MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017926151 · doi:10.1115/detc2013-12665

Improved Trust Region Based MPS Method for High-Dimensional Expensive Black-Box Problems

2013· article· en· W2017926151 on OpenAlexaff
George H. Cheng, Adel Younis, Kambiz Haji Hajikolaei, G. Gary Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack boxComputer scienceCurse of dimensionalitySuiteMathematical optimizationSampling (signal processing)Trust regionHigh dimensionalAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mode Pursuing Sampling (MPS) was developed as a global optimization algorithm for optimization problems involving expensive black box functions. MPS has been found to be effective and efficient for problems of low dimensionality, i.e., the number of design variables is less than ten. A previous conference publication integrated the concept of trust regions into the MPS framework to create a new algorithm, TRMPS, which dramatically improved performance and efficiency for high dimensional problems. However, although TRMPS performed better than MPS, it was unproven against other established algorithms such as GA. This paper introduces an improved algorithm, TRMPS2, which incorporates guided sampling and low function value criterion to further improve algorithm performance for high dimensional problems. TRMPS2 is benchmarked against MPS and GA using a suite of test problems. The results show that TRMPS2 performs better than MPS and GA on average for high dimensional, expensive, and black box (HEB) problems.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207