations with costly, high-fidelity simulations, it overcomes the critical computational bottlenecks that have long hindered the development of more accurate molecular models. The result is a more global, efficient, and effective optimization path, leading to force fields with improved accuracy and transferability. This approach provides a validated blueprint for tackling a wide array of expensive black-box optimization problems across scientific and engineering disciplines, from materials science to drug discovery and process design.

Beyond the Hype: Solving Practical Challenges in Surrogate Implementation

The optimization of expensive black-box functions is a fundamental challenge in scientific and engineering domains, particularly in drug development and materials science where each experimental evaluation can be costly, time-consuming, or resource-intensive. Within this framework, surrogate models have emerged as indispensable tools for approximating these expensive objective functions, thereby reducing the number of required experimental trials. The core problem this addresses is managing limited data—making optimal sequential decisions under severe experimental constraints.

This technical guide explores sophisticated strategies that combine smart sampling techniques with adaptive sequential methodologies to maximize information gain from minimal data points. We focus specifically on the role of surrogate models within expensive black-box optimization research, providing researchers with both theoretical foundations and practical implementations for navigating complex design spaces with limited experimental budgets.

Surrogate Models in Black-Box Optimization

The Offline Optimization Framework

In offline black-box optimization, we are provided with a fixed dataset (\mathfrak{D} = {(\mathbf{x}1, z1), (\mathbf{x}2, z2), \cdots, (\mathbf{x}n, zn)}) where (zi = g(\mathbf{x}i)) represents expensive evaluations of an unknown objective function (g) [61]. The fundamental goal is to identify an optimal design (\mathbf{x}_*) that maximizes this function:

[ \mathbf{x}_* \triangleq \underset{\mathbf{x}\in\mathfrak{X}}{\operatorname*{\text{argmax}}} \ \ g(\mathbf{x}) ]

The surrogate model (g_\phi(\mathbf{x})) approximates the true function (g(\mathbf{x})) and is typically learned via supervised learning on the offline dataset [61]:

[ \phi \triangleq \underset{\phi^{\prime}}{\operatorname*{\text{argmin}}} \ \sum{i=1}^{n}\ell\left(g{\phi^{\prime}}(\mathbf{x}i), zi\right) ]

where (\ell) is an appropriate loss function. The critical challenge is that these surrogate models are generally reliable only within a constrained neighborhood of the offline data and can be highly erroneous outside this region [61].

Advanced Surrogate Modeling Techniques

Gradient Matching for Improved Optimization

Traditional surrogate modeling focuses on minimizing prediction error at the training data points. However, [61] demonstrates that matching the gradient field of the surrogate to the latent gradient field of the target function is more crucial for effective optimization. Their proposed MATCH-OPT algorithm directly minimizes the discrepancy between the surrogate's gradients and the latent target gradients, leading to more reliable optimization performance, especially in out-of-distribution settings.

Table 1: Comparison of Surrogate Modeling Approaches

Approach	Key Principle	Advantages	Limitations
Standard Regression	Minimizes prediction error at data points	Simple implementation, widely applicable	Poor performance outside training data distribution
Gradient Matching (MATCH-OPT)	Aligns surrogate gradient field with target gradient field	Better optimization performance, more reliable OOD	Requires approximation of latent gradients
Gaussian Process (GP)	Bayesian non-parametric interpolation	Natural uncertainty quantification, mathematical explicitness	Poor scaling with data size, smoothness assumptions
Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART)	Sum-of-trees model with Bayesian regularization	Handles non-smooth functions, automatic feature selection	Computationally intensive for large datasets
Bayesian MARS	Adaptive regression splines with Bayesian fitting	Flexible function approximation, handles interactions	Limited smoothness compared to GP

Adaptive Surrogate Models in Bayesian Optimization

Bayesian optimization (BO) provides a principled framework for optimizing expensive black-box functions by combining a probabilistic surrogate model with an acquisition function that guides the selection of future evaluation points [70]. While Gaussian processes (GPs) have been the traditional choice for surrogate modeling in BO, they face challenges with high-dimensional spaces, non-smooth functions, and data sparsity.

Recent research has explored more flexible surrogate models including Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART) and Bayesian Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (BMARS) [70]. These adaptive surrogates can overcome weaknesses of GP-based methods when faced with relatively high-dimensional design spaces or non-smooth patterns of objective functions, demonstrating enhanced search efficiency and robustness in both simulation studies and real-world materials science applications.

Smart Sampling Strategies

Response-Adaptive Randomization in Sequential Trials

Response-adaptive randomization (RAR) uses accumulating information to skew randomization probabilities toward promising treatments and has long been used in single-stage randomized clinical trials [71]. The advantages of RAR are most pronounced in trials with many treatment arms, as these algorithms oversample more favorable treatments and undersample less favorable ones.

In the context of sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs), which are the gold-standard design for evaluating multi-stage treatment regimes, [71] proposes RAR approaches based on Thompson sampling (TS). TS is a bandit algorithm also known as probability matching where a treatment's randomization probability is based on confidence that the treatment is optimal.

Table 2: Smart Sampling Methods for Sequential Decision Making

Method	Application Context	Key Mechanism	Theoretical Guarantees
Thompson Sampling	Single- and multi-stage trials	Randomization probabilities aligned with probability of being optimal	Bayesian optimality guarantees in certain settings
SMART-AR	Sequential multiple assignment randomized trials	Adapts probabilities based on Q-learning estimates	Accounts for delayed effects of treatments
RA-SMART	Two-stage SMARTs with same treatments at each stage	Response-adaptive randomization for two-stage designs	Limited handling of treatment interactions
ASR (Adaptive Sample with Reward)	Representation learning	Reinforcement learning to adjust sampling process	Maximizes cumulative reward through geographical relationships

Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Sampling

[Citation:7] proposes a reward-guided sampling strategy called Adaptive Sample with Reward (ASR) that utilizes reinforcement learning (RL) to address sampling problems in representation learning. Their approach optimally adjusts the sampling process to achieve optimal performance by exploring geographical relationships among samples through distance-based sampling to maximize overall cumulative reward. Empirical results in information retrieval and clustering demonstrate ASR's superb performance across different datasets.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Benchmarking Surrogate Models in Bayesian Optimization

[Citation:8] provides detailed methodology for comparing surrogate models within Bayesian optimization frameworks:

• Test Functions: Use established benchmark functions with known properties, such as the Rosenbrock (valley-shaped) and Rastrigin (multimodal) functions.
• Initialization: Begin optimization with multiple different sizes of initial datasets (e.g., N = 2, 5, 10, 15, 20) uniformly sampled from the search space.
• Replication: Perform 100 replicates for each algorithm and initial dataset size to ensure statistical significance.
• Surrogate Models: Compare proposed models (BART, BMARS) against baseline methods including GP with RBF kernel, GP with ARD, deep network kernels, and Bayesian model averaging approaches.
• Acquisition Function: Use Expected Improvement (EI) for all models to ensure fair comparison.
• Stopping Criterion: Set experimental budget (e.g., 80 function evaluations) to simulate expensive experimental constraints.

Implementing Adaptive Sequential Strategies

For implementing response-adaptive randomization in sequential trials:

• Algorithm Selection: Choose appropriate RAR method based on trial structure (single-stage vs. multi-stage) and primary objectives (regime comparison vs. optimal regime identification).
• Randomization Procedure: Update randomization probabilities at predetermined intervals based on accumulating response data.
• Inferential Procedures: Implement valid post-study inferential procedures that account for non-standard limiting behavior introduced by adaptive randomization [71].
• Constraints: Impose necessary constraints on randomization probabilities to maintain trial integrity and ensure ethical considerations.

Visualization of Key Methodologies

Bayesian Optimization with Adaptive Surrogates

Bayesian Optimization with Adaptive Surrogates - This workflow illustrates the iterative process of Bayesian optimization with adaptive surrogate models, highlighting the key decision points and iterative nature of the methodology.

Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial

SMART with Adaptive Randomization - This diagram visualizes a two-stage sequential multiple assignment randomized trial with response-adaptive randomization, showing how randomization probabilities at each stage can be updated based on accumulating data.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Smart Sampling and Surrogate Modeling

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
Design-bench	Software Benchmark	Provides diverse real-world optimization problems	Testing and comparing offline optimization algorithms [61]
ILLMO	Statistical Software Platform	Interactive log-likelihood modeling with modern methods	Multi-model comparisons, empirical likelihood estimation [72]
Viz Palette	Color Evaluation Tool	Generates color reports with just-noticeable difference metrics	Evaluating effectiveness of categorical color palettes [73]
WebAIM Contrast Checker	Accessibility Tool	Calculates color contrast ratios between two colors	Ensuring compliance with WCAG accessibility guidelines [74]
MATCH-OPT	Algorithm Implementation	Gradient matching for surrogate models	Offline black-box optimization with reliable performance [61]

Managing limited data through smart sampling and adaptive sequential strategies represents a paradigm shift in how we approach expensive black-box optimization problems. By leveraging advanced surrogate models that more accurately capture the underlying structure of expensive objective functions, and implementing adaptive sampling strategies that dynamically allocate resources based on accumulating information, researchers can dramatically improve the efficiency of experimental design in domains from drug development to materials science.

The integration of gradient-aware surrogate modeling with response-adaptive randomization creates a powerful framework for navigating high-dimensional, complex design spaces with severe experimental constraints. As these methodologies continue to mature, they promise to accelerate scientific discovery while reducing resource consumption—a critical advantage in both academic and industrial research environments.

In fields ranging from drug development to aerodynamic design, researchers often need to optimize systems where evaluating candidate solutions requires computationally expensive simulations or physical experiments. These expensive black-box optimization problems present a significant challenge: the objective function landscape is unknown, and each function evaluation consumes substantial time and resources [75]. Traditional evolutionary algorithms (EAs) typically require thousands of function evaluations to converge, making them impractical for these expensive problems [76].

A fundamental obstacle in navigating these complex landscapes is the prevalence of local minima—points in the search space that appear optimal within a small neighborhood but are suboptimal globally. As algorithms converge toward these deceptive basins of attraction, they often become trapped, unable to explore more promising regions of the search space without prohibitive computational cost [75] [76].

Surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithms (SAEAs) have emerged as a powerful approach to mitigate these challenges. By constructing computationally inexpensive approximation models of the expensive objective function, these methods can guide the search process more efficiently, dramatically reducing the number of expensive function evaluations required [75] [77]. This technical guide examines how two specific approaches—ensemble methods and global surrogates—work synergistically to enhance search capabilities and facilitate escape from local minima in expensive black-box optimization.

Surrogate Models in Optimization: Core Concepts

The Role of Surrogates in Expensive Function Optimization

Surrogate models, also called metamodels or approximation models, are mathematical constructs that emulate the behavior of expensive computational models. They are built from a limited set of evaluated points and serve as proxies during the optimization process [75]. The fundamental premise is that by replacing most expensive function evaluations with predictions from accurate surrogates, algorithms can explore the search space more comprehensively while maintaining computational feasibility.

In the context of expensive black-box optimization, surrogate models fulfill three critical functions:

• Landscape Approximation: They provide a global picture of the objective function based on limited sampled data [75].
• Search Guidance: They help identify promising regions worth exploring with expensive evaluations [76].
• Convergence Acceleration: They reduce the total number of expensive function evaluations required to find satisfactory solutions [77].

Taxonomy of Surrogate Modeling Approaches

Surrogate modeling approaches in optimization can be categorized along several dimensions, with the global-local and single-ensemble distinctions being particularly relevant for escaping local minima:

Table: Classification of Surrogate Modeling Approaches in Optimization

Classification Axis	Approach Type	Key Characteristics	Strengths	Weaknesses
Model Scope	Global Surrogates	Built using all evaluated solutions; provides overall landscape view [76]	Powerful exploration; identifies unexplored promising regions [76]	Limited local accuracy; poor exploitation in specific regions [76]
	Local Surrogates	Constructed using neighborhood points around current best solutions [76]	High local accuracy; effective fine-tuning [76]	Prone to getting trapped in local minima; limited exploration [76]
Model Composition	Single Surrogates	Utilizes one type of surrogate model throughout optimization [75]	Computational efficiency; simpler implementation [75]	Model bias; potential inaccuracy across different landscape regions [76]
	Ensemble Surrogates	Combines multiple surrogate models for prediction [76]	Improved accuracy and robustness; reduces model uncertainty [76]	Higher computational overhead; increased complexity [76]

The Local Minima Problem and Surrogate Solutions

Characterization of Local Minima in Complex Landscapes

Local minima represent positions in the search space where all neighboring points have equal or higher objective function values, creating basins of attraction that trap optimization algorithms. In high-dimensional, multimodal landscapes typical of real-world problems, these local minima can vastly outnumber global optima, creating a complex optimization terrain resembling a golf course with numerous small holes rather than a single deep well [75].

The challenge intensifies with expensive black-box functions because algorithms cannot afford to thoroughly explore each potential basin. Without external guidance, search processes tend to exhaust their evaluation budget refining solutions in the first promising basin encountered, potentially missing superior solutions in other regions [76].

Mechanisms for Escaping Local Minima

Surrogate-assisted approaches employ several sophisticated mechanisms to facilitate escape from local minima:

• Global Landscape Awareness: Unlike direct optimization that relies solely on point-by-point evaluation, global surrogates maintain a model of the entire search space based on all previous evaluations. This enables the algorithm to "remember" promising regions that might be far from the current search trajectory, allowing strategic jumps away from local minima [76].

• Infill Criteria Balancing: Advanced surrogates employ infill criteria such as Expected Improvement (EI) that explicitly balance exploitation (refining known good solutions) and exploration (investigating uncertain regions) [76] [77]. This balance prevents premature convergence by allocating some evaluations to regions with high predictive uncertainty but potentially superior solutions.

• Predictive Uncertainty Utilization: Ensemble surrogates provide not just point predictions but also uncertainty estimates. By strategically evaluating points where models disagree or where prediction uncertainty is high, algorithms can simultaneously improve model accuracy and discover new promising regions [76].

The following diagram illustrates how these mechanisms work together in a surrogate-assisted optimization framework to escape local minima:

Global and Ensemble Assisted Escape from Local Minima

Ensemble Methods: Leveraging Collective Prediction

Architectural Frameworks for Ensemble Surrogates

Ensemble methods in surrogate-assisted optimization combine multiple individual surrogate models to generate more robust and accurate predictions than any single model could provide. The architectural implementation typically follows one of two patterns:

• Parallel Ensemble Architecture: Multiple surrogate types (e.g., RBF, Kriging, SVM) are trained simultaneously on the same dataset. Their predictions are then aggregated using fixed or adaptive weighting schemes [76]. This approach is particularly effective when different surrogate types excel in different regions of the search space.

• Sequential Ensemble Architecture: A primary surrogate identifies promising regions, while secondary specialized surrogates perform intensive local search within those regions [76]. This hierarchical approach efficiently allocates computational resources to the most promising areas.

Implementation Protocols for Ensemble Surrogates

The experimental protocol for implementing ensemble surrogates typically follows these methodological steps:

• Initial Design of Experiments: Generate an initial sampling plan using space-filling designs such as Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) to ensure good coverage of the parameter space [75]. The sample size typically ranges from 10×D to 20×D, where D represents the problem dimensionality.

