MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155752967 · doi:10.1109/tmtt.2003.820904

Space Mapping: The State of the Art

2004· article· en· W2155752967 on OpenAlexaff
J.W. Bandler, Qingsha S. Cheng, S.A. Dakroury, Ahmed S.A. Mohamed, Mohamed H. Bakr, Kristoffer H. Madsen, Jacob Søndergaard

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace mappingUniquenessSurrogate modelComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Mathematical optimizationOptimization problemAlgorithmWedge (geometry)State spaceMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review the space-mapping (SM) technique and the SM-based surrogate (modeling) concept and their applications in engineering design optimization. For the first time, we present a mathematical motivation and place SM into the context of classical optimization. The aim of SM is to achieve a satisfactory solution with a minimal number of computationally expensive "fine" model evaluations. SM procedures iteratively update and optimize surrogates based on a fast physically based "coarse" model. Proposed approaches to SM-based optimization include the original algorithm, the Broyden-based aggressive SM algorithm, various trust-region approaches, neural SM, and implicit SM. Parameter extraction is an essential SM subproblem. It is used to align the surrogate (enhanced coarse model) with the fine model. Different approaches to enhance uniqueness are suggested, including the recent gradient parameter-extraction approach. Novel physical illustrations are presented, including the cheese-cutting and wedge-cutting problems. Significant practical applications are reviewed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,038
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and TechniquesSame topicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207