Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 20 references

CADAQUES: A Cost-Aware Dual Architecture for Query-Efficient Autonomous Discovery

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Treating cost as a first-class primitive, the paper's CADAQUES framework charges queries and planning against one vector budget, and its two-phase fidelity schedule beats uniform high fidelity on a noisy Ising task.

desk verdict A clean, honest software-architecture paper whose central multi-resource accounting feature is never exercised end-to-end; worth refereeing, but the headline claim needs either a synthetic multi-resource campaign or narrower wording. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16127 v1 pith:Q75SRRC7 submitted 2026-07-17 physics.comp-ph cs.SE

Jorge Bravo-Abad This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phcs.SE
keywords autonomousdiscoveryself-drivinglaboratoriescost-awareoptimizationscientificsoftwarearchitectureBayesianprovenanceLLMagents
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that autonomous-discovery software has been shaped by numerical-optimization conventions that hide the real cost of experiments and decisions, and it proposes an architecture in which cost is a first-class primitive of the discovery loop. Its central move is to split the loop into an Oracle that answers queries and a Driver that proposes them, then charge both against one vector-valued budget with components for wall time, CPU hours, money, and language-model tokens. Each transaction records the cost declared before execution and the cost settled after, in an append-only ledger, so the discrepancy between prediction and reality becomes data. On a deliberately noisy physics task — locating the critical temperature of the two-dimensional Ising model from finite-size susceptibility estimates — the paper reports that a two-phase schedule of cheap low-fidelity exploration followed by expensive high-fidelity refinement yields lower and less variable final errors than using high fidelity throughout, at the same nominal ten-second wall-time budget. A sympathetic reader would care because, if this holds, resource-normalized comparison of search strategies, planner costs included, becomes possible from a single machine-readable record rather than from analyst reconstruction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the vector-valued Cost type — a frozen record over (seconds, cpu_hours, euros, tokens) with componentwise dominance — together with the Budget that caps any subset of these components and the append-only Ledger of transactions. The Oracle/Driver protocols are the structural boundary: any object conforming to price/evaluate or propose/observe can participate, and the runner funnels both parties through the same charging path. The ledger's split of declared and settled costs is what turns cost-model error into observable campaign data, and the read-only BudgetView is what lets a Driver condition its behavior on remaining resources without being able to spend them dir

What would settle it

Run the same Ising task with a binding token or monetary cap in addition to wall time, with a driver whose proposals consume tokens: if the campaign does not terminate at the cap or the ledger fails to record the token settlements as settled costs, the central vector-budget claim is falsified. Alternatively, repeat RQ3 at a much larger budget (e.g., 100 s) and check whether fixed high fidelity overtakes the two-phase schedule — if it does, the reported advantage is scale-dependent, not structural.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CADAQUES is presented as a compact open-source Python framework whose design principle is that cost belongs inside the discovery loop. The required integration surface is two structural protocols: an Oracle exposes price(query) and evaluate(query), and a Driver exposes propose(history, budget_view) and observe(result). The runner meters the Driver's deliberation in wall time, charges both the Driver and the Oracle against a common vector-valued Cost (seconds, cpu_hours, euros, tokens) with componentwise caps, and appends every transaction to a ledger with declared and settled costs. The paper's empirical centerpiece is a search for the critical temperature of the 2D Ising model from noisy fi

