Tasks/Optimization, Planning & Control

Query-Budgeted Noisy Black-Box Optimization

Minimize 10-dimensional multimodal objectives with 120 noisy evaluations on unseen instances

Optimization, Planning & Controlblack-box optimizationnoisy objectives
Background

Black-box optimization — tuning a system that can only be probed by trying settings — lacks a settled recipe when measurements are noisy and evaluations rationed. The starting point is a uniform random sampler that spends 120 queries on a ten-dimensional multimodal objective without learning. The work is to replace it with a noise-aware search that budgets exploration against refinement. Because noise can reverse the ranking of candidates, queries spent confirming a gain are queries not spent finding one, and results must transfer to unseen instances.

instruction.mdthis is what the agent is given

Your task is to design a reproducible, noise-aware optimizer that minimizes 10-dimensional continuous black-box objectives with smooth periodic, multimodal structure. You inherit a weak uniform-random baseline, and every run uses the box [-5, 5]^10 with a strict budget of 120 objective queries. Your submitted optimizer is re-run on disjoint sealed instances.

Hard Constraints

  • Edit only /app/methods/main/; solver.py must define Optimizer.
  • Use only the Python standard library and NumPy 2.2.6.
  • The required constructor is Optimizer(dim, lower, upper, budget, seed, rng). No task-information argument is supplied.
  • ask(n) must return a finite NumPy-compatible matrix with 1 through n rows, exactly dim columns, and all coordinates within the supplied bounds.
  • The verifier owns the objective and query counter. Extra returned points do not increase the 120-query budget.
  • Import failures, crashes, malformed output, non-finite values, and out-of-bounds proposals invalidate the complete submission.
  • The submitted process cannot read or modify trusted evaluator assets and has no verifier network access.

Runtime budget.

Submitted optimizer code receives a 120-second aggregate soft budget across the complete sealed suite, not a separate 120 seconds for every run. The suite contains 400 independent optimizer runs, so each run must average about 0.3 seconds. There is no five-second scoring cutoff on every individual ask or tell response; when the aggregate soft budget expires, the verifier stops requesting new work and evaluates the best completed state. A stalled process can still be terminated at a sealed safety cap. Use bounded, vectorized per-query work; repeated dense refits or hundreds-wide candidate scans at every observation are unlikely to fit. This budget applies to sealed execution, not to your research time.

What You Have

  • /app/data/visible.json contains twelve public development instances from the same noisy continuous family; sealed instances are distinct.
  • /app/methods/main/solver.py is a uniform-random baseline.
  • /app/selfcheck.py evaluates the same higher-is-better normalized anytime/final metric family used by the sealed evaluator on 20 deterministic runs per visible instance. It also reports diagnostic components and latent final-objective summaries.
  • The supplied rng is np.random.default_rng(seed) and should drive all randomness for deterministic replay.
  • The verifier repeatedly calls ask(n), evaluates the returned points, and calls tell(X, y) (or tell(X, y, metadata) if accepted). Each value in y is an observed noisy loss, so lower is better even though the aggregate self-check score is higher-is-better.
  • A positive integer self.batch may request a preferred batch size; the verifier negotiates and caps it to the remaining budget.

What You Submit

Submit optimizer code, not a one-shot point or precomputed answer. The entire submitted optimizer must be self-contained in /app/methods/main/solver.py, which must define the required Optimizer class; sibling modules are not copied to the trusted verifier.

How It Is Judged

The trusted parent evaluates your optimizer on sealed instances and fixed seeds. It records authoritative latent best-so-far traces, aggregates them robustly across seeds, and combines anytime quality with final-query quality under the same metric definition exposed by the visible self-check. Higher normalized quality is better; sealed instances, calibration assets, and evaluator internals remain hidden.

