MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111188993 · doi:10.1109/tmtt.2006.890524

Space-Mapping Optimization With Adaptive Surrogate Model

2007· article· en· W2111188993 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace mappingExtrapolationSurrogate modelMathematical optimizationSpace (punctuation)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)AlgorithmOptimization problemMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proper choice of mapping used in space-mapping optimization algorithms is typically problem dependent. The number of parameters of the space-mapping surrogate model must be adjusted so that the model is flexible enough to reflect the features of the fine model, but at the same time is not over flexible. Its extrapolation capability should allow the prediction of the fine model response in the neighborhood of the current iteration point. A wrong choice of space-mapping type may lead to poor performance of the space-mapping optimization algorithm. In this paper, we consider a space-mapping optimization algorithm with an adaptive surrogate model. This allows us to adjust the type of space-mapping surrogate model used in a given iteration based on the approximation/extrapolation capability of the model. The technique does not require any additional fine model evaluations

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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