Value-Based Global Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a value-based global optimization (VGO) algorithm is introduced. The algorithm uses kriging-like surrogate models and a sequential sampling strategy based on value of information (VoI) to optimize an objective characterized by multiple analysis models with different accuracies. VGO builds on two main contributions. The first contribution is a novel surrogate modeling method that accommodates data from any number of different analysis models with varying accuracy and cost. Rather than interpolating, it fits a model to the data, giving more weight to more accurate data. The second contribution is the use of VoI as a new metric for guiding the sequential sampling process for global optimization. Based on information about the cost and accuracy of each available model, predictions from the current surrogate model are used to determine where to sample next and with what level of accuracy. The cost of further analysis is explicitly taken into account during the optimization process, and no further analysis occurs if the expected value of the new information is negative. In this paper, we present the details of the VGO algorithm and, using a suite of randomly generated test cases, compare its performance with the performance of the efficient global optimization (EGO) algorithm (Jones, D. R., Matthias, S., and Welch, W. J., 1998, “Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions,” J. Global Optim., 13(4), pp. 455–492). Results indicate that the VGO algorithm performs better than EGO in terms of overall expected utility—on average, the same quality solution is achieved at a lower cost, or a better solution is achieved at the same cost.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".