• Multiple Model Construction: Build several diverse surrogate models using different approximation techniques. Common choices include:

  • Radial Basis Function (RBF) Networks: Provide good global approximation characteristics [77]
  • Kriging/Gaussian Process Models: Offer statistical uncertainty estimates alongside predictions [76]
  • Support Vector Machines (SVM): Effective for high-dimensional problems [76]
  • Polynomial Response Surfaces: Computationally efficient for simpler landscapes [75]

• Prediction Aggregation: Combine predictions from individual models using weighting strategies. The ensemble prediction ( f{\text{ens}}(\mathbf{x}) ) can be computed as: ( f{\text{ens}}(\mathbf{x}) = \sum{i=1}^{M} wi fi(\mathbf{x}) ) where ( wi ) represents the weight assigned to the i-th model, and ( f_i(\mathbf{x}) ) is its prediction at point ( \mathbf{x} ).

• Dynamic Weight Adaptation: Update model weights based on recent performance metrics, typically giving higher weight to models that have demonstrated better prediction accuracy on validation points [76].

Table: Ensemble Surrogate Implementation Components

Component	Implementation Options	Key Parameters	Typical Settings
Initial Sampling	Latin Hypercube, Orthogonal Arrays, Random	Sample size	10D-20D points
Surrogate Types	RBF, Kriging, SVM, Polynomial Regression	Model-specific parameters	Cross-validated
Weighting Scheme	Fixed, Performance-based, Uncertainty-based	Update frequency	Every 5-10 generations
Infill Criterion	Expected Improvement, Probability Improvement, Lower Confidence Bound	Exploration-exploitation balance	Adaptive based on search progress

Global Surrogates: Maintaining Search Diversity

Global Modeling Techniques and Implementation

Global surrogates construct approximations using all evaluated points across the entire search space, maintaining a comprehensive model of the objective function landscape. The most effective global modeling techniques include:

• Radial Basis Function (RBF) Networks: RBF networks create global approximations through a linear combination of basis functions centered at sampled points. The prediction at a new point ( \mathbf{x} ) is given by: ( f(\mathbf{x}) = \sum{i=1}^{nh} \omegai \Phi(||\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{c}i||) + \omega0 ) where ( \Phi(\cdot) ) is the basis function, ( \mathbf{c}i ) are the center points, and ( \omega_i ) are the weights [77].

• Kriging (Gaussian Process): Kriging provides not just predictions but also uncertainty estimates through a statistical framework. It models the objective function as a combination of a global trend and local deviations: ( f(\mathbf{x}) = \mu(\mathbf{x}) + Z(\mathbf{x}) ) where ( \mu(\mathbf{x}) ) represents the global trend and ( Z(\mathbf{x}) ) is a stationary Gaussian process [76].

• Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs): Multi-layer perceptrons can model highly nonlinear global relationships, though they typically require larger training datasets than RBF or Kriging models [77].

Experimental Protocols for Global Surrogate Management

Implementing global surrogates effectively requires careful management throughout the optimization process:

• Model Initialization Protocol:

  • Generate initial sample points using space-filling design
  • Evaluate initial points using expensive function
  • Train initial global surrogate model
  • Validate model using cross-validation or holdout set

• Dynamic Model Update Protocol:

  • Incorporate newly evaluated points into training set
  • Retrain surrogate periodically (every 5-10 new evaluations)
  • Monitor model accuracy and trigger retraining if error exceeds threshold
  • Implement model reset if performance degrades significantly

• Search Guidance Protocol:

  • Use surrogate to identify promising regions for exploration
  • Balance between predicted function value and model uncertainty
  • Select points for expensive evaluation using infill criteria
  • Maintain diversity in selected points to avoid clustering

The interaction between global and local search components can be visualized in the following workflow:

Global-Local Surrogate Collaborative Workflow

Synergistic Integration: Ensembles and Global Surrogates

Frameworks for Collaborative Integration

The most effective approaches for escaping local minima combine ensemble methods with global surrogates in a cohesive framework. This integration typically follows one of three architectural patterns:

• Hierarchical Ensemble-Global Framework: A global ensemble surrogate guides overall exploration, while individual ensemble members refine predictions in specific regions [76]. This approach maintains global perspective while adapting to local landscape characteristics.

• Adaptive Switching Framework: The algorithm dynamically switches between global and local surrogates based on search progress indicators, using ensemble predictions to determine the most appropriate model at each stage [76].

• Collaborative Coevolutionary Framework: Particularly effective for high-dimensional problems, this approach decomposes the problem into subcomponents, with global ensembles coordinating the overall search while specialized surrogates optimize individual components [77].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Experimental studies on benchmark problems and real-world applications demonstrate the superior performance of integrated ensemble-global approaches:

Table: Performance Comparison of Surrogate-Assisted Approaches on CEC'2013 Test Suite

Algorithm Type	Average Function Evaluations	Success Rate (%)	Final Solution Quality	Computational Overhead
Standard EA	5000D	45-65%	Moderate	Low
Single Global Surrogate	750-1200D	70-80%	Good	Medium
Ensemble Surrogates Only	600-900D	75-85%	Very Good	High
Integrated Ensemble-Global	400-700D	85-95%	Excellent	High

The table illustrates that while integrated approaches incur higher computational overhead for surrogate management, they dramatically reduce the number of expensive function evaluations required while improving solution quality and reliability [76] [77].

The Research Toolkit: Essential Components for Implementation

Successful implementation of ensemble and global surrogate methods requires specific computational components and strategies:

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for Surrogate-Assisted Optimization

Component Category	Specific Tools	Function	Implementation Considerations
Surrogate Models	RBF Networks, Kriging, SVM, ANN	Approximate expensive objective functions	Model selection should match problem characteristics; ensembles typically outperform single models
Experimental Design	Latin Hypercube, Orthogonal Arrays, Random	Generate initial sampling points	Sample size critical: 10D-20D points recommended for adequate initial coverage
Infill Criteria	Expected Improvement, Probability Improvement, Lower Confidence Bound	Select points for expensive evaluation	Balance exploration-exploitation; adaptive parameters often perform best
Constraint Handling	Penalty Functions, Feasibility Rules, Stochastic Ranking	Manage constraints in expensive optimization	Feasibility-based methods often outperform penalty approaches
Space Reduction	Adaptive Search Regions, Principal Component Analysis	Focus search on promising regions	Dynamic adjustment prevents premature convergence
Optimization Core	Differential Evolution, Particle Swarm, Competitive Swarm Optimizer	Navigate the surrogate landscape	Competitive swarm optimizers show particular promise for large-scale problems
TCS JNK 5a	TCS JNK 5a, CAS:312917-14-9, MF:C20H16N2OS, MW:332.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
TN14003	TN14003, CAS:368874-31-1, MF:C90H141N33O18S2, MW:2037.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The integration of ensemble methods with global surrogates represents a significant advancement in addressing the challenge of local minima in expensive black-box optimization. By combining the comprehensive perspective of global models with the robustness and accuracy of ensemble predictions, these approaches enable more effective navigation of complex, multimodal landscapes while dramatically reducing the computational burden of optimization.

Future research directions in this field include developing more efficient model management strategies to reduce the computational overhead of ensembles, creating adaptive frameworks that automatically select the most appropriate surrogate combinations for specific problem types, and extending these approaches to multi-objective and constrained optimization scenarios with expensive function evaluations [75] [76]. As computational resources continue to grow and surrogate modeling techniques advance, these methods will play an increasingly vital role in enabling optimization of previously intractable problems across scientific and engineering domains.

The curse of dimensionality, a term coined by Richard Bellman, refers to a suite of phenomena that arise when analyzing and organizing data in high-dimensional spaces—issues that do not occur in low-dimensional settings [78] [79]. In the context of expensive black-box optimization, such as in drug discovery where each function evaluation may involve a complex wet-lab experiment or a lengthy simulation, this curse presents a formidable challenge. As the number of dimensions or input parameters increases, the volume of the space expands so rapidly that available data becomes sparse, making it exponentially more difficult to find optimal solutions [78]. This data sparsity fundamentally undermines the efficiency of traditional optimization algorithms, as the computational resources required for a satisfactory search of the space become prohibitive.

This technical guide explores the interplay between the curse of dimensionality and surrogate models, which are approximators of the expensive black-box function [80]. Surrogate models, including Gaussian Processes (GPs), are central to mitigating the cost of optimization in high-dimensional domains [81] [82]. By providing a cheap-to-evaluate substitute, they guide the search towards promising regions with fewer evaluations of the true expensive function. However, their effectiveness is also compromised by high dimensions. This document provides an in-depth analysis of these challenges and the advanced techniques, such as dimensionality reduction and meta-learning, that are being developed to address them, with a particular focus on applications relevant to researchers and drug development professionals.

The Core Challenge: Defining the Curse

The curse of dimensionality manifests through several key phenomena that directly impact optimization and modeling.

Exponential Growth of Space and Data Sparsity

The most fundamental issue is the exponential growth in volume associated with adding extra dimensions. For instance, sampling a 10-dimensional unit hypercube with the same resolution as a one-dimensional unit interval (100 points) would require 10²⁰ sample points, a number that is computationally infeasible [78]. This exponential relationship means that in high dimensions, data points are, on average, vastly distant from each other, residing in the vast emptiness of the space. This sparsity makes it nearly impossible to gather enough data to build a reliable global model of the function without sophisticated techniques.

Degeneration of Distance Metrics

In high-dimensional spaces, the concept of distance becomes less informative. The Euclidean distance between points tends to become uniform, making it harder for algorithms to distinguish between near and far neighbors [78] [79]. The relative difference between the nearest and farthest distances from a query point shrinks to zero, a phenomenon that severely impacts algorithms reliant on distance measures, such as nearest-neighbors, radial basis function networks, and kernel-based methods like GPs.

The Hughes Phenomenon (Peaking Effect)

In machine learning, the Hughes phenomenon describes a critical trade-off: as the number of features or dimensions grows for a fixed dataset size, the predictive power of a model first increases but then begins to deteriorate after passing an optimal point [78]. This peaking occurs because, beyond a certain dimensionality, the model begins to overfit the training data, capturing noise rather than the underlying signal. This directly limits the complexity of models that can be effectively trained without massive datasets.

Surrogate Models as a Primary Defense

Surrogate models are interpretable or computationally efficient models trained to approximate the predictions of a black-box model or function [80]. In expensive black-box optimization, they act as a fast proxy, allowing for extensive exploration of the parameter space.

Gaussian Processes for Bayesian Optimization

Gaussian Processes (GPs) are a cornerstone of modern Bayesian optimization due to their native uncertainty quantification [81]. A GP defines a distribution over functions, where any finite collection of function evaluations is jointly Gaussian distributed. It is fully specified by a prior mean function, often set to zero, and a covariance kernel function ( k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}') ) [81].

The kernel function dictates the smoothness and structure of the functions in the GP prior. Common choices include:

• Radial Basis Function (RBF): ( k{\text{RBF}}(\bm{x},\bm{x}'; \theta{\text{out}}, \bm{\theta}\text{l}) = \theta{\text{out}}\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}r(\bm{x}, \bm{x}'; \bm{\theta}_{\text{l}})\right) ) [81]
• Matérn Kernel: A more flexible family of kernels where the parameter ( \nu ) controls the smoothness [81].

Given a dataset ( \mathcal{D} = {(\mathbf{x}1, f(\mathbf{x}1)), \dots, (\mathbf{x}N, f(\mathbf{x}N))} ), the GP posterior predictive distribution for a new point ( \mathbf{x}* ) is Gaussian with mean and variance given by: [ \begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}[f(\mathbf{x})] &= \mu_0(\mathbf{x}_) + \mathbf{k}*^\top \mathbf{K}^{-1}(\mathbf{f} - \bm{\mu}0) \ \mathbb{V}[f(\mathbf{x}*)] &= k(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}_) - \mathbf{k}*^\top \mathbf{K}^{-1} \mathbf{k}* \end{aligned} ] where ( \mathbf{k}* = [k(\mathbf{x}*, \mathbf{x}i)]{i=1}^N ), ( \mathbf{K}=[k(\mathbf{x}i, \mathbf{x}j)]{i,j=1}^N ), and ( \mathbf{f} = [f(\mathbf{x}i)]_{i=1}^N ) [81]. This closed-form uncertainty estimate is crucial for acquisition functions (e.g., Expected Improvement, Upper Confidence Bound) that balance exploration and exploitation in Bayesian optimization.

The Surrogate Model Workflow

The process for obtaining and using a global surrogate model involves the following steps [80]:

• Select a dataset ( \mathbf{X} ) from the input space of the black-box function.
• Obtain predictions ( \mathbf{y} ) by querying the expensive black-box function at the points in ( \mathbf{X} ).
• Select a surrogate model type (e.g., Gaussian Process, Random Forest, Linear Model).
• Train the surrogate model on the dataset ( (\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{y}) ).
• Use the surrogate for optimization, replacing the expensive function for most evaluations.
• Validate the surrogate by measuring how well it replicates the black-box function, for example, using the R-squared measure on a hold-out set [80].

Diagram: The Surrogate-Assisted Optimization Loop

Conquering High Dimensions: Advanced Techniques

Dimensionality Reduction for Feature Extraction

Dimensionality reduction (DR) techniques transform high-dimensional data into a lower-dimensional space while preserving critical information. A 2025 benchmarking study on drug-induced transcriptomic data highlights the importance of selecting the right DR method for the biological question at hand [83].

Table 1: Benchmarking of Dimensionality Reduction Methods on Drug Response Data [83]

Method	Algorithmic Principle	Performance in Separating Cell Lines & MOAs	Performance in Dose-Response	Key Strength
PCA	Linear projection to directions of maximal variance	Poor	Not Top Performer	Global structure, interpretability
t-SNE	Minimizes KL divergence between high-/low-D similarities	Top Performer (Local structure)	Strong	Preserving local cluster structures
UMAP	Cross-entropy loss balancing local/global structure	Top Performer	Not Top Performer	Balance of local and global structure
PaCMAP	Uses neighbors & mid-neighbor pairs to preserve structure	Top Performer	Not Top Performer	Preserving local and long-range relationships
PHATE	Models diffusion-based geometry for manifold continuity	Not Top Performer	Strong	Capturing gradual biological transitions
Spectral	Uses graph Laplacian for manifold learning	Top Performer	Strong	Non-linear structure discovery

The study concluded that for discrete tasks like separating cell lines or drug mechanisms of action (MOAs), t-SNE, UMAP, and PaCMAP were top performers. In contrast, for detecting subtle, continuous changes like dose-dependent responses, Spectral, PHATE, and t-SNE showed superior performance [83]. This demonstrates that DR is not a one-size-fits-all solution and must be tailored to the problem.

Embedded Surrogate Learning in Meta-Optimization

A promising frontier is the integration of surrogate learning directly into meta-black-box optimization (MetaBBO) frameworks. A 2025 study introduced Surr-RLDE, a framework that combines surrogate learning with a reinforcement learning-aided Differential Evolution algorithm [82]. This approach addresses the intensive function evaluation cost inherent in MetaBBO.

The Surr-RLDE framework operates in two stages:

• Surrogate Learning: A Kolmogorov-Arnold Network (KAN) is trained with a relative-order-aware loss to approximate the objective functions of problem instances. This surrogate learns the landscape of the optimization problem.
• Policy Learning: A reinforcement learning (RL) policy is trained to dynamically configure the mutation operator in Differential Evolution (DE). Crucially, this training uses the learned surrogate model instead of the original expensive function, drastically reducing evaluation costs [82].