Load-bearing premise

The central architectural claim rests on the untested assumption that the full vector-valued multi-resource budget works as specified, since the paper's own limitations section concedes that no genuinely multi-resource campaign was run: RQ2 and RQ3 cap only wall time and use only the seconds component, leaving the heterogeneous-resource accounting paths unvalidated end-to-end.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strategy comparisons can be made under equal resource budgets rather than equal iteration counts, with resource-normalized best-so-far curves reconstructed from the ledger.
  • Planner deliberation stops being free: the cost of fitting surrogates or invoking language models is charged to the same budget as oracle queries, so expensive planners can be judged on whether they earn their keep.
  • Mismatches between declared and settled costs become a recorded property of each transaction, enabling post-hoc cost-model calibration and overrun analysis without separate logging.
  • Budget-adaptive drivers are expressible through the read-only BudgetView, and multi-fidelity schedules can be represented at the type level via explicit fidelity fields on queries.
  • At the measured 10 s budget scale, spending less per query during exploration and more during refinement outperforms uniformly high-fidelity queries on a noisy objective, suggesting that fidelity allocation can matter as much as search-algorithm choice.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the vector-budget semantics generalize from wall time to bind tokens, money, and CPU hours, the same ledger could support comparisons across campaign types where resource valuations differ — but that requires the planned user-extensible component set, since the current fixed vocabulary omits GPU hours, energy, and instrument time.
  • The RQ2 failure mode suggests a natural follow-up: wrap concentrating drivers with noise-robust incumbent handling or repeated re-estimation before scoring, which the paper itself flags as a possible alternative; this should change the observed ordering.
  • The two-phase schedule is structurally similar to budget-allocation multi-fidelity schedulers used in hyperparameter optimization, so a Driver implementing one of those schedulers inside CADAQUES would turn its budget allocation into explicit, auditable campaign accounting.
  • Because settled costs can exceed declarations by a large factor (median 652% in the stale-calibration test), practical deployments would likely need uncertainty margins or probabilistic affordability checks to prevent systematic cap overruns, which the paper lists as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents CADAQUES, an open-source Python framework whose central principle is that cost should be a first-class primitive of the autonomous-discovery loop. It separates the loop into an Oracle (price/evaluate) and a Driver (propose/observe), charges both against a common vector-valued budget with components for seconds, CPU hours, euros, and tokens, distinguishes declared (ex-ante) from settled (ex-post) costs, and records every transaction in an append-only ledger. The evaluation uses a noisy 2D Ising susceptibility task with a known exact critical temperature: three protocol-conformant drivers are compared under a 10 s wall-time budget (RQ2), three fidelity policies are compared under the same budget (RQ3), and metering overhead is microbenchmarked (RQ4). The paper reports that random search is competitive with the two concentrating strategies, that a two-phase low-fidelity/high-fidelity schedule has the smallest worst-case error in the studied setting, and that transaction-level metering adds about 25 µs per query. The code, tests, and reproduction scripts are shipped and archived at Zenodo.

Significance. If the architecture holds, CADAQUES provides a compact and interoperable contract for budget-governed discovery with transparent accounting, which is a useful complement to existing optimization libraries. The manuscript's strengths include a machine-checked implementation with unit tests encoding the central budget/ledger semantics, a carefully hedged empirical study with honest reporting of negative results (e.g., GP-EI and annealing do not beat random search under the common budget), and an explicit limitations section. The paper is also unusually candid about the exploratory nature of its statistical comparisons. However, the paper's identified differentiator over prior work is the vector-valued, multi-resource campaign abstraction, and this is exactly the part that is not exercised end-to-end anywhere in the evaluation. As presented, the empirical support for the framework's main novel claim rests on code inspection and unit tests rather than on any campaign that uses a binding non-wall-time resource cap.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5; Section 7.2] The evaluation never runs a campaign with a binding cap on any resource other than 'seconds'. RQ2 and RQ3 cap only wall time; the token, euro, and CPU-hour components never constrain a campaign. Consequently, the framework's distinctive R1–R5 vector-budget semantics — componentwise dominance, termination on a non-time cap, and multi-resource ledger aggregation — are validated only by unit tests and code inspection, not by end-to-end use. Since Section 6 positions CADAQUES against libraries that already provide cost-aware acquisition and multi-fidelity methods, the paper's novelty rests on precisely these unexercised paths. To substantiate the central claim, the paper should add at least one end-to-end demonstration with a non-time cap (e.g., a synthetic token or euro budget), or explicitly scope the validated claims to wall-time accounting and present vector budgets as a design provision
  2. [Section 5.3, Table 3; Section 5.5] The headline RQ3 result (two-phase policy better than fixed high fidelity, one-sided Mann–Whitney p=0.038) is based on ten seeds, one budget scale, and multiple comparisons, which the paper acknowledges. More seriously, the low-fidelity and two-phase arms are scored on different estimators: Section 5.5 states that the finite-size shift for L=16 is comparable to the median errors reported in Table 3. This estimator difference confounds the comparison as a statement about fidelity economics. The conclusion is appropriately hedged in the summary, but the main text should make the confound more prominent than a single sentence in threats to validity, because otherwise the quantitative comparison in Table 3 is easy to over-read.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4(b)] The vertical axis label reads "|T* Tc|"; it should be "|T* − Tc|".
  2. [Section 4.2] The displayed equation for the exact critical temperature is not typeset correctly in the preprint; the expression "Tc = 2 / ln(1 + sqrt(2))" should appear as a proper fraction.
  3. [Section 3.3] The termination rule charges the driver's proposal before the affordability of the ensuing query is checked, so a driver can exhaust the budget on proposals that are then rejected. This is a defensible design, but the resulting failure mode (budget exhausted after zero or very few oracle evaluations) is not discussed. A sentence in Section 3.3 or Section 7.2 would help.
  4. [Section 5.2.3] The sentence "A one-sided Mann–Whitney U test of the alternative that GP-EI yields smaller errors than Random gives p=0.92" is potentially confusing because p>0.5 means the data point in the opposite direction; consider restating as "no evidence for the alternative (p=0.92, in the direction of Random)."
  5. [Section 5.4] The overhead benchmark uses 5,000-query runs with an AnalyticOracle with zero declared cost; it would be useful to state explicitly whether the 4.0 µs bare-loop baseline includes a query evaluation or only the sampling loop, since the comparison drives the claim of three orders of magnitude headroom.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's results are empirical comparisons against an external thermodynamic reference, with no load-bearing self-citation or fitted-input-as-prediction.