Rollouts

180 minWall clock
$50.35Spend
78.6MTokens
39Versions, 35 kept

On the visible set

0 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0 150 300 450 600 Agent step Oracle-norm. quality ↑ v0 v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38
keptrolled backsubmitted
  1. v0The shipped uniform-random search established the zero-score baseline.Full visible score 0.0000001 min · $0.32
  2. v1A bounded full-covariance CMA-style strategy replaced random search.Full visible score 0.2237625 min · $0.70
  3. v2Reducing the initial normalized sigma to 0.35 produced a repeatable gain.Full visible score 0.3087487 min · $0.97
  4. v3Reducing the initial sigma again to 0.30 improved every evaluated slice.Full visible score 0.3748947 min · $1.14
  5. v4An initial sigma of 0.25 improved the combined score and cross-slice stability.Full visible score 0.3801468 min · $1.27
  6. v5An initial sigma of 0.20 delivered the best full and reserved-slice scores so far.Full visible score 0.3954828 min · $1.50
  7. v6Narrowing the initial sigma to 0.15 reduced the combined score and was reverted.Full visible score 0.3914089 min · $1.63
  8. v7Reducing the CMA batch from 10 to 7 enabled more adaptation generations.Full visible score 0.44506814 min · $2.39
  9. v8A batch size of 6 improved reserved stability but scored below batch 7.Full visible score 0.43584115 min · $2.50
  10. v9A batch size of 8 also scored below the selected batch-7 strategy.Full visible score 0.43449415 min · $2.60
  11. v10A cross-fold-stable sigma of 0.175 failed to improve the authoritative full score.Full visible score 0.43975216 min · $2.85
  12. v11Three mirrored pairs plus one independent sample sharply improved noise robustness.Full visible score 0.51310917 min · $3.08
  13. v12The leftover final query evaluated the learned mean instead of a fresh mutation.Full visible score 0.51895921 min · $3.81
  14. v13After generation 10, each seventh sample evaluated the learned mean.Full visible score 0.53108122 min · $4.16
  15. v14Fixed-radius orthogonal directions improved fresh-seed generalization despite a tuned-score dip.Full visible score 0.51441331 min · $5.68
  16. v15Cycling one random orthonormal frame improved directional coverage and stability.Full visible score 0.53327433 min · $6.08
  17. v16Cholesky covariance sampling preserved frame orientation and delivered a large gain.Full visible score 0.59009134 min · $6.39
  18. v17Switching to mean evaluation after generation 6 improved anytime performance.Full visible score 0.59240037 min · $7.08
  19. v18Regularized local parabolas blended curvature steps with rank recombination.Full visible score 0.61086544 min · $8.63
  20. v19Starting the model-assisted phase after generation 2 improved every evaluated fold.Full visible score 0.62526046 min · $9.17
  21. v20Raising the curvature regularization floor to 5 improved unseen-seed stability.Full visible score 0.62231450 min · $10.47
  22. v21Widening the quadratic displacement clip to 1.0 improved the full and aggregate scores.Full visible score 0.62942652 min · $10.97
  23. v22A query-49 restart rescued searches still trapped above noisy loss 40.Full visible score 0.62921469 min · $15.90
  24. v23A query-42 sigma shrink accelerated runs already below noisy loss 15.Full visible score 0.63088773 min · $17.19
  25. v24A relative query-49 restart rule identified stagnation as well as hard instances.Full visible score 0.63155886 min · $21.22
  26. v25Early quadratic blending was scaled by the fraction of positive-curvature directions.Full visible score 0.63637691 min · $23.36
  27. v26Evaluating the mean first improved within-batch anytime credit across five folds.Full visible score 0.63582694 min · $24.15
  28. v27Ordering mutations by evolution-path alignment improved all five fold scores.Full visible score 0.63680797 min · $25.47
  29. v28Size-generic pair bookkeeping preserved the score while supporting arbitrary request sizes.Full visible score 0.636807100 min · $26.31
  30. v29Requiring directional curvature above 3 filtered out noise-sized estimates.Full visible score 0.637221105 min · $28.03
  31. v30Fresh-seed comparisons selected a wider first-attempt sigma of 0.225.Full visible score 0.631106110 min · $31.76
  32. v31Two independent 100-seed aggregates selected an initial sigma of 0.23.Full visible score 0.619496113 min · $33.74
  33. v32Returning to a positive-curvature test improved both 100-seed aggregates.Full visible score 0.621136117 min · $36.13
  34. v33Using curvature-fraction blending throughout simplified the method without hurting validation.Full visible score 0.620658120 min · $38.55
  35. v34Increasing the curvature blend coefficient to 0.6 improved the 200-seed mean.Full visible score 0.629025130 min · $42.09
  36. v35Raising the curvature denominator floor to 8 reduced over-aggressive model steps.Full visible score 0.635345134 min · $42.72
  37. v36Quartering both covariance learning rates improved both independent seed halves.Full visible score 0.647654145 min · $44.12
  38. v37A stricter 75% relative restart threshold improved both seed halves.Full visible score 0.653211154 min · $45.65
  39. v38Capped endpoint slopes recovered useful signal from negative-curvature directions.Full visible score 0.661903166 min · $48.15