Table 2: Experimental Protocol for Surrogate Model Evaluation in Pharmaceutical Science [84]

Component	Description	Function in Protocol
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)	10 different model architectures tested	Core predictive model for dissolution profiles
Input Data	Nominal settings, process parameters (temp, humidity, time), NIR spectra	Represents multi-factorial process influences
Evaluation Metrics	f2 similarity factor, R², RMSE, Sum of Ranking Differences (SRD)	Quantifies predictive accuracy and discriminatory power
Key Finding	Traditional metrics (f2, R²) insufficient; SRD provided more robust model comparison	Highlights need for advanced validation in high-dimensional settings

This framework showed competitive performance and compelling generalization to higher-dimensional problems, illustrating the power of learned surrogates within a meta-learning context to combat the curse of dimensionality [82].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for High-Dimensional Drug Discovery Research

Tool / Reagent	Function	Application Context
Connectivity Map (CMap) Dataset	Provides large-scale drug-induced transcriptomic profiles	Benchmarking dataset for DR methods and surrogate models in pharmacology [83]
Gaussian Process (GP) Software (e.g., GPyTorch, scikit-learn)	Fits probabilistic surrogate models to approximate expensive functions	Core engine for Bayesian optimization of drug compounds or process parameters [81]
Dimensionality Reduction Libraries (e.g., UMAP, t-SNE, PHATE)	Projects high-dimensional data (e.g., gene expression) to 2D/3D for analysis and visualization	Critical for interpreting high-throughput screening results and identifying patterns [83]
Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs)	A modern neural network architecture used as a highly expressive surrogate model	Used in cutting-edge MetaBBO frameworks like Surr-RLDE to learn complex objective functions [82]
Sum of Ranking Differences (SRD)	A model comparison metric that assesses discriminatory power	Robust statistical method for evaluating surrogate model performance beyond R² [84]

The curse of dimensionality remains a significant obstacle in expensive black-box optimization for fields like drug development. However, the synergistic combination of surrogate modeling, particularly with uncertainty-aware methods like Gaussian Processes, and advanced dimensionality reduction techniques provides a powerful defense. The emergence of meta-optimization frameworks that embed learned surrogates, such as Surr-RLDE, points towards a future where algorithms can automatically adapt to and efficiently navigate complex, high-dimensional landscapes. For researchers, the critical takeaway is that method selection—be it for DR or the surrogate model itself—must be guided by the specific nature of the biological or chemical problem, leveraging rigorous benchmarking and validation protocols to ensure success.

Error Measurement and Weight Allocation in Ensemble of Surrogates

In the field of expensive black-box-type engineering optimization, the use of surrogate models, or metamodels, is prevalent for approximating computational simulations that are too complex or costly to evaluate directly [59]. However, a significant challenge persists: the prediction accuracy of any single stand-alone surrogate model for a specific black-box function is unknown in advance, making the selection of an appropriate surrogate difficult [59]. Furthermore, different surrogate models may demonstrate varying levels of accuracy across different regions of the design space or for different problem types [59]. To address these challenges, the ensemble of surrogates (EoS) has emerged as a powerful methodology. EoS integrates various individual surrogate models to enhance prediction accuracy and robustness by leveraging the strengths of each constituent model [59].

The core principle of an ensemble of surrogates is to assign a weight factor to each individual surrogate model, representing its relative importance or credibility within the ensemble [59]. A generalized mathematical representation of an ensemble model can be expressed as [59]: $$ \hat{y}{E}(\mathbf{x}) = \sum{i=1}^{M} w{i} \hat{y}{i}(\mathbf{x}) $$ where $ \hat{y}{E}(\mathbf{x}) $ is the final ensemble prediction, $ M $ is the number of surrogate models in the ensemble, $ \hat{y}{i}(\mathbf{x}) $ is the prediction of the $ i $-th surrogate model, and $ w{i} $ is the weight assigned to the $ i $-th surrogate model, typically with the constraint that $ \sum{i=1}^{M} w_{i} = 1 $ [59].

The performance of an ensemble is critically dependent on the strategy employed to determine these weights, which are ideally proportional to the expected predictive capability of each model [59]. This guide provides an in-depth technical examination of the error measures and weight allocation strategies that form the backbone of effective ensemble surrogate modeling within the context of computationally expensive black-box optimization research, with particular attention to applications in scientific and industrial fields such as drug development.

Theoretical Foundations of Ensemble of Surrogates

The Role of Surrogate Models in Black-Box Optimization

Surrogate-based optimization (SBO) algorithms utilize a limited number of function evaluations from expensive high-fidelity models (e.g., computational fluid dynamics, finite element analysis) or physical experiments to construct approximate models [59]. These surrogates, such as Polynomial Response Surfaces (PRS), Radial Basis Functions (RBF), Kriging (KRG), Support Vector Regression (SVR), and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), are then used to guide the optimization process, drastically reducing computational cost [59] [66]. In sectors like pharmaceutical development, this enables the optimization of complex processes—such as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) manufacturing—where objectives like yield, purity, and process mass intensity must be balanced [13].

Rationale for Ensemble of Surrogates

The fundamental motivation for using an ensemble is rooted in the concept of diversification, akin to not "putting all your eggs in one basket" [85]. Different surrogate models make different assumptions and may capture diverse aspects of the underlying complex system. By combining them, the ensemble can mitigate the risk of selecting a single, poorly performing model and can often achieve more accurate and robust predictions than any individual member [59] [85]. This approach acts as an "insurance policy" against poor performance of a single surrogate when dealing with expensive black-box functions [59].

Error Measurement for Surrogate Models

Accurately quantifying the error or accuracy of individual surrogate models is a prerequisite for effective weight allocation. The following error measures are commonly used for this purpose.

Key Error Metrics

Error metrics are computed by comparing surrogate model predictions against a validation dataset not used during model training. The following table summarizes the primary metrics used.

Table 1: Key Error Metrics for Surrogate Model Validation

Metric Name	Mathematical Formulation	Interpretation and Usage
Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE)	$ RMSE = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N{v}} \sum{j=1}^{N{v}} (yj - \hat{y}_j)^2 } $	A measure of the standard deviation of the prediction errors. Sensitive to large errors. Lower values indicate better model accuracy [59].
R-Squared ($R^2$)	$ R^{2} = 1 - \frac{\sum{j=1}^{N{v}} (yj - \hat{y}j)^2}{\sum{j=1}^{N{v}} (y_j - \bar{y})^2} $	Represents the proportion of variance in the output that is explained by the model. Values closer to 1.0 indicate a better fit [59].
Maximum Absolute Error (MaxAE)	$ MaxAE = \max	yj - \hat{y}j	$	Measures the worst-case prediction error of the model, which is critical for assessing risk in engineering and design [59].
Mean Absolute Error (MAE)	$ MAE = \frac{1}{N{v}} \sum{j=1}^{N_{v}}	yj - \hat{y}j	$	The average magnitude of the errors. It is less sensitive to outliers than RMSE [59].

In the formulations above, $ yj $ is the actual value from the high-fidelity model or experiment, $ \hat{y}j $ is the value predicted by the surrogate model, $ \bar{y} $ is the mean of the actual values, and $ N_{v} $ is the size of the validation dataset.

Experimental Protocol for Model Validation

A rigorous experimental protocol is essential for obtaining unbiased error estimates. The following workflow, implemented in toolkits like the IDAES Surrogate Plotter, outlines this process [86].

• Data Generation and Splitting: A computational design of experiments (DOE) method, such as Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS), is used to generate a dataset by running the expensive high-fidelity model at a limited number of input points [87]. This dataset is then randomly split into a training subset (e.g., 80%) for building the surrogates and a validation subset (e.g., 20%) for testing. A seed value ensures the split is reproducible [86].
• Surrogate Training: Multiple different surrogate models (e.g., PRS, RBF, KRG) are trained on the same training dataset [86] [66].
• Model Evaluation and Error Calculation: Each trained surrogate model is used to predict the outputs for the validation dataset inputs. The predictions are compared against the true values from the high-fidelity model using the error metrics defined in Table 1 [86].
• Visual Diagnostics: Beyond numerical metrics, visualization tools like parity plots (predicted vs. actual) and residual plots (error vs. predicted) are generated to diagnose model behavior, such as identifying bias or heteroscedasticity [86].

Weight Allocation Strategies

Once error metrics are obtained, they are used to compute weights for the ensemble. The choice of strategy involves a trade-off between simplicity, computational cost, and performance.

Taxonomy of Weight Allocation Methods

The following diagram illustrates the logical decision process for selecting a weight allocation strategy.

Detailed Methodologies and Formulations

Different weight allocation strategies use different heuristics and computations, as detailed in the table below.

Table 2: Weight Allocation Strategies for Ensemble of Surrogates

Strategy	Theoretical Basis	Mathematical Formulation	Advantages & Limitations
Global Mean Squared Error (MSE)	Assigns higher weights to models with lower overall error [59].	$ wi = \frac { (1 / MSEi )^k } { \sum{j=1}^{M} (1 / MSEj)^k } $ where $MSE_i$ is the MSE of model $i$, and $k \geq 1$ is a selectivity parameter.	Advantages: Simple, intuitive, widely used. Limitations: Assumes global error is representative of local performance [59].
Generalized Mean Squared Error (GMSE)	An extension of Global MSE that uses a distance-based error measure to account for local accuracy [59].	$ wi(\mathbf{x}) = \frac { (1 / GMSEi(\mathbf{x}) )^k } { \sum{j=1}^{M} (1 / GMSEj(\mathbf{x}) )^k } $ $ GMSEi(\mathbf{x}) = \frac{1}{Nv} \sum{j=1}^{Nv} \Lambda(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}j) [yj - \hat{y}i(\mathbf{x}j)]^2 $ where $\Lambda$ is a distance-based kernel.	Advantages: More responsive to local performance variations. Limitations: Higher computational cost; requires selection of a kernel function [59].
PRESS-Based Weighting	Uses leave-one-out cross-validation error as a robustness measure to mitigate overfitting [59].	$ wi = \frac { (1 / PRESSi )^k } { \sum{j=1}^{M} (1 / PRESSj )^k } $ where $PRESS_i$ is the Prediction Error Sum of Squares for model $i$.	Advantages: Provides a more robust estimate of generalization error. Limitations: Computationally expensive for large training sets [59].
Heuristic / Fixed Weighting	Relies on prior experience or performance from similar problems to assign fixed weights [85].	$ wi = \text{Manually assigned value} $ with $ \sum wi = 1 $.	Advantages: Simple, no calculation overhead. Useful for initial testing. Limitations: Not scientifically rigorous; may be suboptimal [85].
Equal Weighting (Average Ensemble)	The principle of "wisdom of the crowd"; assumes all models are equally competent [85].	$ w_i = \frac{1}{M} $ for all $i$.	Advantages: Extremely simple, avoids poor performance from bad weight choices. Limitations: Can be outperformed by strategic weighting [85].
Stacked Generalization	Uses a higher-level model (a meta-learner) to learn the optimal combination of the base surrogate predictions [59].	$ \hat{y}{E}(\mathbf{x}) = f{meta}(\hat{y}1(\mathbf{x}), \hat{y}2(\mathbf{x}), ..., \hat{y}_M(\mathbf{x})	\mathbf{w}{meta}) $ where $f{meta}$ is the meta-learner (e.g., linear model) trained on validation data.	Advantages: Can learn complex, non-linear combinations; often very accurate. Limitations: Requires a validation set; risk of overfitting the meta-learner [59].

Experimental Protocol for Benchmarking Ensemble Performance

To empirically validate the superiority of an ensemble approach over individual surrogates, a structured benchmarking experiment is necessary.

Workflow for Ensemble Construction and Testing

• Problem Setup and Data Generation: Select a benchmark problem or a real-world expensive black-box function. Using a DOE method like LHS, generate a set of input-output data points by running the high-fidelity simulation. Reserve a portion of this data as a final, unseen test set.
• Individual Model Training: Using the training portion of the data, construct a diverse set of individual surrogate models (e.g., PRS, KRG, RBF, ANN). Tune their hyperparameters as needed via cross-validation.
• Ensemble Construction:
  • Validation for Weights: Use the validation set (from a data split or cross-validation on the training data) to calculate the performance of each individual model.
  • Weight Calculation: Apply one or more of the weight allocation strategies from Table 2 (e.g., Global MSE, PRESS) to compute the weights for each model.
  • Ensemble Formation: Construct the final ensemble model using the calculated weights.
• Testing and Comparison: Evaluate all individual surrogate models and the newly constructed ensemble model on the held-out test set. Compare their performance using the error metrics from Table 1.
• Analysis and Reporting: Analyze the results to determine if the ensemble achieved a lower error than the best individual model. Report the performance gain and discuss the effectiveness of the chosen weight allocation strategy.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Materials and Functions

This table catalogs key "research reagents"—software tools, modeling techniques, and functions—essential for conducting experiments in ensemble surrogates.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Ensemble Surrogate Modeling

Item Name	Type	Primary Function in Research
Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS)	Design of Experiments Method	Generates a space-filling design of input points for training data, efficiently exploring the parameter space with fewer samples than a full factorial design [87].
Polynomial Response Surface (PRS)	Surrogate Model	Provides a simple, interpretable baseline model. Ideal for problems with low nonlinearity and for initial design exploration [66].
Kriging / Gaussian Process (GP)	Surrogate Model	Provides accurate predictions for nonlinear problems and gives an uncertainty estimate at each prediction point, which can be used in adaptive sampling [59] [66].
Radial Basis Function Neural Network (RBFNN)	Surrogate Model	A flexible neural network architecture that is effective at approximating complex, nonlinear relationships and is often faster to train than deep networks [59].
IDAES Surrogate Plotter	Software Visualization Tool	A specialized module for generating parity, residual, and scatter plots to visually assess surrogate model accuracy and diagnose fitting issues [86].
WESTPA (Weighted Ensemble Simulation Toolkit)	Software Simulation Toolkit	An open-source package for orchestrating and analyzing weighted ensemble path sampling simulations, particularly in biomolecular dynamics [88].
Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE)	Error Metric	The primary quantitative measure for evaluating and comparing the accuracy of different surrogate models and ensembles [59].
Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation	Validation Protocol	A method for estimating model robustness and calculating the PRESS statistic, especially useful when data is scarce [59].

The use of an ensemble of surrogates is a robust methodology for mitigating the risk of selecting an underperforming model in expensive black-box optimization. The core of this approach lies in the principled allocation of weights to individual surrogates based on rigorous error measurement. As reviewed, strategies range from simple global error weighting to sophisticated local and adaptive methods. The choice of strategy depends on the specific problem characteristics, including the availability of data, computational budget, and the desired balance between simplicity and peak performance. For researchers in fields like pharmaceutical development, where simulations are complex and resources are finite, mastering these ensemble techniques is paramount for driving efficient and reliable optimization of critical processes. Future developments in this field are likely to focus on more adaptive and automated weight allocation schemes, as well as improved error measures for guiding their construction.

In the realm of computational science and engineering, the optimization of complex systems is often hindered by the prohibitive cost of high-fidelity simulations. These simulations, such as those involving computational fluid dynamics (CFD) or finite element analysis, can require hours or even days to complete a single evaluation, making extensive parameter studies or optimization campaigns impractical [89]. This challenge is acutely felt in fields like drug development, aerospace engineering, and materials science, where evaluating candidate designs relies on expensive, time-consuming processes.

The multi-fidelity paradigm has emerged as a powerful framework to address this fundamental challenge. By strategically combining models of varying computational cost and accuracy, multi-fidelity methods achieve a favorable balance between computational efficiency and predictive reliability [90]. These approaches leverage inexpensive low-fidelity models—which may employ simplified physics, coarser discretizations, or reduced numerical convergence—to explore the design space broadly, while using high-fidelity models sparingly to anchor predictions in high-accuracy data [91].

Within the broader context of surrogate modeling for expensive black-box optimization, multi-fidelity techniques represent a significant advancement over single-fidelity approaches. They address the core dilemma of how to make confident decisions with severely limited high-fidelity data by extracting maximum information from cheaper approximations [92]. This guide provides a comprehensive technical examination of multi-fidelity methodologies, their implementation, and their application to real-world optimization challenges.

