Modification of DIRECT for high-dimensional design problems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractDIviding RECTangles (DIRECT), as a well-known derivative-free global optimization method, has been found to be effective and efficient for low-dimensional problems. When facing high-dimensional black-box problems, however, DIRECT's performance deteriorates. This work proposes a series of modifications to DIRECT for high-dimensional problems (dimensionality d>10). The principal idea is to increase the convergence speed by breaking its single initialization-to-convergence approach into several more intricate steps. Specifically, starting with the entire feasible area, the search domain will shrink gradually and adaptively to the region enclosing the potential optimum. Several stopping criteria have been introduced to avoid premature convergence. A diversification subroutine has also been developed to prevent the algorithm from being trapped in local minima. The proposed approach is benchmarked using nine standard high-dimensional test functions and one black-box engineering problem. All these tests show a significant efficiency improvement over the original DIRECT for high-dimensional design problems.Keywords: global optimizationDIRECT methodhigh dimensional 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it