On the hidden set

Original metricNormalised score
Starter00.0
Upper0.51.0
This run (GPT-5.6-sol)9.06440.6000
393 minWall clock
$44.05Spend
69.2MTokens
7Versions, 6 kept

On the visible set

0 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0 2 3 4 6 Agent step Oracle-norm. quality ↑ v0 v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6
keptrolled backsubmitted
  1. v0The agent inherited the shipped uniform-random search baseline0$3.31
  2. v1The agent added matched-filter particle probing with a CMA polishThe ensemble mean makes every observation a distance reading to x*, so infer the centre from all data instead of searching.0.505244 min · $6.62
  3. v2The agent constrained the profile likelihood to a zero-depth funnelThe family's latent optimum is exactly 0, so pin the funnel depth to the baseline and fit only its centre.0.6326148 min · $17.58
  4. v3The agent enlarged the particle pool and started from a centred sphereRecovered optima all lie inside +-3.21, so design points near the centre sit nearer x* and carry more funnel signal.0.656205 min · $24.79
  5. v4The agent re-ranked particles with a correlated-ripple GLS likelihood0.6571275 min · $34.73
  6. v5The agent widened the candidate prior and shrank the GLS shortlist0.6517349 min · $41.22
  7. v6The agent added wall-clock fallbacks without changing search behaviour0.6517363 min · $42.20

On the hidden set

Original metricNormalised score
Starter00.0
Upper0.51.0
This run (Opus 5)27.01590.3186
178 minWall clock
$50.00Spend
384.9MTokens
4Versions, 3 kept

On the visible set

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 1 2 2 3 Agent step Oracle-norm. quality ↑ v0 v1 v2 v3
keptrolled backsubmitted
  1. v0The agent inherited the shipped uniform-random search baseline0
  2. v1The agent built a fast Matern GP with LCB and DE crossoverAverage the repeats into denoised centres and perturb around them, since 120 queries cannot cover 10D.0.355321
  3. v2The agent shrank the LHS init and kept exploration alive longerBuy queries back from the initial design and let exploration fade slowly instead of stopping early.0.410193
  4. v3The agent added a pure-exploit tail and tuned perturbation schedules0.410246

On the hidden set

Original metricNormalised score
Starter00.0
Upper0.51.0
This run (Gemini 3.7 Flash)37.04030.1749
91 minWall clock
$3.67Spend
7.1MTokens
21Versions, 3 kept

On the visible set

0 0.075 0.150 0.225 0.300 0.375 0 5 10 15 20 Agent step Oracle-norm. quality ↑ v0 v1 v1r v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19
keptrolled backsubmitted
  1. v0The agent inherited the shipped uniform-random search baseline0$0.23
  2. v1The agent built an RBF kernel-ridge surrogate with EI and repulsion batchingGlobal surrogate rank correlation is only 0.1-0.2, so balance EI locally and spread a batch out instead of trusting its argmin.0.3739$0.46
  3. v1rThe agent re-measured the baseline across five synthetic instance sets0.3739$0.62
  4. v2The agent gradient-polished the top EI candidates on the surrogate mean0.35$0.78
  5. v3The agent picked the surrogate argmin first in every batch0.337$0.94
  6. v4The agent used the argmin pick only in the last quarter0.354$1.11
  7. v5The agent swept the initial design size0.359$1.27
  8. v6The agent value-weighted the ridge fit toward good points0.348$1.43
  9. v7The agent added an LCB shortlist and a fine polish shell0.35$1.59
  10. v8The agent added a BOBYQA-style quadratic trust-region thread0.275$1.75
  11. v9The agent gridded batch size against repulsion strength0.359$1.91
  12. v10The agent tried Thompson sampling from a random-features posterior0.25$2.07
  13. v11The agent selected the kernel each cycle by marginal likelihood0.313$2.24
  14. v12The agent added distinct-basin local centers with a sharing schedule0.341$2.40
  15. v13The agent fitted the surrogate on the square root of y0.173$2.56
  16. v14The agent clipped the surrogate mean at zero, breaking standardization0.038$2.72
  17. v15The agent ran CMA-ES after the Latin-hypercube initialization0.201$2.88
  18. v16The agent made the candidate pool eighty percent local0.332$3.04
  19. v17The agent added a mid-scale basin-hopping candidate band0.327$3.20
  20. v18The agent switched to kriging-believer batching0.326$3.37
  21. v19The agent submitted the original surrogate configuration unchanged0.3739$3.53