The Multi-Fidelity Framework: Core Concepts and Definitions

The Spectrum of Model Fidelity

In multi-fidelity modeling, information sources are classified along a continuum of accuracy and cost. The specific characteristics of these models vary by application domain, but they generally adhere to the following hierarchy:

• High-Fidelity Models (HFM): These represent the most accurate and computationally expensive simulations available, often considered the "ground truth" for a given system. Examples include fully resolved CFD simulations, molecular dynamics simulations with detailed force fields, or complex finite element models with fine meshes. Their high cost (often hours to days per evaluation) severely limits the number of feasible evaluations [90] [89].

• Low-Fidelity Models (LFM): These are cheaper approximations that capture the essential physics or trends of the system but with reduced accuracy. Common simplifications include coarser spatial discretizations, relaxed convergence criteria, reduced dimensionality, or simplified physical models [90]. While individual LFM predictions may lack accuracy, they provide valuable information about system behavior at a fraction of the HFM cost.

Table 1: Common Fidelity Types and Their Characteristics

Fidelity Type	Description	Typical Cost Relative to HFM	Common Simplifications
High-Fidelity	Most accurate available model	1x (Reference)	None
Medium-Fidelity	Balanced accuracy and cost	0.01x - 0.1x	Moderate mesh coarsening, partial convergence
Low-Fidelity	Basic trend capture	0.001x - 0.01x	Significant mesh coarsening, strong physics simplification
Very Low-Fidelity	Minimal computational expense	<0.001x	Analytical models, empirical correlations, severe dimensionality reduction

Multi-Fidelity Integration Architectures

The core challenge in multi-fidelity modeling lies in effectively combining information from these disparate sources. Two principal architectural paradigms have emerged for this integration:

• Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Models (MFSM): These approaches construct an explicit mathematical framework that fuses data from multiple fidelities into a single predictive surface. Techniques such as co-Kriging, multi-fidelity Gaussian processes, and adaptive correction methods fall into this category. The surrogate model explicitly encodes relationships between different fidelity levels, enabling predictions of high-fidelity outputs based on both high- and low-fidelity data [90] [93].

• Multi-Fidelity Hierarchical Models (MFHM): Rather than building an explicit combined surrogate, these methods use algorithmic strategies to manage fidelity selection during the optimization process. Approaches include multi-fidelity Monte Carlo methods, multi-level optimization, and adaptive fidelity management schemes that determine which model to evaluate based on expected information gain and cost [94] [90].

The choice between these architectures depends on the problem characteristics, including the number of available fidelity levels, the computational cost differentials, and the strength of correlation between model outputs.

Methodological Approaches and Combination Techniques

Deterministic Combination Methods

Deterministic multi-fidelity methods establish fixed functional relationships between model fidelities. These approaches typically employ correction schemes to align low-fidelity predictions with high-fidelity trends, creating a bridge between information sources [93].

• Additive Correction: This method assumes a constant discrepancy between fidelities: f_corrected(x) = f_LF(x) + δ(x), where the correction term δ(x) is learned from available high-fidelity data. This approach works well when the error between fidelities is roughly constant across the design space [93].

• Multiplicative Correction: This approach applies a scaling factor to low-fidelity predictions: f_corrected(x) = β(x) × f_LF(x). The correction function β(x) is calibrated using high-fidelity data. Multiplicative correction is particularly effective when fidelity errors scale with the magnitude of the output [93].

• Comprehensive Correction: Hybrid methods combine both additive and multiplicative elements for increased flexibility: f_corrected(x) = α(x) + β(x) × f_LF(x). This comprehensive approach can capture more complex relationships between model fidelities [93].

• Space Mapping: This technique establishes a mapping between the input spaces of different fidelity models, effectively "aligning" the low-fidelity model's domain with that of the high-fidelity model before applying corrections [93].

Non-Deterministic and Bayesian Methods

Non-deterministic approaches treat the relationships between fidelities as statistical processes, explicitly accounting for uncertainty in predictions and model discrepancies [93].

• Co-Kriging: This extension of the Gaussian process framework models different fidelities as correlated random processes. The relationship between high- and low-fidelity data is captured through a cross-covariance structure, typically formulated as: f_HF(x) = ρ(x) × f_LF(x) + δ(x), where ρ(x) represents the scale correlation between fidelities and δ(x) is a discrepancy function modeled as a Gaussian process [92].

• Multi-Fidelity Gaussian Processes: These Bayesian approaches place Gaussian process priors over the functions at each fidelity level, with covariance functions that encode beliefs about how the levels relate to one another. The Kennedy-O'Hagan framework is a seminal formulation in this category [89].

• Multi-Fidelity Monte Carlo (MFMC): This approach uses low-fidelity models as control variates to reduce the variance in statistical estimators. By optimally allocating samples across fidelity levels based on their computational cost and correlation with the high-fidelity model, MFMC achieves significant computational speedups for uncertainty propagation tasks [94].

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Comparison of Multi-Fidelity Methods

Method	Application Domain	Reported Cost Reduction	Accuracy Improvement	Key Metric
Hierarchical Scalable Surrogate (HSSM) [91]	General Engineering Benchmark	~87% reduction vs. HF-only	Enhanced accuracy & robustness	RMSE
Multi-Fidelity Monte Carlo [94]	Uncertainty Quantification	4 orders of magnitude MSE reduction	Equivalent statistical accuracy	Mean Squared Error
GP-MFBO [89]	Temperature/Humidity Calibration	Up to 81.7% improvement	94.2% confidence interval coverage	Uniformity Score
Co-Kriging [92]	Aerospace Design	~85% cost saving	Within 5% of HF accuracy	Predictive Error

Multi-Fidelity Bayesian Optimization

Multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization (MFBO) extends traditional Bayesian optimization by incorporating fidelity level as an additional decision variable. The method employs an acquisition function that determines not only where to sample next but also which fidelity level to evaluate, balancing the cost of information against its potential value for optimization [89].

The GP-MFBO framework demonstrates this approach effectively, integrating three key components:

• A progressive multi-fidelity modeling system comprising physical analytical models, CFD simulations, and experimental verification
• A systematic uncertainty quantification system covering model uncertainty, parameter uncertainty, and observation uncertainty
• An adaptive acquisition function that balances uncertainty penalty mechanisms and multi-fidelity information gain evaluation [89]

This approach has demonstrated performance improvements of up to 81.7% for temperature uniformity and 76.3% for humidity uniformity compared to single-fidelity methods, while achieving 94.2% prediction confidence interval coverage [89].

Experimental Protocols and Implementation Guidelines

Hierarchical Scalable Surrogate Modeling (HSSM) Protocol

The HSSM framework provides a systematic methodology for handling high-dimensional and dynamically expanding design spaces. The protocol consists of two core modules that operate in sequence [91]:

Module 1: Model Filtering and Selection

• Step 1: Evaluate four common surrogate models (PRS, RBF, KRG, SVR) on available data
• Step 2: Calculate Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) as the performance metric for each surrogate
• Step 3: Select the best-performing base model through cross-validation
• Step 4: Establish baseline performance metrics for subsequent multi-fidelity enhancement

Module 2: Multi-Fidelity Data Fusion

• Step 1: Collect low-fidelity data from the original design space
• Step 2: Acquire limited high-fidelity data from the expanded design space
• Step 3: Apply multi-fidelity scheme to fuse LF and HF datasets
• Step 4: Construct hierarchically extensible surrogate model
• Step 5: Validate on benchmark functions and engineering cases

This approach has been validated on fifteen benchmark functions and two engineering cases, demonstrating enhanced accuracy and robustness compared to conventional methods [91].

Multi-Fidelity Uncertainty Quantification Protocol

For uncertainty quantification tasks, the multi-fidelity Monte Carlo method provides a rigorous approach for estimating statistical quantities of interest [94]:

Stage 1: Model Allocation Strategy

• Identify available models and their computational costs
• Estimate correlation between low-fidelity and high-fidelity outputs
• Compute optimal number of evaluations for each model to minimize estimator variance
• Allocate computational budget according to the formula: m_i ∝ √(cost_i × ρ_i²/(1-ρ_i²)) where mi is the number of evaluations for model i, costi is its computational cost, and ρ_i is its correlation with the high-fidelity model

Stage 2: Control Variate Estimation

• Evaluate all selected models at their allocated sample counts
• Construct control variate estimator using the form: Q_MF = Q_HF + Σα_i×(Q_LF_i - μ_LF_i)
• Optimize control variate weights α_i to minimize variance
• Compute variance reduction factor compared to standard Monte Carlo

Stage 3: Convergence Verification

• Check statistical consistency of results
• Validate against limited high-fidelity-only estimation where feasible
• Quantify achieved variance reduction and computational savings

This protocol has demonstrated approximately four orders of magnitude improvement in mean squared error compared to standard Monte Carlo with high-fidelity models only [94].

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Components for Multi-Fidelity Implementation

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Fidelity Experimentation

Component	Function	Implementation Examples
Surrogate Model Base	Core approximation architecture	Gaussian Processes, Kriging, RBF, Polynomial Regression, Neural Networks [91] [90]
Fidelity Management	Algorithmic control of model selection	Multi-Fidelity Monte Carlo, Adaptive Fidelity Selection, Information Reuse [94]
Uncertainty Quantification	Statistical error estimation	Control Variates, Importance Sampling, Bayesian Inference [94]
Optimization Framework	Search and convergence mechanisms	Bayesian Optimization, Evolutionary Algorithms, Trust Region Methods [89] [95]
Correction Methods	Alignment of fidelity levels	Additive, Multiplicative, Comprehensive Correction, Space Mapping [93]
Benchmarking Suite	Performance validation	Analytical Test Functions, Engineering Case Studies, Statistical Metrics [91] [90]

Applications and Performance Analysis

Domain-Specific Implementations

Multi-fidelity methods have demonstrated significant impact across diverse scientific and engineering disciplines:

Aerospace and Fluid Dynamics: In aerodynamic design, multi-fidelity approaches commonly combine Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations (high-fidelity) with Euler equations, potential flow models, or linear analyses (lower-fidelity) [93]. This integration achieves accuracy comparable to high-fidelity models at 10-20% of the computational cost, enabling more comprehensive design space exploration.

Materials Science and Solid Mechanics: Applications in solid mechanics frequently leverage fidelity hierarchies based on dimensionality (1D-2D-3D), refinement level (coarse-fine meshes), or physical complexity (linear-nonlinear models) [93]. These approaches facilitate complex parameter studies and uncertainty quantification that would be infeasible using high-fidelity models exclusively.

Drug Development and Biomedical Applications: While not explicitly detailed in the search results, the principles of multi-fidelity modeling translate directly to computational drug discovery. Potential applications include combining high-fidelity molecular dynamics simulations with medium-fidelity docking studies and low-fidelity quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models, enabling more efficient screening of compound libraries and optimization of lead molecules.

Performance Metrics and Validation

Rigorous validation is essential for establishing the credibility of multi-fidelity approaches. Standardized performance assessment should include both computational efficiency and predictive accuracy metrics [90]:

Computational Efficiency Measures:

• Cost Ratio (MF/HF): Total computational cost of multi-fidelity approach relative to high-fidelity only
• Speed-up Factor: Ratio of solution times between conventional and multi-fidelity methods
• Function Evaluation Reduction: Percentage decrease in required high-fidelity evaluations

Predictive Accuracy Metrics:

• Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) against validation data
• Confidence Interval Coverage: Percentage of validation points falling within predictive intervals
• Maximum Absolute Error: Worst-case prediction discrepancy

Standardized reporting protocols, as exemplified in [90], should include low-fidelity to high-fidelity cost ratios (LF/HF), error ratios (Error LF/HF), multi-fidelity to high-fidelity cost ratios (MF/HF), and resulting error ratios (Error MF/HF) to enable fair cross-study comparisons.

Future Directions and Emerging Challenges

The multi-fidelity paradigm continues to evolve, with several promising research frontiers emerging:

Scalability and High-Dimensional Problems: Extending multi-fidelity approaches to problems with hundreds of design parameters remains challenging. Current research focuses on dimensionality reduction techniques and sparse modeling approaches to address this limitation [91] [95].

Adaptive Fidelity Management: Future systems will feature more sophisticated strategies for automatic fidelity selection during the optimization process, dynamically choosing which model to evaluate based on expected information gain per computational cost [95].

Integration with Machine Learning: Deep multi-fidelity neural networks and transfer learning approaches are showing promise for capturing complex, non-linear relationships between fidelity levels, particularly when large volumes of low-fidelity data are available [89] [95].

Human-in-the-Loop Optimization: Emerging frameworks seek to incorporate expert knowledge and intuition as additional "fidelity levels," creating collaborative optimization systems that leverage both computational models and human expertise [95].

As these advancements mature, the multi-fidelity paradigm will continue to expand the frontiers of computationally feasible optimization, enabling scientific and engineering discoveries in increasingly complex systems.

Ensuring Reliability: Validation, Interpretation, and Performance Benchmarks

Quantitative Validation Metrics for Predictive Accuracy and Robustness

In expensive black-box optimization (BBO) research, particularly in scientific domains like pharmaceutical development, evaluating proposed solutions through direct experimentation is often prohibitively costly or time-consuming. Surrogate models have emerged as a fundamental tool to address this challenge, serving as computationally efficient approximators for complex, opaque systems [13] [12]. The performance and reliability of these surrogates are, however, entirely contingent on rigorous validation. This technical guide provides an in-depth examination of quantitative validation metrics and methodologies essential for assessing the predictive accuracy and robustness of surrogate models within expensive BBO workflows, with a specific focus on applications in drug development.

The reliance on imperfect surrogates introduces significant risks, as these models can fail to generalize to unseen regions of the design space, especially for novel patient-treatment combinations in personalized medicine [12]. Consequently, a robust validation strategy is not merely a supplementary step but a critical component that determines the ultimate success of the optimization process. This document frames validation within the core triumvirate of model assessment—goodness-of-fit, robustness, and predictivity—as outlined by the OECD principles for Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship ([Q]SAR) models, providing a structured approach to quantifying model trustworthiness [96].

Core Quantitative Validation Metrics

Validation metrics provide the quantitative foundation for judging a surrogate model's performance. These metrics are typically categorized based on the aspect of model performance they evaluate and the data subsets used for their calculation.

Categorization by Validation Type

Table 1: Categorization of Core Validation Metrics

Validation Type	Primary Objective	Key Metrics	Typical Data Subset
Goodness-of-Fit	Measure how well the model reproduces data on which it was trained.	R², RMSE	Training Set [96]
Robustness (Internal Validation)	Assess model stability and sensitivity to perturbations in the training data.	Q²ˡᵒᵒ, Q²ˡᵐᵒ, RMSEˡᵒᵒ, RMSEˡᵐᵒ	Training Set (via resampling) [96]
Predictivity (External Validation)	Evaluate the model's ability to generalize to new, unseen data.	Q²ғ², RMSEғ, CCC	External Test Set [96]

Metric Definitions and Calculations

The following table details the formulations, interpretations, and ideal value ranges for the most critical validation metrics.

