Optimization is Not Enough: Why Problem Formulation Deserves Equal Attention

Black-box optimization is increasingly used in engineering design problems where simulation-based evaluations are costly and gradients are unavailable. In this context, the optimization community has largely analyzed algorithm performance in context-free setups, while not enough attention has been devoted to how problem formulation and domain knowledge may affect the optimization outcomes. We address this gap through a case study in the topology optimization of laminated composite structures, formulated as a black-box optimization problem. Specifically, we consider the design of a cantilever beam under a volume constraint, intending to minimize compliance while optimizing both the structural topology and fiber orientations. To assess the impact of problem formulation, we explicitly separate topology and material design variables and compare two strategies: a concurrent approach that optimizes all variables simultaneously without leveraging physical insight, and a sequential approach that optimizes variables of the same nature in stages. Our results show that context-agnostic strategies consistently lead to suboptimal or non-physical designs. In contrast, the sequential strategy yields better-performing and more interpretable solutions. These findings underscore the value of incorporating, when available, domain knowledge into the optimization process and motivate the development of new black-box benchmarks that reward physically informed and context-aware optimization strategies.

Investigating the Interplay of Parameterization and Optimizer in Gradient-Free Topology Optimization: A Cantilever Beam Case Study

Gradient-free black-box optimization (BBO) is widely used in engineering design and provides a flexible framework for topology optimization (TO), enabling the discovery of high-performing structural designs without requiring gradient information from simulations. Yet, its success depends on two key choices: the geometric parameterization defining the search space and the optimizer exploring it. This study investigates this interplay through a compliance minimization problem for a cantilever beam subject to a connectivity constraint. We benchmark three geometric parameterizations, each combined with three representative BBO algorithms: differential evolution, covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy, and heteroscedastic evolutionary Bayesian optimization, across 10D, 20D, and 50D design spaces. Results reveal that parameterization quality has a stronger influence on optimization performance than optimizer choice: a well-structured parameterization enables robust and competitive performance across algorithms, whereas weaker representations increase optimizer dependency. Overall, this study highlights the dominant role of geometric parameterization in practical BBO-based TO and shows that algorithm performance and selection cannot be fairly assessed without accounting for the induced design space.

MECHBench: A Set of Black-Box Optimization Benchmarks originated from Structural Mechanics

Benchmarking is essential for developing and evaluating black-box optimization algorithms, providing a structured means to analyze their search behavior. Its effectiveness relies on carefully selected problem sets used for evaluation. To date, most established benchmark suites for black-box optimization consist of abstract or synthetic problems that only partially capture the complexities of real-world engineering applications, thereby severely limiting the insights that can be gained for application-oriented optimization scenarios and reducing their practical impact. To close this gap, we propose a new benchmarking suite that addresses it by presenting a curated set of optimization benchmarks rooted in structural mechanics. The current implemented benchmarks are derived from vehicle crashworthiness scenarios, which inherently require the use of gradient-free algorithms due to the non-smooth, highly non-linear nature of the underlying models. Within this paper, the reader will find descriptions of the physical context of each case, the corresponding optimization problem formulations, and clear guidelines on how to employ the suite.