MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914029036 · doi:10.1002/9781118014967.ch12

Randomized Optimization

2011· other· en· W2914029036 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

VenueWiley series in probability and statistics · 2011
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStochastic optimizationMathematical optimizationRandomnessRandomized algorithmStochastic approximationComputer scienceMonte Carlo methodSimulated annealingGlobal optimizationMathematicsAlgorithmKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses optimization methods that have randomness as a core ingredient. Such randomized algorithms can be useful for solving optimization problems with many local optima and complicated constraints, possibly involving a mix of continuous and discrete variables. Randomized algorithms are also used to solve noisy optimization problems, in which the objective function is unknown and has to be obtained via Monte Carlo simulation. The chapter considers randomized optimization methods for both noisy and deterministic problems, including stochastic approximation, the stochastic counterpart method, simulated annealing, evolutionary algorithms, and the cross-entropy method. Controlled Vocabulary Terms cross-entropy method; Monte Carlo methods; Stochastic approximation; stochastic processes

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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