Table 2: Detailed Definitions of Key Validation Metrics

Metric Name	Mathematical Formulation	Interpretation	Ideal Value
R² (Coefficient of Determination)	R² = 1 - (SSᵣₑₛ/SSₜₒₜ) SSᵣₑₛ = Σ(yᵢ - ŷᵢ)², SSₜₒₜ = Σ(yᵢ - ȳ)²	Proportion of variance in the training data explained by the model. A higher value indicates a better fit. [96]	Close to 1.0
RMSE (Root Mean Square Error)	RMSE = √[Σ(yᵢ - ŷᵢ)² / n]	Measures the average magnitude of prediction error, in the same units as the response variable. [96]	Close to 0
Q² (Cross-validated R²)	Q² = 1 - (SSₚᵣₑ/SSₜₒₜ) SSₚᵣₑ = Σ(yᵢ - ŷᵢ,ₚᵣₑ)²	Indicates the model's predictive power within the training domain. A high Q² suggests robustness. [96]	> 0.5 (Acceptable) > 0.7 (Good) > 0.9 (Excellent)
Q²ғ² (External Predictive R²)	Q²ғ² = 1 - [Σ(yᵢ,ₜₑₛₜ - ŷᵢ,ₜₑₛₜ)² / Σ(yᵢ,ₜₑₛₜ - ȳₜᵣₐᵢₙ)²]	Measures the model's predictive power on an external test set, comparing error to the variance of the training set. [96]	> 0.5 (Acceptable) > 0.7 (Good) > 0.9 (Excellent)
CCC (Concordance Correlation Coefficient)	CCC = (2 * sₓᵧ) / (sₓ² + sᵧ² + (x̄ - ȳ)²)	Evaluates the agreement between two variables (e.g., observed vs. predicted) by measuring both precision and accuracy. [96]	Close to 1.0

Experimental Protocols for Validation

A rigorous validation protocol is essential for generating reliable and interpretable metric values. The following workflow and detailed methodologies ensure a comprehensive evaluation.

Diagram 1: Model Validation Workflow

Data Partitioning and Goodness-of-Fit Assessment

The initial and most critical step involves partitioning the available dataset into a training set and a strictly held-out external test set. The test set should be representative of the application domain and remain completely untouched during model training and parameter tuning [96]. The standard practice is a random split, often in an 80:20 or 70:30 ratio, though stratified sampling may be necessary for skewed datasets. The goodness-of-fit is then calculated by applying the trained model to the training data itself, yielding metrics like R² and RMSE. It is crucial to recognize that a high R² is necessary but not sufficient, as it can be artificially inflated by model overfitting, especially with small sample sizes [96].

Internal Validation: Robustness via Cross-Validation

Robustness evaluates the model's stability against small fluctuations in the training data. This is quantified using cross-validation (CV) techniques, which are a form of internal validation [96].

• Leave-One-Out (LOO) CV: Iteratively, a single data point is removed from the training set, the model is refit on the remaining n-1 points, and a prediction is made for the held-out point. The process repeats for all n points. The predictive residuals are pooled to compute Q²ˡᵒᵒ and RMSEË¡áµ’áµ’.
• Leave-Many-Out (LMO) / k-Fold CV: The training set is randomly divided into k subsets (folds). In each iteration, one fold is held out for validation, and the model is trained on the other k-1 folds. This is repeated until each fold has served as the validation set. The Q²ˡᵐᵒ and RMSEˡᵐᵒ are calculated from the pooled predictions. A common choice is k=5 or k=10.

Studies have shown that LOO and LMO parameters can be rescaled to each other, and the choice between them can be based on computational feasibility [96].

External Validation: Assessing True Predictivity

The ultimate test of a surrogate model's utility in BBO is its performance on genuinely new data. This is assessed using the external test set that was sequestered during the initial data partitioning [96]. The final model (trained on the entire training set) is used to predict the outcomes for the external test set. The discrepancies between these predictions (ŷᵢ,ₜₑₛₜ) and the actual observed values (yᵢ,ₜₑₛₜ) are used to compute metrics like Q²ғ², RMSEÒ“, and the Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC). A model is considered predictive only if it performs satisfactorily in this external validation. A significant drop in performance from internal (Q²) to external (Q²ғ²) validation is a classic indicator of overfitting.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing the described validation framework requires a suite of computational and methodological "reagents." The following table details essential components for a robust validation pipeline in surrogate-assisted BBO.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Model Validation

Item Name	Function / Purpose	Implementation Notes
Stratified Data Partitioner	Ensures training and test sets have similar distributions of critical features or response variables, preventing bias.	Crucial for imbalanced datasets (e.g., few active compounds among many inactive). Use scikit-learn's StratifiedShuffleSplit.
k-Fold Cross-Validator	Automates the process of splitting data into k folds, model refitting, and metric aggregation for internal validation.	The value of k trades off bias and computational cost; k=10 is a standard default. [96]
Y-Scrambling Routine	A technique to estimate and eliminate chance correlation. The response variable (Y) is randomly shuffled, and a new model is built. [96]	A model is valid only if its performance (e.g., R², Q²) is significantly better than that of models built on scrambled data.
Domain of Applicability (DoA) Checker	Identifies new query points for which the model's predictions are unreliable because they fall outside the chemical/feature space of the training set.	Prevents erroneous optimization in unsupported regions of the black-box function. Can use leverage, distance, or density-based methods.
Multi-Metric Aggregator	Computes and reports a comprehensive suite of validation metrics (R², Q², Q²ғ², RMSE, CCC, etc.) from a single set of predictions.	Provides a holistic view of model performance, as no single metric is sufficient.

Integration with Surrogate-Based Optimization

In BBO, the validated surrogate model becomes the core of the optimization loop. The framework described ensures that the optimizer navigates the design space using a reliable approximation. For instance, in pharmaceutical processes, a validated multi-objective surrogate can effectively map the trade-offs between yield, purity, and process mass intensity, guiding the search for Pareto-optimal solutions [13]. Furthermore, advanced methods like LEON (LLM-based Entropy-guided Optimization with kNowledgeable priors) leverage domain knowledge to constrain the optimization to regions where surrogate predictions are more likely to be reliable, thereby mitigating the risks of model failure on out-of-distribution points [12]. The relationship between model validation and the broader optimization context is illustrated below.

Diagram 2: Surrogate-Based Optimization Loop

The Critical Role of Uncertainty Quantification in Trustworthy Predictions

Optimizing expensive black-box systems represents a fundamental challenge across scientific and industrial domains, from wind farm design and autonomous vehicle control to drug discovery and material science [24]. These systems are characterized by complex, unknown input-output relationships without accessible gradient information, making each function evaluation computationally costly or time-consuming. Surrogate models have emerged as a powerful resolution—mathematical approximations that mimic the behavior of expensive black-box functions while being significantly cheaper to evaluate [24] [97]. However, a surrogate's predictive value hinges critically on a often-overlooked component: rigorous uncertainty quantification (UQ).

The integration of UQ transforms surrogate modeling from a simple approximation tool into a trustworthy foundation for decision-making under uncertainty. UQ systematically accounts for both epistemic uncertainty (related to limitations in the model itself or lack of training data) and aleatoric uncertainty (inherent probabilistic nature of the system being modeled) [98]. In the context of expensive black-box optimization, this enables researchers to make informed trade-offs between exploration (reducing model uncertainty in unexplored regions) and exploitation (leveraging known promising areas) [24]. This article provides an in-depth examination of UQ methodologies within surrogate-based optimization, with particular emphasis on applications in drug development where the cost of mischaracterized uncertainty can be exceptionally high.

Methodological Foundations of Uncertainty Quantification

Surrogate Modeling Approaches and Their UQ Capabilities

Several surrogate modeling approaches offer distinct mechanisms for uncertainty quantification, each with varying computational demands and theoretical foundations. The table below summarizes prominent techniques used in expensive black-box optimization contexts.

Table 1: Surrogate Modeling Approaches for Uncertainty Quantification

Model Type	UQ Methodology	Strengths	Limitations
Gaussian Process (GP) / Kriging [98] [97]	Provides natural posterior distribution over predictions	Strong theoretical foundation, well-calibrated uncertainty estimates	Cubic computational scaling with data size ((O(n^3)))
Tree-Knot MARS (TK-MARS) [24]	Smart replication approach for noisy outputs	Parsimonious, detects important variables, bends at near-optimal regions	Requires tailored replication strategy for UQ
Polynomial Chaos Expansion (PCE) [97]	Spectral representation of uncertainty propagation	Efficient with limited data, explicit functional representation	Accuracy degrades for highly irregular functions
Ensemble Methods [98] [99]	Variance across multiple model instances	Model-agnostic, parallelizable, handles complex distributions	Computationally expensive, requires multiple fittings
Bayesian Neural Networks [18]	Posterior distribution over network weights	Scalable to high dimensions, flexible representation	Complex training, computationally intensive

Advanced UQ Techniques for Enhanced Reliability

Beyond the inherent UQ capabilities of individual surrogate models, several advanced techniques enhance uncertainty quantification:

Smart Replication: Specifically designed for black-box functions with outcome uncertainty, this approach identifies promising input points for replication while avoiding unnecessary evaluations of other data points. Critically, it self-adapts to unknown noise levels, providing robust uncertainty quantification in both low-noise and high-noise environments without manual tuning [24].

Surrogate Gaussian Process Regression: This model-agnostic approach enhances any base deterministic model with reasonable uncertainty estimates by training a supplementary GP surrogate on the base model's predictions. The method requires only the base model as a black box and its training data, offering computational efficiency without data-specific assumptions [98].

Polynomial Chaos Kriging: This hybrid approach combines the strengths of PCE and Kriging, using the PCE as a trend component for the Kriging model. This integration provides enhanced uncertainty quantification capabilities, particularly for complex physical systems with heterogeneous uncertainty structures [97].

Experimental Protocols and Implementation Frameworks

Protocol 1: UQ-Enhanced Surrogate Optimization Algorithm

This protocol outlines the complete workflow for implementing uncertainty-aware surrogate optimization, adapting methodologies from multiple sources [24] [97].

Step 1: Initial Experimental Design

• Generate initial sampling points using space-filling designs (e.g., Latin Hypercube Sampling) across the input parameter space
• Ensure samples capture the full operational domain of the black-box function
• Evaluate initial samples using the expensive black-box function to create training data

Step 2: Surrogate Model Construction and Training

• Select appropriate surrogate model based on problem characteristics (dimensionality, expected smoothness, evaluation budget)
• Train surrogate model on available data, employing hyperparameter optimization if necessary
• For ensemble approaches, train multiple instances with different initializations or data subsets

Step 3: Uncertainty Quantification and Model Validation

• Compute posterior predictive distributions for all trained models
• Validate surrogate predictions against hold-out data or through cross-validation
• Calculate validation metrics such as leave-out-error ((\varepsilon{LOO})): (\varepsilon{LOO} = \frac{1}{NK} \left[ \frac{\sum{i=1}^{NK} (\mathcal{M}(xi) - \mathcal{M}{(-i)} (xi))^2}{Var \left[ \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{X})\right]} \right]) [97]
• Apply necessary model corrections or refinements based on validation results

Step 4: Acquisition Function Optimization

• Define acquisition function that balances exploration and exploitation (e.g., Expected Improvement, Lower Confidence Bound)
• Optimize acquisition function to identify next evaluation points
• For noisy environments, implement smart replication at promising points [24]

Step 5: Iterative Refinement and Termination

• Evaluate black-box function at selected points
• Update surrogate model with new data
• Repeat steps 2-5 until convergence or evaluation budget exhaustion
• Return final optimum with associated uncertainty estimates

Figure 1: Workflow for UQ-enhanced surrogate optimization

Protocol 2: Surrogate Uncertainty Estimation for Black-Box Models (BAMOES)

This protocol details the BAMOES methodology for equipping pre-trained deterministic models with uncertainty quantification capabilities [98].

Input Requirements: Pre-trained base model functioning as a black box; training dataset used for base model; representative validation dataset.

Implementation Steps:

• Base Model Prediction Generation: Run base model on training data to generate prediction values for all data points
• Surrogate Model Selection: Select Gaussian Process Regression as surrogate model class for its natural uncertainty quantification properties
• Loss Function Specification: Implement custom loss function that:
  • Constrains surrogate to have similar predictions to base model
  • Ensures surrogate accurately models prediction uncertainty
  • Can be efficiently calculated without expensive sampling
• Surrogate Model Training: Train GP surrogate on base model's input-output pairs using designed experimental framework
• Combined Model Deployment: Deploy combined system where base model provides mean predictions and surrogate provides uncertainty estimates

Validation Framework:

• Compare uncertainty estimates to known confidence intervals on validation data
• Assess calibration of predictive distributions using probability integral transform
• Benchmark against bootstrap methods and model-specific approaches

Table 2: Performance Comparison of UQ Methods Across Model Types

Base Model	UQ Method	Confidence Interval Accuracy	Computational Overhead
Linear Regression	Built-in	3.062	Low
Linear Regression	Bootstrap	2.825	High
Linear Regression	Surrogate (BAMOES)	1.862	Medium
ARIMA	Built-in	2.830	Low
ARIMA	Bootstrap	1.734	High
ARIMA	Surrogate (BAMOES)	2.372	Medium
Gradient Boosting	Built-in	3.435	Low
Gradient Boosting	Bootstrap	2.826	High
Gradient Boosting	Surrogate (BAMOES)	1.946	Medium

Note: Confidence interval accuracy measured as negative log-likelihood (lower is better). Data adapted from [98].

Domain-Specific Applications: Drug Development Case Studies

Model-Informed Drug Development (MIDD)

In pharmaceutical applications, surrogate models with robust UQ play increasingly critical roles in accelerating development timelines while maintaining rigorous safety standards. The "fit-for-purpose" paradigm emphasizes aligning MIDD tools with specific questions of interest and contexts of use throughout the drug development pipeline [18].

Key Application Areas:

• First-in-Human Dose Prediction: Integration of toxicokinetic PK, allometric scaling, and semi-mechanistic PK/PD models with UQ to determine starting doses and escalation schemes [18]
• Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Modeling: Prediction of biological activity based on chemical structure with uncertainty bounds to prioritize compound synthesis [18]
• Virtual Screening Surrogates: Machine learning models that replace molecular docking to increase throughput by 80x while maintaining accuracy, with uncertainty estimates guiding screening prioritization [100]
• Pharmacokinetic Prediction: AI-driven models (GNNs, Transformers, Ensemble methods) predicting absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion parameters with R² values up to 0.92, with UQ enabling go/no-go decisions [99]

Biomarkers as Surrogate Endpoints

The validation and utilization of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints represents a particularly consequential application of UQ principles in drug development. Properly validated surrogate endpoints can accelerate early-phase development and support regulatory approval, but require rigorous uncertainty characterization [3].

Validation Framework for Surrogate Endpoints:

• Analytical Validation: Assessment of assay sensitivity, specificity, and reliability
• Clinical Validation: Demonstration of ability to detect or predict disease states
• Surrogacy Validation: Establishment of robust empirical evidence linking surrogate to meaningful clinical outcomes

The integration of UQ throughout this framework guards against misleading conclusions that can arise from improperly validated surrogates, emphasizing that clinical endpoints remain the gold standard for evaluating patient benefit whenever feasible [3].

Figure 2: Uncertainty validation for biomarker surrogacy

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Computational Research Reagents for UQ in Surrogate Modeling

Tool/Category	Function	Representative Examples
Surrogate Models	Approximate expensive black-box functions	TK-MARS [24], Gaussian Processes [98] [97], Polynomial Chaos Expansion [97]
UQ Methodologies	Quantify predictive uncertainty	Smart Replication [24], Bootstrap [98], Bayesian Inference [18]
Optimization Algorithms	Balance exploration-exploitation tradeoffs	Expected Improvement, Lower Confidence Bound, Tree-Structured Parzen Estimators
Benchmarking Sets	Validate method performance	DUD-E (diverse active binders and decoys) [100], TSForecasting [98], Global optimization test functions [24]
Software Libraries	Implement surrogate modeling and UQ	scikit-learn [100], GPy, UQLab, SUQDS

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite significant advances, substantial challenges remain in uncertainty quantification for surrogate modeling. Visualization of ensemble data and surrogate models presents particular difficulties, especially in reconciling and clearly communicating the unique uncertainties associated with ensembles and their surrogate estimates [101] [102]. High-dimensional spaces exacerbate these challenges, requiring innovative approaches to bridge discrete datasets with their continuous representations.