full rationale

The paper makes no derived prediction that reduces to an input. The central R1–R5 claims are architectural design choices, not formal derivations, and the empirical results are assessed against an external, exact reference: the thermodynamic-limit critical temperature Tc = 2/ln(1+sqrt(2)) given in Section 4.2. The RQ2 and RQ3 comparisons are actual experiments under a nominal wall-time budget, analyzed from the recorded ledger; no parameter of the compared strategies is fitted to the reported errors. The two-phase fidelity schedule in Section 5.3 is a hand-specified policy with stated, apriori parameters (switch at fraction_used = 0.5, refinement within ±0.25 of the best low-fidelity temperature), and the paper explicitly labels the p = 0.038 contrast as exploratory rather than confirmatory. The declared-vs-settled cost analysis is an empirical measurement of a deliberately stale calibration model, not a self-referential construction. The only self-referential aspects are that the framework is evaluated using its own reference drivers and that RQ1 demonstrates expressibility constructively with AnnealedLocalDriver, but Section 5.1 explicitly narrows that claim to standardized, complete accounting rather than strict expressive power. Section 7.2 candidly lists limitations—no genuinely multi-resource campaign, no end-to-end LLM agent, no physical instrument—but missing validation is not circularity. References are external standards (Onsager, Metropolis, optimization and provenance literature); there are no load-bearing self-citations and no imported 'uniqueness theorem' forcing the design. Accordingly, no circular step meets the standard of a quoted, specific reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims are software-architecture claims, so the ledger records design choices and evaluation settings rather than physical axioms. The main free parameters are hand-chosen strategy/fidelity settings, not constants fitted to the target result. The key untested assumption is the multi-resource vector budget, which is never exercised with binding token/euro/CPU caps.

free parameters (5)
  • AnnealedLocalDriver sigma_max/sigma_min = 0.5 / 0.02 (fractions of search interval)
    Hand-picked in §5.2.2; sets how quickly local search contracts and directly influences RQ2 outcomes.
  • Two-phase schedule switch and refinement window = fraction_used=0.5; ±0.25 window
    Chosen in §5.3 to define the successful fidelity policy; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • GP-EI hyperparameters = RBF kernel fixed; 8 initial queries; 512-point grid
    Fixed in §5.2.2; a minimal planner, not optimized, and acknowledged as such.
  • Ising fidelity settings = RQ2: L=24, 400/200 sweeps; RQ3 low: L=16/150, high: L=32/800
    Chosen for budget scaling in §5.2 and §5.3; determine the cost-fidelity trade-off being tested.
  • Ising declared-cost calibration coefficient = not stated; calibrated model proportional to L^2(n_equil+n_meas)
    Declared prices are based on a stale calibration introduced in §5.2.4; affordability checks depend on it.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math 2D Ising model exact Tc = 2/ln(1+sqrt(2))
    External reference from Onsager [12], used as ground truth for all scoring.
  • domain assumption Metropolis Monte Carlo susceptibility estimates at finite L and sweep counts are noisy but useful for locating the critical region
    Central to the task: the optimizer sees noisy finite-size estimates, and the paper notes the maximum can shift away from Tc.
  • domain assumption Wall time on one virtualized CPU core is an adequate common resource metric for comparing strategies
    Used in §5.2.2 and §5.3; acknowledged as environment-specific in §5.5.
  • domain assumption Susceptibility values are not directly comparable across lattice sizes, so RQ3 is scored from high-fidelity observations only
    Stated in §5.3 to handle mixed-fidelity policies, and flagged as an estimator-comparability threat in §5.5.
  • domain assumption Python typing.Protocol structural conformance is sufficient for runtime integration
    The design relies on @runtime_checkable protocols (§3.2); the paper notes semantic errors can still appear at runtime (§7.3).
invented entities (2)
  • CADAQUES Oracle/Driver protocols independent evidence
    purpose: Separate the query proposer from the query answerer so both can be charged against one budget
    Implemented, unit-tested, and archived at Zenodo/PyPI; reproduction scripts give a concrete operational footprint.
  • Transaction ledger with declared/settled costs independent evidence
    purpose: Make cost-estimation error observable and enable resource-normalized performance reconstruction
    Code exports JSON Lines; RQ2/RQ3 figures are reconstructed from ledgers, so the entity has an external, checkable artifact.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CADAQUES: A Cost-Aware Dual Architecture for Query-Efficient Autonomous Discovery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q75SRRC7

