MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533803232 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1402.0929

Input Warping for Bayesian Optimization of Non-stationary Functions

2014· article· en· W1533803232 on OpenAlexafffund
Jasper Snoek, Kevin Swersky, Rich Zemel, Ryan P. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsBayesian optimizationComputer scienceHyperparameterImage warpingOptimization problemArtificial intelligenceBayesian probabilityGaussian processBenchmark (surveying)Mathematical optimizationMachine learningAlgorithmGaussianMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bayesian optimization has proven to be a highly effective methodology for the global optimization of unknown, expensive and multimodal functions. The ability to accurately model distributions over functions is critical to the effectiveness of Bayesian optimization. Although Gaussian processes provide a flexible prior over functions which can be queried efficiently, there are various classes of functions that remain difficult to model. One of the most frequently occurring of these is the class of non-stationary functions. The optimization of the hyperparameters of machine learning algorithms is a problem domain in which parameters are often manually transformed a priori, for example by optimizing in "log-space," to mitigate the effects of spatially-varying length scale. We develop a methodology for automatically learning a wide family of bijective transformations or warpings of the input space using the Beta cumulative distribution function. We further extend the warping framework to multi-task Bayesian optimization so that multiple tasks can be warped into a jointly stationary space. On a set of challenging benchmark optimization tasks, we observe that the inclusion of warping greatly improves on the state-of-the-art, producing better results faster and more reliably.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.147 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207