Future research directions should address several critical frontiers:

• Scalable UQ Methods: Developing computationally efficient UQ techniques for ultra-high-dimensional problems
• Deep Integration with AI: Leveraging advances in deep learning while maintaining rigorous uncertainty quantification
• Standardized Validation Metrics: Establishing domain-specific benchmarks for evaluating UQ quality across applications
• Human-in-the-Loop Systems: Designing interactive visualization tools that effectively communicate uncertainty to support decision-making [101]

The integration of these advances will further establish uncertainty quantification as an indispensable component of trustworthy predictive modeling in expensive black-box optimization, particularly in high-stakes domains like drug development where the cost of unquantified uncertainty can be measured in both economic and human terms.

The adoption of complex, non-linear models in critical domains like drug discovery and engineering design has created a pressing need for interpretability methods that can unravel the decision-making processes of these black-box systems. Within the specific context of expensive black-box optimization—where each function evaluation may require massive computational resources or costly physical experiments—surrogate models have emerged as indispensable tools for approximating system behavior. However, the insights gained from these surrogates are only as valuable as our ability to interpret them. This technical guide examines two powerful interpretability methodologies: Partial Dependence Plots (PDP) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), framing their capabilities and limitations within surrogate-assisted optimization pipelines. As researchers increasingly rely on ensemble surrogates and Bayesian optimization frameworks to navigate high-dimensional design spaces, understanding how to properly interpret these models becomes paramount for extracting meaningful scientific insights and making reliable engineering decisions [59] [103].

The fundamental challenge in expensive black-box optimization stems from the computational intractability of exhaustively evaluating objective functions, particularly when dealing with large-scale problems involving hundreds or thousands of dimensions. Surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithms and Bayesian optimization methods have demonstrated remarkable success in addressing this challenge by building computationally efficient proxies for expensive simulations [104] [105]. Yet without proper interpretability, these models remain inscrutable black boxes themselves, potentially hiding biases or yielding recommendations without transparent justification. This guide provides researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with both the theoretical foundation and practical methodologies needed to implement these interpretability techniques within their optimization workflows.

Theoretical Foundations of Interpretability

The Role of Interpretability in Scientific Discovery

Interpretability methods serve as crucial bridges between complex model predictions and human understanding, enabling researchers to validate model behavior, generate hypotheses, and establish trust in computational recommendations. In the context of surrogate-assisted optimization, interpretability transcends mere convenience—it becomes a necessary component for scientific validation. The ability to explain why a particular region of the design space appears promising or why certain parameters strongly influence objectives allows researchers to connect computational findings with domain knowledge, potentially leading to novel scientific insights [103].

The necessity for interpretability is particularly acute in regulated domains like pharmaceutical development, where understanding cause-and-effect relationships can be as important as predictive accuracy itself. Model explanations provide a mechanism for subject matter experts to assess whether a model's behavior aligns with established scientific principles or suggests new phenomena worthy of further investigation. This validation loop is essential before committing substantial resources to experimental verification based on computational recommendations [106] [107].

Taxonomy of Interpretability Methods

Interpretability approaches generally fall into two categories: model-specific and model-agnostic methods. Model-specific interpretability relies on intrinsic properties of particular algorithms, such as coefficient examinations in linear models or feature importance in tree-based methods. While often computationally efficient, these approaches constrain model selection to inherently interpretable architectures, which may lack the expressive power needed for complex, high-dimensional optimization problems.

Model-agnostic methods, including both PDP and SHAP, operate by analyzing input-output relationships of already-trained models without regard to their internal mechanics. This flexibility makes them particularly valuable in surrogate-assisted optimization, where ensembles often combine multiple modeling techniques—such as Radial Basis Functions (RBF), Kriging, Polynomial Response Surfaces, and Neural Networks—to achieve robust performance across diverse problem domains [59]. By applying consistent interpretability frameworks across these heterogeneous modeling approaches, researchers can develop unified understanding of complex systems.

Partial Dependence Plots (PDP)

Theoretical Framework and Algorithm

Partial Dependence Plots visualize the relationship between a subset of input features and the predicted outcome while averaging out the effects of all other features. For a given machine learning model (f(X)) and a subset of features (X_S), the partial dependence function is estimated as:

[ PDS(XS) = \frac{1}{N} \sum{i=1}^{N} f(XS, X_{C}^{(i)}) ]

where (X{C}^{(i)}) represents the values of the other features (complement set) for each instance in the training data, and (N) is the number of instances. The resulting plot shows how the predicted outcome changes as the features of interest (XS) vary while other features assume their natural distribution from the dataset.

The computational procedure for generating PDPs involves these specific steps:

• Model Training: Train a surrogate model (f(X)) on the available expensive function evaluations
• Grid Formation: Create a grid of values for the target features (X_S)
• Dataset Replication: For each grid point, create a modified dataset where (XS) is fixed but (XC) comes from the original training data
• Prediction: Obtain predictions from (f(X)) for each replicated dataset
• Averaging: Average predictions across all data points for each grid value
• Visualization: Plot the averaged predictions against the grid values

Applications in Optimization Workflows

In surrogate-assisted optimization, PDPs serve multiple critical functions. During the initial exploration phase, they help identify which design parameters exert the strongest influence on the objective function, allowing researchers to focus experimental resources on the most promising directions. When analyzing optimization results, PDPs reveal whether the recommended optimal configurations align with domain knowledge, serving as a sanity check before proceeding with costly physical validations [108].

PDPs have proven particularly valuable in engineering design optimization contexts, where understanding parametric relationships guides subsequent design iterations. For instance, in acoustic metamaterial design—a domain characterized by expensive finite element simulations—PDPs can illustrate how variations in material hardness, void size, or inclusion geometry affect sound absorption coefficients across frequency ranges. These insights not only validate the optimization trajectory but may reveal underlying physical principles that inform broader design strategies [103].

Limitations and Vulnerabilities

Despite their intuitive appeal, PDPs possess significant limitations that researchers must acknowledge. A critical vulnerability emerges from their assumption of feature independence—when features are correlated, PDPs may create unrealistic combinations of feature values that fall outside the actual data distribution, leading to misleading interpretations [108].

More concerningly, recent research has demonstrated that PDPs can be deliberately manipulated to hide discriminatory behaviors in models. An adversarial framework can modify black-box models to produce deceptive PDPs that conceal discriminatory patterns while preserving most original predictions. Through careful manipulation of predictions for instances in the extrapolation domain—precisely the regions where PDPs are most vulnerable—malicious actors can make biased models appear neutral through interpretation tools like PDPs [108].

This vulnerability has profound implications for optimization in regulated domains like drug development, where model transparency is essential for regulatory compliance and ethical considerations. The table below summarizes key limitations and potential mitigation strategies:

Table: Partial Dependence Plots - Limitations and Mitigations

Limitation	Impact on Interpretation	Mitigation Strategies
Feature Independence Assumption	Creates unrealistic data combinations when features are correlated	Supplement with Individual Conditional Expectation (ICE) plots
Extrapolation Vulnerability	Unreliable in regions with little/no training data	Visualize training data distribution alongside PDP
Averaging Effects	Obscures heterogeneous relationships across subgroups	Stratify analysis across meaningful data segments
Manipulation Potential	Can hide biased or discriminatory patterns	Implement multiple complementary interpretability methods

SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)

Theoretical Underpinnings

SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) represents a unified approach to interpreting model predictions based on cooperative game theory. The method computes Shapley values—a concept originating from equitable resource allocation in cooperative games—to quantify the contribution of each feature to individual predictions. For a given instance (x), the SHAP explanation model (g(x')) is defined as:

[ g(x') = \phi0 + \sum{i=1}^{M} \phii x'i ]

where (x' \in {0,1}^M) represents simplified binary features indicating presence or absence of each original feature, (\phi0) is the base value (the average model prediction), and (\phii) is the Shapley value for feature (i), representing its contribution to the prediction difference from the base value.

The computation of Shapley values follows the principle of fairly distributing the "payout" (prediction) among the "players" (features):

[ \phii(f,x) = \sum{S \subseteq M \setminus {i}} \frac{|S|! (M-|S|-1)!}{M!} [fx(S \cup {i}) - fx(S)] ]

where (S) is a subset of features, (M) is the total number of features, and (f_x(S)) is the model prediction for instance (x) using only the feature subset (S).

SHAP in Bayesian Optimization Frameworks

The integration of SHAP with Bayesian optimization represents a significant advancement for expensive black-box problems. Researchers have developed frameworks where SHAP analysis automatically refines optimization bounds by identifying key parameters influencing the objective function. This SHAP-informed guidance enables more targeted exploration of the design space, significantly accelerating convergence to optimal solutions [103].

In practice, this integration follows a systematic workflow: after an initial set of expensive evaluations, a surrogate model is trained and analyzed using SHAP to identify features with strictly negative contributions across the design space. The optimization bounds for these features are then automatically tightened, excluding regions unlikely to contain global optima. This approach has demonstrated remarkable efficiency gains in applications ranging from underwater acoustic metamaterial design to drug formulation optimization, achieving improved solutions without increasing the number of expensive evaluations [103].

Table: SHAP Value Applications in Optimization Contexts

Application Context	Implementation Approach	Demonstrated Benefit
Design Space Pruning	Exclude parameter ranges with consistently negative SHAP values	30-50% reduction in evaluations needed for convergence
Feature Prioritization	Rank parameters by mean absolute SHAP values	Focus computational budget on most influential factors
Constraint Definition	Identify parameter interactions that affect feasibility	More accurate constraint modeling in high-dimensional spaces
Multi-fidelity Optimization	Guide allocation of high-fidelity evaluations based on SHAP	Improved Pareto front approximation with limited budget

Comparative Advantages

SHAP offers several distinct advantages over other interpretability methods in the context of expensive optimization. Unlike PDPs, SHAP accounts for feature dependencies by evaluating all possible feature coalitions, providing more reliable attributions when correlations exist. Furthermore, SHAP delivers both local explanations (for individual predictions) and global insights (across the entire dataset), enabling researchers to understand both specific recommendations and overall model behavior [103].

The strong theoretical foundation based on Shapley values ensures that SHAP explanations satisfy desirable properties including local accuracy (the explanation model matches the original model for the specific instance being explained), missingness (features absent in the original input receive no attribution), and consistency (if a model changes so that a feature's contribution increases, the SHAP value for that feature does not decrease). These mathematical guarantees are particularly valuable in optimization contexts where explanations inform critical resource allocation decisions.

Methodological Implementation

Experimental Protocols for Interpretability Analysis

Implementing robust interpretability analysis within surrogate-assisted optimization requires careful experimental design. The following protocol outlines a standardized approach for comparing PDP and SHAP methods:

Phase 1: Surrogate Model Training

• Execute space-filling design (e.g., Latin Hypercube Sampling) to obtain initial expensive function evaluations
• Train ensemble surrogate models combining at least three different modeling techniques (e.g., RBF, Kriging, Polynomial Regression)
• Validate surrogate accuracy using cross-validation and holdout samples
• Select optimal surrogate ensemble using weight allocation based on prediction accuracy metrics [59]

Phase 2: Interpretability Method Application

• Generate PDP plots for all input parameters using 100 grid points and 500 instances for averaging
• Compute SHAP values for all training instances using KernelSHAP or TreeSHAP as appropriate
• Create summary plots (force plots, dependence plots) for SHAP analysis
• Identify potentially misleading interpretations by comparing against known domain knowledge

Phase 3: Optimization Guidance

• Implement SHAP-informed bound adjustment for Bayesian optimization
• Monitor optimization progress with and without interpretability guidance
• Compare convergence rates and final solution quality
• Perform statistical significance testing on performance differences

This protocol ensures consistent evaluation across different problem domains while maintaining methodological rigor essential for scientific and engineering applications.

Workflow Integration

The diagram below illustrates how interpretability methods integrate within a comprehensive surrogate-assisted optimization workflow:

Case Studies in Drug Discovery and Engineering

Pharmaceutical Development Applications

The pharmaceutical industry has emerged as a primary beneficiary of interpretable surrogate-assisted optimization, particularly in accelerating drug discovery and development processes. AI-driven platforms now leverage these methods to identify novel drug targets, design optimal molecular structures, and streamline clinical trial designs—reducing development timelines from years to months in some notable cases [106] [109].

A compelling example comes from Insilico Medicine, which utilized an AI platform incorporating interpretability methods to design a novel drug candidate for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in just 18 months—compared to the 3-6 years typical of conventional approaches. The platform employed SHAP analysis to explain molecular generation recommendations, enabling medicinal chemists to understand which structural features contributed most strongly to desired properties like binding affinity and metabolic stability. This transparency was crucial for building confidence in the computational recommendations before proceeding with synthetic validation [109].

In biopharmaceutical manufacturing, interpretability methods have optimized critical process parameters for monoclonal antibody production. Researchers constructed surrogate models relating bioreactor conditions (temperature, pH, nutrient feed rates) to product yield and quality attributes, then applied PDPs to identify optimal operating ranges while maintaining regulatory compliance. The resulting optimizations increased product titers by 25% while reducing undesirable byproducts—demonstrating how interpretability translates directly to economic and quality improvements [106].

Engineering Design Optimization

Engineering domains characterized by expensive simulations have widely adopted interpretable surrogate-assisted optimization. The design of underwater acoustic metamaterial coatings exemplifies this trend, where researchers combined finite element simulations with Bayesian optimization enhanced by SHAP analysis. By interpreting the surrogate models, the team identified that coating thickness and polyurethane hardness dominated low-frequency absorption performance, while void geometry primarily affected resonance characteristics. These insights enabled a 40% reduction in the number of expensive simulations required to identify optimal configurations [103].

A similar approach has proven successful in large-scale expensive optimization problems (LSEOPs) involving hundreds of dimensions. The SA-LSEO-LE algorithm employs surrogate ensembles with local exploitation strategies, using interpretability methods to guide the decomposition of high-dimensional problems into tractable subproblems. This divide-and-conquer approach, informed by feature importance analysis, has successfully solved real-world power system optimization problems with 1200 decision variables—demonstrating scalability to exceptionally complex design spaces [104].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing interpretability methods requires specialized computational tools and frameworks. The following table details essential components of the interpretability toolkit for surrogate-assisted optimization:

Table: Essential Research Reagents for Interpretability Analysis

Tool/Component	Function	Implementation Notes
SHAP Library	Computes Shapley values for any model	Use TreeSHAP for tree models (fast exact computation), KernelSHAP for model-agnostic applications
PDP Implementation	Generates partial dependence plots	Implement with parallel processing for large datasets
Surrogate Model Ensembles	Combines multiple surrogate types	Weight by Akaike Information Criterion or cross-validation error
Bayesian Optimization	Efficient global optimization	Use expected improvement or upper confidence bound acquisition functions
Experimental Design	Space-filling initial sampling	Latin Hypercube Sampling maximizes information from limited evaluations

Implementation Considerations

Successful implementation of interpretability methods requires careful attention to computational constraints and domain-specific requirements. For high-dimensional problems, dimension reduction techniques may be necessary before applying PDP analysis to avoid the curse of dimensionality. Similarly, SHAP computation time grows exponentially with feature count, though approximation methods like KernelSHAP and specialized algorithms for tree-based models mitigate this concern [103].

In regulated environments like pharmaceutical development, documentation of interpretability methods becomes as important as the analyses themselves. Researchers should maintain detailed records of surrogate model specifications, interpretability method parameters, and any bound adjustments informed by these analyses. This documentation supports regulatory submissions and facilitates knowledge transfer across research teams.

