Multifidelity-Augmented Gaussian Process Inputs for Surrogate Modeling from Scarce Data

Composite materials exhibit strongly hierarchical and anisotropic properties governed by coupled mechanisms spanning constituents, plies, laminates, structures, and manufacturing history. This intrinsic complexity makes predictive modeling of composites expensive, because repeated experiments and high-fidelity simulations are needed to cover large design spaces of material, structure, and manufacturing. Multi-fidelity surrogate modeling addresses this challenge by combining abundant, less expensive data with limited high-accuracy data to recover reliable high-fidelity predictions. This review presents a structured overview of multi-fidelity modeling for composite mechanics, covering Gaussian-process or Kriging-based methods, including co-Kriging, coregionalization models, autoregressive formulations, nonlinear autoregressive Gaussian processes, multi-fidelity deep Gaussian processes, and multi-fidelity neural networks. Their distinctions are examined in terms of cross-fidelity correlation, discrepancy representation, uncertainty quantification, and scalability. Selected examples of their applications to composites are introduced according to the roles that multi-fidelity surrogates play in engineering problems, including forward prediction for rapid exploration of material design spaces, inverse optimization for composite parameter identification and design search under limited high-fidelity access, and workflow integration, where heterogeneous data sources, constraints, and validation requirements determine model utility. Open question discussions highlight recurring challenges specific to composites, such as regime-dependent fidelity gaps associated with nonlinear damage and manufacturing history, mismatches between simulations and experiments, and uncertainty propagation across multi-fidelity models.

Active multi-fidelity surrogate modeling is developed for multi-condition airfoil shape optimization to reduce high-fidelity CFD cost while retaining RANS-consistent aerodynamic metrics. The framework couples a low-fidelity-informed Gaussian process regression transfer model with uncertainty-triggered sampling and a synchronized elitism rule embedded in a hybrid genetic algorithm. Low-fidelity XFOIL evaluations provide inexpensive features, while sparse RANS simulations are adaptively allocated when predictive uncertainty exceeds a threshold; elite candidates are mandatorily validated at high fidelity, and the population is re-evaluated to prevent evolutionary selection based on outdated fitness values produced by earlier surrogate states. The method is demonstrated for a two-point problem at $Re=6\times10^6$ with cruise at $α=2^\circ$ (maximize $E=L/D$) and take-off at $α=10^\circ$ (maximize $C_L$) using a 12-parameter CST representation. Independent multi-fidelity surrogates per flight condition enable decoupled refinement. The optimized design improves cruise efficiency by 41.05% and take-off lift by 20.75% relative to the best first-generation individual. Over the full campaign, RANS evaluations were required for only 14.78% and 9.5% of the condition-specific candidate evaluations at cruise and take-off, respectively. These percentages quantify the reduction in high-fidelity usage relative to the fixed automated RANS workflow adopted as the high-fidelity reference in this study.

Self-driving laboratories increasingly rely on multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization (MFBO) to balance cheap, approximate evaluations against scarce, expensive ones, with a predictive surrogate at its core. Gaussian processes (GPs) are the default choice, but they scale poorly as data accumulate and assume a smooth landscape that molecular and materials search spaces routinely violate. Transfer learning offers an alternative suited to this regime: it learns a representation from abundant cheap data and adapts it to sparse expensive data. Despite its use in property prediction, transfer learning has not been tested as the engine of a closed-loop optimization. Here we benchmark eleven transfer-learning surrogates against four GP methods under an identical selection rule, fidelity budget, and model size, across nine tasks spanning synthetic functions to real chemistry and materials problems. GPs win on smooth, low-dimensional functions but perform worst on molecular and materials problems, where transfer-learning surrogates reach substantially better solutions using far less computation. Because acquisition policy is held fixed across surrogates, this advantage is attributable to the surrogate itself. Uncertainty-driven exploration is not reliably beneficial, and calibration does not predict optimization performance, so greedy exploitation of the transfer-learned mean is the more robust default. Transfer learning is therefore the surrogate of choice for molecular and materials MFBO.