Using Neural Networks for Fast Numerical Integration and Optimization
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
We present a novel numerical integration technique, <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Neural Network Integration</i> , or NNI, where shallow neural network design is used to approximate an integrand function within a bounded set. This function approximation is such that a closed-form solution exists to its definite integral across any generalized polyhedron within the network’s domain. This closed-form solution allows for fast integral evaluation of the function across different bounds, following the initial training of the network. In other words, it becomes possible to “pre-compute” the numerical integration problem, allowing for rapid evaluation later. Experimental tests are performed using the Genz integration test functions. These experiments show NNI to be a viable integration method, working best on predictable integrand functions, but worse results on singular and non-smooth functions. NNI is proposed as a solution to problems where numerical integrations of higher dimension must be performed over different domains frequently or rapidly and with low memory requirements, such as in real-time or embedded engineering applications. The application of this method to the optimization of integral functions is also discussed.
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