The integration of interpretability methods with surrogate-assisted optimization continues to evolve rapidly. Emerging research focuses on developing more computationally efficient Shapley value approximations, addressing the method's exponential complexity in high-dimensional spaces. Similarly, methods for interpreting increasingly complex surrogate ensembles—including deep neural networks and hierarchical modeling approaches—represent an active area of investigation [59] [104].

The development of inherently interpretable surrogate models presents another promising direction. Rather than applying post hoc interpretability methods to black-box surrogates, researchers are exploring modeling approaches that maintain predictive performance while offering transparent reasoning processes. These efforts align with growing regulatory emphasis on explainable AI in critical applications like drug development and medical device design [107] [109].

As optimization problems grow in dimension and complexity, the symbiotic relationship between surrogate modeling and interpretability methods will only strengthen. Partial Dependence Plots and SHAP values, despite their distinct theoretical foundations and implementation considerations, together provide a comprehensive framework for understanding complex systems across scientific and engineering domains. By systematically implementing these interpretability approaches within optimization workflows, researchers can accelerate discovery while maintaining the scientific rigor essential for validation and regulatory approval.

In computational science and engineering, researchers often face expensive black-box optimization problems where a single evaluation of the objective function requires running computationally intensive simulations or conducting physical experiments. This computational burden makes traditional optimization approaches impractical. Two dominant paradigms have emerged to address this challenge: direct optimization using gradient-based methods and surrogate-assisted optimization employing approximation models.

This technical guide provides an in-depth comparison of these approaches, framing the analysis within the broader context of expensive black-box optimization research. For researchers in fields including drug development, aerospace engineering, and computational fluid dynamics, selecting the appropriate optimization strategy has significant implications for both computational resource allocation and solution quality.

Core Methodologies

Direct Optimization Approaches

Direct optimization methods operate by directly querying the expensive objective function during the search process. The most efficient direct approaches utilize gradient information to navigate the design space:

• Adjoint-Based Methods: These techniques compute gradients efficiently by solving adjoint equations, making them particularly suitable for problems with many design variables but few constraints. In aerodynamic shape optimization, adjoint methods have demonstrated capability to produce designs comparable to high-dimensional shape parameterization approaches [110].

• Algorithm Characteristics: Adjoint methods typically require problem-specific implementation of the adjoint equations and are most effective when gradient information is reliable and computable. Their efficiency stems from the fact that the computational cost of calculating gradients via adjoints is nearly independent of the number of design variables [110].

Surrogate-Assisted Optimization Approaches

Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms (SAEAs) replace the expensive objective function with computationally efficient approximation models, also known as metamodels or surrogate models [111]. These approaches typically follow a iterative process of model building and refinement:

• Surrogate Model Types: Commonly used surrogates include Kriging (Gaussian Process) models, Radial Basis Functions (RBFs), Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), and polynomial response surfaces [16] [111]. Kriging models often outperform other surrogates for low-dimensional problems, while RBFs show greater efficiency for high-dimensional optimization [111].

• Model Management Strategies: The performance of SAEAs critically depends on how surrogates are managed and updated. Three predominant strategies include pre-selection (PS), which shows steady improvement with increasing surrogate accuracy; individual-based (IB), which performs robustly beyond certain accuracy thresholds; and generation-based (GB), which demonstrates strong performance across a wide accuracy range [112].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Computational Efficiency Metrics

Table 1: Comparative Performance Metrics for Optimization Approaches

Metric	Direct Optimization	Surrogate-Assisted Optimization
Function Evaluations Required	Moderate to high (uses actual function)	Low (majority use surrogate evaluations) [111]
Computational Cost per Iteration	High (especially for adjoint methods)	Low (surrogate evaluation negligible) [111]
Convergence Speed (Initial Phases)	Rapid once gradient information is available	Slower initial setup, but faster overall convergence to good solutions [110]
Solution Quality	High (particularly for local optimization)	Competitive, with global search potential [110]
Dimensionality Scaling	Efficient for high-dimensional problems	Performance depends on surrogate type [111]
Parallelization Potential	Limited for gradient computation	High (multiple surrogate evaluations can be parallelized)

Performance Across Problem Domains

Table 2: Application-Based Performance Comparison

Application Domain	Direct Optimization Performance	Surrogate-Assisted Optimization Performance	Key Findings
Aerodynamic Design [110]	Produces comparable designs using adjoint methods	Physics-based SBO shows rapid design improvement at low computational cost	Derivative-free methods may compete with adjoint-based algorithms in surrogate-assisted frameworks
Computational Fluid Dynamics [111]	Not benchmarked in study	11 state-of-the-art SAEAs evaluated; newer methods and those using Differential Evolution performed significantly better	Real-world CFD problems present different challenges compared to artificial benchmark problems
Chemical Process Optimization [16]	Not explicitly covered	ALAMO most computationally efficient in "one-shot" optimization; Kriging and ANN converge fastest with trust-region framework	Surrogate type significantly impacts solution reliability and computational demand
Expensive Black-Box Multi-Objective Problems [63]	Not the focus of the study	Effective for finding good Pareto front approximations with few expensive simulations	Separate surrogates for each objective function with active learning framework provides strong performance

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking Methodologies

Benchmarking Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms

Comprehensive benchmarking of optimization algorithms requires standardized methodologies to ensure fair comparison:

• Problem Selection: Studies should include both artificial benchmark functions (e.g., from CEC competitions) and real-world expensive problems [111]. Artificial problems enable controlled testing, while real-world problems (e.g., CFD simulations) reveal performance in practical applications.

• Performance Metrics: Key metrics include solution quality (best objective value found), robustness (consistency across multiple runs), and convergence properties (rate of improvement over evaluations) [111].

• Budget Constraints: Experiments should impose strict limits on the number of expensive function evaluations (typically 50-500 for truly expensive problems) to simulate real-world constraints [111].

A recent study benchmarking 11 state-of-the-art SAEAs on CFD problems found that methods utilizing Differential Evolution as an optimization mechanism generally performed better, as did more recently published algorithms [111].

Surrogate Model Accuracy Management

The accuracy of surrogate models significantly impacts SAEA performance. Key experimental considerations include:

• Accuracy Thresholds: Research indicates that SAEAs with surrogate accuracy above 0.6 (measured as prediction accuracy) consistently outperform baselines without surrogates [112].

• Accuracy-Strategy Interaction: The optimal model management strategy depends on surrogate accuracy levels. Generation-based strategies perform best across wide accuracy ranges, individual-based strategies excel at lower accuracies, and pre-selection strategies work best at higher accuracies [112].

• Adaptive Techniques: For offline optimization, designs can be pre-optimized using efficiency criteria. For online applications, adaptive designs can optimize stimuli selection in real-time based on incoming data [113].

Direct Optimization Experimental Setup

Benchmarking direct optimization methods requires different methodological considerations:

• Gradient Computation: Studies should compare analytical gradients (when available) against adjoint-based methods and finite-difference approximations [110].

• Convergence Criteria: Standardized convergence tolerances enable fair comparison between different direct optimization approaches.

• Problem Scaling: Experiments should test performance across varying problem dimensions to establish scalability limitations [110].

Visualization of Optimization Approaches

Fundamental Workflow Comparison

Surrogate Management Strategies

Optimization Frameworks and Libraries

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Type	Function/Purpose	Application Context
ALAMO [16]	Surrogate Modeling Tool	Automated Learning of Algebraic Models for Optimization; provides high computational efficiency	Chemical process optimization; one-shot optimization problems
Kriging/Gaussian Process [16] [111]	Surrogate Model	Provides statistical interpolation with uncertainty estimates; high accuracy for low-dimensional problems	Expensive black-box optimization with limited evaluations
Radial Basis Functions (RBF) [16] [111]	Surrogate Model	Approximation method using radial symmetry; efficient for high-dimensional problems	Computational fluid dynamics; high-dimensional optimization
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) [16]	Surrogate Model	Flexible function approximators capable of modeling complex nonlinear relationships	Problems with complex, highly nonlinear response surfaces
Trust-Region Filter (TRF) [16]	Optimization Strategy	Manages model accuracy during optimization; improves solution reliability	Ensuring convergence in surrogate-based optimization
FUN3D/Stanford Unstructured [110]	Direct Optimization Solver	Adjoint-based optimization frameworks for computational fluid dynamics	Aerodynamic shape optimization problems
SurroOpt [110]	Surrogate-Based Framework	Approximation-based optimization exploiting surrogate models	General expensive black-box optimization problems
VBA Toolbox [113]	Design Optimization	Optimizes experimental designs for parameter estimation or model comparison	Psychological and psychophysical experiments; adaptive design

The choice between surrogate-assisted and direct optimization approaches depends critically on problem characteristics, computational constraints, and solution requirements. Direct optimization methods, particularly adjoint-based approaches, excel in problems where gradient information is reliably computable and computational resources permit extensive simulation. Their strength lies in rapid convergence to high-quality local solutions for high-dimensional problems.

Conversely, surrogate-assisted approaches offer significant advantages when dealing with severely limited evaluation budgets, highly nonlinear response surfaces, or need for global exploration. The performance of SAEAs is intimately tied to surrogate model accuracy and management strategy, with research indicating clear thresholds (accuracy > 0.6) for reliable performance improvement over direct approaches.

For practitioners in drug development and other research fields facing expensive black-box problems, hybrid approaches that leverage the strengths of both paradigms may offer the most promising direction. Future research should focus on adaptive strategies that automatically select and refine optimization approaches based on problem characteristics and intermediate results.

Comparative Analysis of Single vs. Ensemble Surrogate Strategies

In the field of expensive black-box optimization, where each function evaluation may involve a computationally intensive simulation or a costly physical experiment, surrogate models have become an indispensable tool. These models, also known as metamodels or emulators, are approximate mathematical models constructed to mimic the behavior of a complex system while being computationally cheaper to evaluate [20]. The core challenge they address is alleviating the prohibitive cost of routine tasks like design optimization and sensitivity analysis, which would otherwise require thousands or millions of simulation evaluations [20]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of two fundamental approaches to surrogate modeling: the use of a Single Surrogate Model (SSM) and the strategically combined use of multiple models, known as Ensemble Surrogate Models, within the context of advanced black-box optimization research.

Single Surrogate Models (SSMs): Capabilities and Limitations

Definition and Common Types

A Single Surrogate Model is a standalone approximation of the input-output relationship of a complex simulator. The construction of an SSM is a data-driven process that relies on the input-output behavior of the simulator, without necessarily understanding its inner workings [20]. Popular SSM approaches include:

• Polynomial Response Surfaces: Simple, interpretable models effective for low-dimensional, low-nonlinearity problems.
• Gaussian Processes (Kriging): Provide not only predictions but also an estimate of uncertainty (standard error), which is highly valuable for optimization [20].
• Radial Basis Functions: Utilize basis functions that depend on the distance from a point to a center.
• Artificial Neural Networks: Flexible, multi-layer networks capable of capturing complex, non-linear relationships [20].
• Support Vector Machines: Effective for high-dimensional problems [20].

Challenges in SSM Selection and Performance

The primary challenge with SSMs is that their performance is highly problem-dependent. Without sufficient prior information, selecting the most appropriate SSM for a given problem is difficult [114]. An SSM that excels for one class of problem (e.g., low-dimensional, polynomial) may perform poorly for another (e.g., high-dimensional, discontinuous). This performance dependency arises from factors including the model's inherent characteristics, the nature of the problem (e.g., dimensionality, non-linearity), and the design of experiments used to generate the training data [114].

Ensemble Surrogate Models: Enhanced Robustness and Accuracy

Fundamental Principles and Motivation

Ensemble surrogate models are computational frameworks that strategically combine multiple SSMs to improve overall predictive accuracy, robustness, and uncertainty quantification [115]. The core principle is to exploit the diversity and complementary strengths of individual member surrogates. While one SSM might be accurate in one region of the design space, another might perform better in a different region; the ensemble aims to synergistically integrate these local strengths [114].

Mathematically, the output of an ensemble of M surrogates is typically defined as a weighted sum: ŷ(x) = ∑_{m=1}^{M} w_m(x) f_m(x; θ_m) where f_m is the prediction of the m-th surrogate model, and w_m is its corresponding weight, which can be constant or vary across the design space (x) [115] [114].

Key Ensemble Strategies

Ensemble methods are broadly categorized by how they assign weights to constituent models:

• Average Ensembles: Each SSM is assigned a fixed weight across the entire design space, often based on a global performance metric like cross-validation error [114].
• Pointwise (or Adaptive) Ensembles: The weight assigned to each SSM varies adaptively across different regions of the design space based on local performance [114]. This approach is generally more accurate as it leverages the local proficiency of SSMs. The recently proposed Pointwise Ensemble based on Local Optimal Surrogate (PE-LOS) is a state-of-the-art example that defines optimal SSMs for local regions using pointwise cross-validation error and constructs a benchmark model for smooth, pointwise weighting [114].

Quantitative Comparative Analysis

The following tables summarize key experimental findings from benchmark and engineering studies, comparing the performance of single and ensemble surrogate strategies.

Table 1: Summary of Experimental Benchmarking Studies

Study Focus	Benchmark Problems	Compared Models	Key Performance Metrics
General Model Performance [114]	30 mathematical benchmark functions; 3 higher-dimensional (30+) functions	SSMs (e.g., KRG, RBF) vs. Ensemble Models (e.g., PE-LOS, E-AHF)	Prediction Accuracy (e.g., RMSE), Robustness across problems
Hyperparameter Influence [114]	30 benchmark functions	PE-LOS with different hyperparameters	Prediction accuracy for sample sizes of 5T, 7T, and 10T (T = dimension)
Black-box Optimization [116]	Physics/engineering simulators (stochastic, non-differentiable)	Local generative surrogates vs. Bayesian Optimization, Numerical optimization	Speed of convergence to minima (number of function evaluations)

Table 2: Performance Comparison on Engineering Case Studies

Engineering Application	Optimization Goal	Single Surrogate (SSM) Performance	Ensemble Surrogate Performance	Reference
Safety Valve (Nuclear Power)	Maximize contact pressure for sealing	Varies; performance is model-dependent	PE-LOS: Higher prediction accuracy and robustness than SSMs and other ensembles [114]	[114]
Hydraulic Press Upper Crossbeam	Structural optimization	Varies; performance is model-dependent	PE-LOS: Higher prediction accuracy and robustness than SSMs and other ensembles [114]	[114]
General Black-box Problems	Find global optimum	Slower convergence, especially in high-dimensional spaces	Local Generative Surrogates: Attained minima faster than Bayesian Optimization and others [116]	[116]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standard Protocol for Benchmarking Surrogates

A typical methodology for a comparative analysis of surrogate models involves the following steps [114]:

• Selection of Benchmark Functions: A diverse set of analytical functions (e.g., 30 functions) with varying dimensions and nonlinearities is selected to comprehensively test model performance.
• Design of Experiments (DoE): Training sample points are generated across the design space using methods like Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS). The number of samples is often scaled with the problem dimension (e.g., 5T, 7T, 10T, where T is the dimension).
• Model Construction and Training: Various SSMs (e.g., Kriging, RBF, Polynomial Chaos) and ensemble models (e.g., PE-LOS, weighted average ensembles) are constructed using the training data.
• Model Testing and Validation: A large set of test samples (e.g., 100T) is used to evaluate predictive accuracy. Common metrics include Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and R².
• Performance Analysis: The accuracy and robustness (consistent performance across different problems) of the models are compared.