@misc{pith2026260716127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CADAQUES: A Cost-Aware Dual Architecture for Query-Efficient Autonomous Discovery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q75SRRC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16127}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous discovery systems couple a resource that answers queries (a simulator, instrument, or analytic model) to an algorithm that selects what to query next. Most software frameworks for this loop inherit the control structure of numerical optimization: campaigns run for a fixed number of iterations, query costs are absent from the programming interface, and decision-making is treated as free. In practice, queries may differ in cost by orders of magnitude, and planners built on large language models or expensive surrogates consume resources of their own. Here we present CADAQUES, an open-source Python framework built on one architectural principle: cost is a first-class primitive of the discovery loop. CADAQUES separates the loop into two structural protocols, an Oracle that answers queries and a Driver that proposes them, and charges both evaluations and decisions against a common vector-valued budget spanning wall time, CPU hours, monetary cost, and language model tokens. An append-only ledger records, for each transaction, the cost declared before execution and the cost settled afterwards, making their discrepancy an observable property of the campaign. We evaluate the architecture by locating the critical temperature of the two-dimensional Ising model from noisy finite-size estimates against the exact thermodynamic-limit reference. In this noisy setting, strategies that concentrate around the best observed result can be misled by noise-induced peaks, whereas a schedule that explores with cheap low-fidelity queries and refines with higher-fidelity ones yields lower and less variable errors than high fidelity throughout, at the studied budget scale. Metering adds tens of microseconds per iteration, three orders of magnitude below the cheapest oracle query. The framework is MIT-licensed and archived at Zenodo (doi:10.5281/zenodo.21293589).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16127 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the dual architecture. Solid arrows show the query–result exchange between the Driver and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sequence of one campaign iteration. The runner first meters and records the Driver’s proposal, then requests [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Package organization and import dependencies. The dashed boundary encloses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ising campaigns for RQ2 under a nominal 10 s budget, over ten seeds. (a) Susceptibility observations versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fidelity economics in RQ3. (a) Settled cost per query in one two-phase campaign as a function of cumulative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The rise of self-driving labs in chemical and materials sciences.Nature Synthesis, 2:483–492, 2023

    Milad Abolhasani and Eugenia Kumacheva. The rise of self-driving labs in chemical and materials sciences.Nature Synthesis, 2:483–492, 2023. doi:10.1038/s44160-022-00231-0

    doi:10.1038/s44160-022-00231-0 2023

  2. [2]

    MacLeod, Fraser G

    Benjamin P. MacLeod, Fraser G. L. Parlane, Thomas D. Morrissey, Florian Häse, Loïc M. Roch, Kevan E. Dettelbach, Raphaell Moreira, Lars P. E. Yunker, Michael B. Rooney, Joseph R. Deeth, et al. Self-driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin-film materials.Science Advances, 6(20):eaaz8867, 2020. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz8867

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz8867 2020

  3. [3]

    Roch, Florian Häse, Christoph Kreisbeck, Teresa Tamayo-Mendoza, Lars P

    Loïc M. Roch, Florian Häse, Christoph Kreisbeck, Teresa Tamayo-Mendoza, Lars P. E. Yunker, Jason E. Hein, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. ChemOS: Orchestrating autonomous experimentation.Science Robotics, 3(19):eaat5559, 2018. doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aat5559

    doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aat5559 2018

  4. [4]

    Adams, and Nando de Freitas

    Bobak Shahriari, Kevin Swersky, Ziyu Wang, Ryan P. Adams, and Nando de Freitas. Taking the human out of the loop: A review of Bayesian optimization.Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(1):148–175, 2016. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2015.2494218

