Olympus: a benchmarking framework for noisy optimization and experiment planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research challenges encountered across science, engineering, and economics can frequently be formulated as optimization tasks. In chemistry and materials science, recent growth in laboratory digitization and automation has sparked interest in optimization-guided autonomous discovery and closed-loop experimentation. Experiment planning strategies based on off-the-shelf optimization algorithms can be employed in fully autonomous research platforms to achieve desired experimentation goals with the minimum number of trials. However, the experiment planning strategy that is most suitable to a scientific discovery task is a priori unknown while rigorous comparisons of different strategies are highly time and resource demanding. As optimization algorithms are typically benchmarked on low-dimensional synthetic functions, it is unclear how their performance would translate to noisy, higher-dimensional experimental tasks encountered in chemistry and materials science. We introduce Olympus , a software package that provides a consistent and easy-to-use framework for benchmarking optimization algorithms against realistic experiments emulated via probabilistic deep-learning models. Olympus includes a collection of experimentally derived benchmark sets from chemistry and materials science and a suite of experiment planning strategies that can be easily accessed via a user-friendly Python interface. Furthermore, Olympus facilitates the integration, testing, and sharing of custom algorithms and user-defined datasets. In brief, Olympus mitigates the barriers associated with benchmarking optimization algorithms on realistic experimental scenarios, promoting data sharing and the creation of a standard framework for evaluating the performance of experiment planning strategies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".