4.6 Article

Optimization by Adaptive Stochastic Descent

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192944

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [DE140101375]
  2. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) [N66001-10-C-2008]
  3. World Bank [1045478]
  4. National Institutes of Health [NCRR 5P20RR016472-12, NIGMS 8P20GM103446-12]
  5. National Science Foundation [EPSCoR-0814251, HRD-1242067]
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences
  7. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [1608147] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Australian Research Council [DE140101375] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When standard optimization methods fail to find a satisfactory solution for a parameter fitting problem, a tempting recourse is to adjust parameters manually. While tedious, this approach can be surprisingly powerful in terms of achieving optimal or near-optimal solutions. This paper outlines an optimization algorithm, Adaptive Stochastic Descent (ASD), that has been designed to replicate the essential aspects of manual parameter fitting in an automated way. Specifically, ASD uses simple principles to form probabilistic assumptions about (a) which parameters have the greatest effect on the objective function, and (b) optimal step sizes for each parameter. We show that for a certain class of optimization problems (namely, those with a moderate to large number of scalar parameter dimensions, especially if some dimensions are more important than others), ASD is capable of minimizing the objective function with far fewer function evaluations than classic optimization methods, such as the Nelder-Mead nonlinear simplex, Levenberg-Marquardt gradient descent, simulated annealing, and genetic algorithms. As a case study, we show that ASD outperforms standard algorithms when used to determine how resources should be allocated in order to minimize new HIV infections in Swaziland.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据