Branch and Bound Algorithms for Maximizing Expected Improvement Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deterministic computer simulations are often used as a replacement for complex physical experiments. Although less expensive than physical experimentation, computer codes can still be time-consuming to run. An effective strategy for exploring the response surface of the deterministic simulator is the use of an approximation to the computer code, such as a Gaussian process (GP) model, coupled with a sequential sampling strategy for choosing design points that can be used to build the GP model. The ultimate goal of such studies is often the estimation of specific features of interest of the simulator output, such as the maximum, minimum, or a level set (contour). Before approximating such features with the GP model, sufficient runs of the computer simulator must be completed. Sequential designs with an expected improvement (EI) function can yield good estimates of the features with a minimal number of runs. The challenge is that the expected improvement function itself is often multimodal and difficult to maximize. We develop branch and bound algorithms for efficiently maximizing the EI function in specific problems, including the simultaneous estimation of a minimum and a maximum, and in the estimation of a contour. These branch and bound algorithms outperform other optimization strategies such as genetic algorithms, and over a number of sequential design steps can lead to dramatically superior accuracy in estimation of features of interest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".