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Jasper Snoek, Hugo Larochelle, and Ryan P. Adams. Practical Bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25, 2012

    2012

  6. [6]

    Jiang, Samuel Daulton, Benjamin Letham, Andrew Gordon Wilson, and Ey- tan Bakshy

    Maximilian Balandat, Brian Karrer, Daniel R. Jiang, Samuel Daulton, Benjamin Letham, Andrew Gordon Wilson, and Ey- tan Bakshy. BoTorch: A framework for efficient Monte-Carlo Bayesian optimization. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Boiko, Robert MacKnight, Ben Kline, and Gabe Gomes

    Daniil A. Boiko, Robert MacKnight, Ben Kline, and Gabe Gomes. Autonomous chemical research with large language models.Nature, 624:570–578, 2023. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06792-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06792-0 2023

  8. [8]

    Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, Carlo Baldassari, Andrew D

    Andres M. Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, Carlo Baldassari, Andrew D. White, and Philippe Schwaller. Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6:525–535, 2024. doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00832-8

    doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00832-8 2024

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    Multi-fidelity Bayesian optimisation with continuous approximations

    Kirthevasan Kandasamy, Gautam Dasarathy, Jeff Schneider, and Barnabás Póczos. Multi-fidelity Bayesian optimisation with continuous approximations. InProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pag...

    2017

  2. [10]

    Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan-Willem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E

    Mark D. Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan-Willem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E. Bourne, et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship.Scien...

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Rosenbluth, Marshall N

    Nicholas Metropolis, Arianna W. Rosenbluth, Marshall N. Rosenbluth, Augusta H. Teller, and Edward Teller. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 21:1087–1092, 1953. doi:10.1063/1.1699114

    1953 doi

  4. [12]

    Crystal statistics

    Lars Onsager. Crystal statistics. I. A two-dimensional model with an order-disorder transition.Physical Review, 65:117–149,

  5. [13]

    Random search for hyper-parameter optimization.Journal of Machine Learning Re- search, 13:281–305, 2012

    James Bergstra and Yoshua Bengio. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization.Journal of Machine Learning Re- search, 13:281–305, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Hickman, Malcolm Sim, Sergio Pablo-García, Gary Tom, Ivan Woolhouse, Han Hao, Zeqing Bao, Pauric Bannigan, Christine Allen, Matteo Aldeghi, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik

    Riley J. Hickman, Malcolm Sim, Sergio Pablo-García, Gary Tom, Ivan Woolhouse, Han Hao, Zeqing Bao, Pauric Bannigan, Christine Allen, Matteo Aldeghi, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Atlas: a brain for self-driving laboratories.Digital Discovery, 4: 1006–1029, 2025. doi:10.1039/D4DD00115J

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    Hyperband: A novel bandit-based approach to hyperparameter optimization.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(185):1–52, 2018

    Lisha Li, Kevin Jamieson, Giulia DeSalvo, Afshin Rostamizadeh, and Ameet Talwalkar. Hyperband: A novel bandit-based approach to hyperparameter optimization.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(185):1–52, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    BOHB: Robust and efficient hyperparameter optimization at scale

    Stefan Falkner, Aaron Klein, and Frank Hutter. BOHB: Robust and efficient hyperparameter optimization at scale. InProceed- ings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1437–1446, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Syne Tune: A library for large scale hyperparameter tuning and reproducible research

    David Salinas, Matthias Seeger, Aaron Klein, Valerio Perrone, Martin Wistuba, and Cédric Archambeau. Syne Tune: A library for large scale hyperparameter tuning and reproducible research. InProceedings of the First International Conference on Automated Machine Learning, volume ...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Hickman, Loïc M

    Florian Häse, Matteo Aldeghi, Riley J. Hickman, Loïc M. Roch, Melodie Christensen, Elena Liles, Jason E. Hein, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Olympus: a benchmarking framework for noisy optimization and experiment planning.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2:035021, 2021. doi:...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Huber, Spyros Zoupanos, Martin Uhrin, Leopold Talirz, Leonid Kahle, Rico Häuselmann, Dominik Gresch, Tiziano Müller, Aliaksandr V

    Sebastiaan P. Huber, Spyros Zoupanos, Martin Uhrin, Leopold Talirz, Leonid Kahle, Rico Häuselmann, Dominik Gresch, Tiziano Müller, Aliaksandr V . Yakutovich, Casper W. Andersen, et al. AiiDA 1.0, a scalable computational infrastructure for automated reproducible workflows and ...

    2020 doi

  12. [1944]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRev.65.117

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.