Case study: Bayesian optimisation on concrete compressive strength

Case study: Bayesian optimisation on concrete compressive strength

Objective

Determine whether model-guided experimental design reduces the number of trials required to reach a performance target, using a dataset with enough signal and samples to verify the pipeline behaves correctly.

Dataset

UCI Concrete Compressive Strength. 1,030 mix designs with measured compressive strength. Inputs: cement, slag, fly ash, water, superplasticiser, aggregates, age.

Structurally equivalent to a formulation-to-property problem: continuous composition variables plus a process variable, one scalar target.

GP prediction with 95% band, observed points overlaid. Shows the band narrowing near data and widening in gaps.

Method

Surrogate. Gaussian process, Matérn (ν = 2.5) with per-dimension length scales, constant amplitude, white-noise term. Inputs and target standardised.

Small-data simulation. Fitted to a 40-sample subset, approximating a real development programme, with the full 1,030 retained for verification.

Validation. Repeated 5-fold cross-validation, 6 repeats, against a predict-the-mean baseline.

Campaign simulation. The full dataset treated as a simulated laboratory — each row a formulation that could be run, result hidden until selected. Random search compared against Expected Improvement, 15 seeds each, 8 initial samples, target 78 MPa (1.0% of candidates).

Predicted strength, uncertainty, expected improvement — with the proposed next experiment starred. Shows EI selecting a point that is not the predicted maximum.
Boxplot of 15 campaigns per strategy. Note the two random campaigns that failed at the 200-trial cap

Results

Feature selection

Features MAE (MPa) Fold σ
6 6.28 2.01
4 6.32 1.98
3 5.92 1.46
2 5.83 1.32

Six features produced pinned length scales; the GP could not identify all dimensions at n = 40. The two surviving features — water-to-binder ratio and age — are those identified by Abrams' law and maturity theory.

Encoding

Encoding MAE (MPa)
Raw water mass 7.07 ± 1.96
Water/binder ratio 6.28 ± 2.01

Raw water produced a length scale of 27,660 (pinned). As a ratio: 2.72, second most important variable.

Final model

1.47² × Matérn(length_scale=[1.75, 1.08], ν=2.5) + WhiteKernel(0.119)
Metric Value
Cross-validated MAE 5.83 MPa
Baseline 12.28 MPa
Improvement 53%
Inferred noise 5.22 MPa

Model error sits 0.6 MPa above the inferred noise floor — little headroom remains for algorithmic improvement.

Optimisation

Strategy Median trials Range Failures
Random 76 8–201 2 of 15
Bayesian opt 15 8–30 0 of 15

5× reduction at the median; worst case reduced from 201 to 30.

Constraints

Unconstrained optimum: w/b 0.235 (dataset minimum, below placeability) at 251 days. Constrained to w/b ≥ 0.32 and age ≤ 56 days: 61.3 MPa against 81.0 unconstrained — constraints cost 24% of achievable performance.

Response surface with the infeasible region masked, constraint lines drawn, and both optima marked. The single most useful chart for a management audience: best achievable, allowed region, and the gap between them, in one image.

What went wrong along the way

Four corrections were required before the analysis was sound. Each is a reusable diagnostic.

Symptom Cause Fix
Water length scale 27,660, pinned at bound Variable acts through a ratio, not alone Encode as water/binder
Slag pinned after adding w/b Too many dimensions for n = 40 Reduce to two features
Both medians exactly 15 (= n_init) Target too easy; hit by the starting draw Harder target, fewer initial samples
Ratio model apparently worse than raw Single-split comparison Repeated cross-validation

Transferable conclusions

  1. Bayesian optimisation delivers a substantial reduction in trials to target where signal exists — indicatively 3–5×, with the elimination of the long tail an additional and separately valuable benefit.
  2. The benefit depends on the surrogate being able to learn the response. Where measurement noise dominates, the optimiser will propose candidates derived from noise with equal confidence.
  3. Constraints must be encoded explicitly. An unconstrained optimiser will propose the physically impossible, and will do so without any indication that it has.
  4. Physics-informed encoding of variables is not optional at small sample sizes. It determines what the model can learn at all.

Caveat on transfer

The simulation searches a fixed list of 1,030 known formulations. A real campaign searches a continuous space where the target may not exist, and each trial takes weeks rather than a function call.

The 5× figure is indicative of the mechanism, not a guaranteed return. What transfers reliably is the direction and the reason: using calibrated uncertainty to guide a search outperforms searching blind.

Figures generated this week, where each belongs, and what it demonstrates

Show Comments