Adaptive-region sequential design with quantitative and qualitative factors in application to HPC configuration
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
Motivated by the need of finding optimal configuration in the high-performance computing (HPC) system, this work proposes an adaptive-region sequential design (ARSD) for optimization of computer experiments with qualitative and quantitative factors. Experiments with both qualitative and quantitative factors are also encountered in other applications. The proposed ARSD method considers a sequential design criterion under the additive Gaussian process to deal with both qualitative and quantitative factors. Moreover, the adaptiveness of the proposed sequential procedure allows the selection of next design point from the adaptive design region achieving a meaningful balance between exploitation and exploration for optimization. Theoretical justification of the adaptive design region is provided. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated by several numerical examples in simulations. The case study of HPC performance optimization further elaborates the merits of the proposed method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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