Adaptive Response Surface Method Using Inherited Latin Hypercube Design Points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the difficulty of the previously developed Adaptive Response Surface Method (ARSM) for high-dimensional design problems. ARSM was developed to search for the global design optimum for computation-intensive design problems. This method utilizes Central Composite Design (CCD), which results in an exponentially increasing number of required design experiments. In addition, ARSM generates a complete new set of CCD points in a gradually reduced design space. These two factors greatly undermine the efficiency of ARSM. In this work, Latin Hypercube Design (LHD) is utilized to generate saturated design experiments. Because of the use of LHD, historical design experiments can be inherited in later iterations. As a result, ARSM only requires a limited number of design experiments even for high-dimensional design problems. The improved ARSM is tested using a group of standard test problems and then applied to an engineering design problem. In both testing and design application, significant improvement in the efficiency of ARSM is realized. The improved ARSM demonstrates strong potential to be a practical global optimization tool for computation-intensive design problems. Inheriting LHD points, as a general sampling strategy, can be integrated into other approximation-based design optimization methodologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".