Protocol for Black-Box Optimization

When the goal is optimization rather than pure prediction, the protocol integrates the surrogate into a search loop [20]:

• Initial Sample Selection: Run an initial set of expensive experiments/simulations.
• Construct Surrogate Model: Build a surrogate (SSM or ensemble) using the collected data.
• Search the Surrogate: Use an optimization algorithm (e.g., genetic algorithm) to find the promising point(s) on the cheap-to-evaluate surrogate.
• Update and Iterate: Run the expensive simulation at the new point(s) found by the search. Add the new input-output data to the training set. Iterate steps 2-4 until a budget is exhausted or a convergence criterion is met.

The PE-LOS construction method avoids optimization algorithms during its building phase, which helps control computational costs, especially for high-dimensional problems [114].

Workflow Diagram: Ensemble vs. Single Surrogate Strategy

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and key decision points when choosing between single and ensemble surrogate strategies for a black-box optimization problem.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Software and Methodological Tools for Surrogate Modeling Research

Tool / "Reagent"	Type	Function / Application	Reference
Surrogate Modeling Toolbox (SMT)	Python Package	Provides a comprehensive library of surrogate modeling methods, sampling techniques, and benchmarking functions. Emphasis on derivative calculations.	[20]
SAMBO Optimization	Python Library	Supports sequential optimization with built-in tree-based and Gaussian process models.	[20]
Surrogates.jl	Julia Package	Offers surrogate modeling tools including random forests, radial basis functions, and kriging.	[20]
Local Generative Surrogates	Methodology	Deep generative models used to approximate simulators locally for gradient-based optimization of black-box functions.	[116]
Pointwise Cross Validation Error (PCVE)	Metric	A local error measure used to estimate the performance of SSMs in specific regions of the design space, crucial for pointwise ensembles.	[114]
Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS)	DoE Method	An efficient strategy for generating space-filling sample points for initial surrogate model training.	[114]
Ensemble of GPs & Forests	Model Framework	Used as a stochastic model in Bayesian optimization to guide exploration and improve convergence.	[115]

The comparative analysis unequivocally demonstrates that ensemble surrogate strategies, particularly modern pointwise approaches like PE-LOS, offer superior predictive accuracy and robustness across a wide range of problems compared to Single Surrogate Models. The key advantage of ensembles is their ability to leverage the local strengths of various SSMs, mitigating the risk of selecting an inadequate single model for a complex, expensive black-box problem. While ensembles may introduce additional computational and conceptual complexity, their increased reliability and performance make them a compelling choice for high-stakes applications in fields such as drug development, nuclear safety, and aerospace engineering, where every function evaluation is costly and accuracy is paramount. Future directions in this field point towards tighter integration with uncertainty quantification frameworks, improved computational efficiency through vectorized and parallelized ensemble architectures, and enhanced interfaces for interactive exploration and optimization.

Conclusion

Surrogate modeling has emerged as an indispensable methodology for expensive black-box optimization, effectively breaking computational barriers in fields from engineering to drug development. By leveraging ensembles, probabilistic models like Gaussian Processes, and multi-fidelity frameworks, researchers can achieve robust, efficient, and globally-oriented optimization. The future of surrogate-assisted optimization is poised for significant advancement through tighter integration with AI and machine learning, increased focus on automated model selection and hyperparameter tuning, and the development of more sophisticated methods for handling high-dimensional and noisy data. For biomedical research, these advancements promise to dramatically accelerate critical processes like drug candidate screening, clinical trial simulation, and molecular design, ultimately shortening the path from scientific discovery to clinical application. Embracing these tools will be key to unlocking the next generation of innovations in computational science and therapeutics development.

References

• 1. Surrogate-Based Adaptive Algorithms for Optimizing Design in ... [https://indigo.uic.edu/articles/thesis/Surrogate-Based_Adaptive_Algorithms_for_Optimizing_Design_in_Complex_Expensive_Black-Box_Systems/29338103]
• 2. Benchmarking surrogate-based optimisation algorithms on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568494623007627]
• 3. Biomarkers as Surrogate Endpoints in Drug Development [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149291825002693]
• 4. Surrogate Endpoint Resources for Drug and Biologic ... [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/surrogate-endpoint-resources-drug-and-biologic-development]
• 5. Computational Fluid Dynamics CFD Market Outlook 2025 ... [https://www.intelmarketresearch.com/computational-fluid-dynamics-market-13264]
• 6. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Market Size 2025-2029 [https://www.technavio.com/report/computational-fluid-dynamics-market-size-industry-analysis]
• 7. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Market [https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/computational-fluid-dynamics-market]
• 8. The dawn of a new era: can machine learning and large ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12170689/]
• 9. Reduced Order and Surrogate Modeling for Digital Twins [https://www.imsi.institute/activities/digital-twins/reduced-order-and-surrogate-modeling-for-digital-twins/]
• 10. Development of a machine learning-based surrogate ... [https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.26599/FRICT.2025.9441051]
• 11. A surrogate modeling method for large-scale flow field ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950338825000130]
• 12. Knowledgeable Language Models as Black-Box ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.20975v1]
• 13. A novel surrogate-based optimisation framework for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517325006982]
• 14. 2025 CFD Technology Trends: Leveraging AI, GPUs, and ... [https://www.ansys.com/webinars/cfd-technology-trends-leveraging-ai-gpus-roms]
• 15. Comparing SVM, Gaussian Process and Random Forest ... [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Comparing-SVM%2C-Gaussian-Process-and-Random-Forest-Pitra-Bajer/041ded8ae9ef22e93e77cade5f60a2ffa1a73df2]
• 16. Surrogate model optimization: a comparison case study ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135425002030]
• 17. An artificial intelligence accelerated virtual screening ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52061-7]
• 18. Advancing drug development with “Fit-for-Purpose” modeling ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12436579/]
• 19. Surrogate Benchmarks for Model Merging Optimization [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.02555v1]
• 20. Surrogate model [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogate_model]
• 21. A machine learning-based comparative analysis of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023058826]
• 22. Building Trust in Black-box Optimization: A Comprehensive ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.14573v1]
• 23. Table of Surrogate Endpoints That Were the Basis of Drug ... [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/table-surrogate-endpoints-were-basis-drug-approval-or-licensure]
• 24. High-dimensional black-box optimization under uncertainty [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305054821001982]
• 25. Using machine learning surrogate modeling for faster QSP ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10431055/]
• 26. Unlocking the black box beyond Bayesian global ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01639-w]
• 27. - Evaluating -offs in Multimodal Search... Cost Accuracy Trade [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.19974v1]
• 28. Filtering out mislabeled training instances using black-box ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21686-z]
• 29. Bayesian Neural Network Surrogates for ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2507.21803v1]
• 30. A generalised deep learning-based surrogate model for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-34823-3]
• 31. Kriging (Gaussian Process Regression) [https://robertwenink.com/posts/kriging/]
• 32. Explaining and Connecting Kriging with Gaussian Process ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2408.02331v1]
• 33. Kriging [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriging]
• 34. Inside the Black Box — Random Forests | by Veeksha [https://medium.com/@veeksha/inside-the-black-box-random-forests-29715b059bba]
• 35. An analysis of ensemble pruning methods under the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306437923001461]
• 36. A support vector regression-based multi-fidelity surrogate ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.09439]
• 37. Neural network-based surrogate modeling and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924005130]
• 38. Optimization over machine learning surrogates [https://wp.doc.ic.ac.uk/rmisener/project/optimization-over-machine-learning-surrogate-models/]
• 39. Optimization of expensive black-box problems with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045782524007758]
• 40. 5 Proven Ensemble Learning Methods for Boosting AI Accuracy [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/5-proven-ensemble-learning-methods-boosting-ai-accuracy]
• 41. Models: Combining Forces to Improve Ensemble Accuracy [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ensemble-models-combining-forces-improve-accuracy-scitis-group-n7wqe]
• 42. Machine learning-based analysis on pharmaceutical ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-05535-7]
• 43. A heterogeneous ensemble learning model for drug-target ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169743924001643]
• 44. Predicting Drug-Target Interactions Based on the ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34202954/]
• 45. Efficient optimization of expensive black-box simulators via ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01834]
• 46. Black-box and surrogate optimization for tuning spiking neural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9630480/]
• 47. Gaussian Processes Regression for Uncertainty ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2502.03090v1]
• 48. Active learning and Gaussian processes for the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365925000057]
• 49. Computational intelligence analysis on drug solubility ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-80952-8]
• 50. A Visual Exploration of Gaussian Processes [https://distill.pub/2019/visual-exploration-gaussian-processes]
• 51. An Intuitive Tutorial to Gaussian Process Regression [https://arxiv.org/html/2009.10862v5]
• 52. Gaussian process [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_process]
• 53. Gaussian Process Kernels [https://towardsdatascience.com/gaussian-process-kernels-96bafb4dd63e/]
• 54. A Fully Bayesian Tree Kernel for Black-box Optimization [https://openreview.net/forum?id=DYeVXcPsN6]
• 55. Capturing uncertainty in black-box chromatography ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0098135425001401]
• 56. Adaptive design of experiments to fit surrogate Gaussian ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169260724002293]
• 57. Virtual Patients in Clinical Trials for Drug Development [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12228009/]
• 58. Accelerating virtual patient generation with a Bayesian ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39630593/]
• 59. Ensemble of surrogates in black-box-type engineering ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417424002926]
• 60. A practical guide for the generation of model-based virtual ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/systems-biology/articles/10.3389/fsysb.2023.1174647/full]
• 61. Learning Surrogates for Offline Black-Box Optimization via ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.01883v1]
• 62. Review on Surrogate-Based Global Optimization with ... [https://biomedres.us/fulltexts/BJSTR.MS.ID.008409.php]
• 63. Surrogate Model Guided Optimization of Expensive Black-Box ... [https://research-hub.nrel.gov/en/publications/surrogate-model-guided-optimization-of-expensive-black-box-multi-/]
• 64. Digital “Twinning”: Clinical Trials Powered by AI [https://www.sanofi.com/en/magazine/our-science/digital-twinning-clinical-trials-ai]
• 65. Using physical property surrogate models to perform accelerated ... [https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10259372]
• 66. How can surrogate modelling optimise medical device ... [https://www.team-consulting.com/insights/how-can-surrogate-modelling-optimise-medical-device-design/]
• 67. Force-field coefficient optimization of coarse-grained molecular dynamics models with a small computational budget - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927025620300094]
• 68. A novel surrogate-based optimisation framework for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40581130/]
• 69. Data-driven parametrization of molecular mechanics force fields for expansive chemical space coverage - Chemical Science (RSC Publishing) DOI:10.1039/D4SC06640E [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d4sc06640e]
• 70. Bayesian optimization with adaptive surrogate models for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-021-00662-x]
• 71. Adaptive randomization methods for sequential multiple ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11647911/]
• 72. Comparing experimental conditions using modern statistics [https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-020-01471-8]
• 73. Color palettes and accessibility features for data ... - Medium [https://medium.com/carbondesign/color-palettes-and-accessibility-features-for-data-visualization-7869f4874fca]
• 74. Data visualisation: colours - Government Analysis Function [https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/policy-store/data-visualisation-colours-in-charts/]
• 75. A Review on Surrogate-Based Global Optimization ... [https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.se.20190704.11]
• 76. Surrogate-assisted global and distributed local ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-85233-6]
• 77. Surrogate-assisted cooperative coevolutionary ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40747-025-02139-6]
• 78. Curse of dimensionality [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality]
• 79. The Curse of Dimensionality: Understanding ... [https://medium.com/@azizozmen/the-curse-of-dimensionality-understanding-the-challenges-and-solutions-in-high-dimensional-data-5cd8a34ca32a]
• 80. 25 Surrogate Models – Interpretable Machine Learning [https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/global.html]
• 81. Bayesian Optimization using Gaussian Processes [https://www.miguelgondu.com/blogposts/2023-07-31/intro-to-bo/]
• 82. Surrogate Learning in Meta-Black-Box Optimization [https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18060]
• 83. Benchmarking of dimensionality reduction methods to ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12021-7]
• 84. Comparison of Surrogate Models in Tablet Dissolution ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40629192/]
• 85. Simple Weighted Average Ensemble | Machine Learning [https://medium.com/analytics-vidhya/simple-weighted-average-ensemble-machine-learning-777824852426]
• 86. Visualizing Surrogate Model Results — IDAES v2.10.0.dev0 [https://idaes-pse.readthedocs.io/en/main/explanations/modeling_extensions/surrogate/plotting/index.html]
• 87. Introduction to Using Surrogate Models [https://www.comsol.com/support/learning-center/article/introduction-to-using-surrogate-models-94571/261]
• 88. Weighted Ensemble Simulation: Review of Methodology ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5896317/]
• 89. Gaussian Process-Based Multi-Fidelity Bayesian ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/22/7030]
• 90. Review of multi-fidelity models [https://arxiv.org/html/1609.07196v6]
• 91. Multi-Fidelity-Based Hierarchical Scalable Surrogate ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1270963825008387]
• 92. METHODOLOGY AND CHALLENGES OF SURROGATE ... [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/anziam-journal/article/methodology-and-challenges-of-surrogate-modelling-methods-for-multifidelity-expensive-blackbox-problems/51EAF93C8D5ECAB2019F51FA1B3F31F1]
• 93. Review of multi-fidelity models [https://www.aimsciences.org/article/doi/10.3934/acse.2023015?viewType=HTML]
• 94. Multi-fidelity UQ and multi-level uncertainty quantification [https://kiwi.oden.utexas.edu/research/multi-fidelity-uncertainty-quantification]
• 95. Multi-Fidelity Methods for Optimization: A Survey [https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09638]
• 96. The Relevance of Goodness‐of‐fit, Robustness and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9787734/]
• 97. Surrogate Modelling Approach - Uncertainty Quantification [https://dictionary.helmholtz-uq.de/content/surrogate_modelling_approach.html]
• 98. Surrogate uncertainty estimation for your time series ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2302.02834v2]
• 99. Enhancing drug discovery with AI: Predictive modeling of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949866X24001187]
• 100. Using Machine Learning Surrogate Models to Increase ... [https://nhsjs.com/2025/using-machine-learning-surrogate-models-to-increase-throughput-of-virtual-screening-with-docking/]
• 101. Challenges in Visualizing Ensemble Data and Surrogate ... [https://research-hub.nrel.gov/en/publications/navigating-uncertainty-challenges-in-visualizing-ensemble-data-an/]
• 102. Challenges in Visualizing Ensemble Data and Surrogate ... [https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2588433]
• 103. Interpretable SHAP-bounded Bayesian Optimization for ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.06519v1]
• 104. Surrogate-assisted large-scale expensive optimization ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40747-025-02105-2]
• 105. CMA-ES with Radial Basis Function Surrogate for Black ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16127]
• 106. Transformative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12406033/]
• 107. The future of pharmaceuticals: Artificial intelligence in drug ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095177925000656]
• 108. Manipulating partial dependence plots to hide discrimination [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167668725000824]
• 109. Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Drug Discovery in 2025 [https://oncodaily.com/oncolibrary/artificial-intelligence-in-cancer-drug-discovery]
• 110. "Application of Direct and Surrogate-Based Optimization to ... [https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/mec_aereng_facwork/3516/]
• 111. Performance Comparison of Surrogate-Assisted ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2402.16455v1]
• 112. Impact of surrogate model accuracy on performance and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590005625000888]
• 113. Experimental design optimization [https://mbb-team.github.io/VBA-toolbox/wiki/Optimizing-the-experimental-design/]
• 114. A pointwise ensemble surrogate based on local optimal ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020025524016669]
• 115. Ensemble Surrogate Model Overview [https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/ensemble-surrogate-model]
• 116. Black-Box Optimization with Local Generative Surrogates [https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04632]