On the hidden set

Original metricNormalised score
Starter00.0
Upper0.51.0
This run (Kimi K3)29.75470.2795
91 minWall clock
$28.16Spend
51.3MTokens
17Versions, 14 kept

On the visible set

0 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0 50 100 150 200 Agent step Oracle-norm. quality ↑ v0 v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16
keptrolled backsubmitted
  1. v0The agent inherited the shipped uniform-random search baseline0
  2. v1The agent ran mirrored CMA-ES from the origin with a polish tail0.4467
  3. v2The agent clipped CMA samples to the region where minimizers liveThe planted minima sit inside [-pi,pi], so spend no queries on the rest of the box.0.5154
  4. v3The agent added a ridge-quadratic Newton polish after CMA0.5119
  5. v4The agent reordered evaluations to try near-best points first0.4975
  6. v5The agent replaced the polish with a covariance-shaped one-plus-one search0.5191
  7. v6The agent enlarged the polish step size0.5206
  8. v7The agent pre-screened mirrored candidates with a local ridge-quadratic modelA generation only ranks what it pays for; score 32 candidates on a local model first so the 8 real queries land on good points.0.5509
  9. v8The agent started the quadratic filter one generation earlier0.5766
  10. v9The agent also filtered the last partial CMA generation0.5803
  11. v10The agent blended ridge-quadratic and RBF scores for candidate rankingOne surrogate misreads a multimodal landscape; averaging two z-scored models keeps the ranking usable where they disagree.0.5922
  12. v11The agent shifted the blend weight toward the RBF model0.6063
  13. v12The agent spent two more evaluations on filtered CMA steps0.6084
  14. v13The agent nudged the initial CMA step size down0.6108
  15. v14The agent enlarged the candidate pool to thirty-four0.6167
  16. v15The agent fitted the RBF on the eighty nearest points0.6249
  17. v16The agent widened the RBF neighborhood to ninety points0.6294

On the hidden set

Original metricNormalised score
Starter00.0
Upper0.51.0
This run (Grok 4.6)22.570.3794
84 minWall clock
$1.82Spend
16.0MTokens
7Versions, 5 kept

On the visible set

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 30 60 90 120 Agent step Oracle-norm. quality ↑ v0 v1 v2 v4 v5 v6
keptrolled backsubmitted
  1. v0The agent inherited the shipped uniform-random search baseline042 min · $0.46
  2. v1The agent ran annealed smoothed-gradient descent with a line search0.38546 min · $0.57
  3. v2The agent added adaptive radius and re-evaluation, hitting a caching bug0.17546 min · $0.59
  4. v3The agent ran two descents, one from centre and one from bestreconstructed from v473 min · $1.37
  5. v4The agent gave each descent its own radius anneal counter0.297773 min · $1.35
  6. v5The agent redesigned around many cheap descent steps instead of few0.480373 min · $1.38
  7. v6The agent added two descent steps and tightened the initial sigmas0.49575880 min · $1.68

On the hidden set

Original metricNormalised score
Starter00.0
Upper0.51.0
This run (DeepSeek V4 Pro)18.44010.4499
103 minWall clock
$11.65Spend
19.8MTokens
15Versions, 8 kept

On the visible set

0 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0 3 6 9 12 Agent step Oracle-norm. quality ↑ v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v19
keptrolled backsubmitted
  1. v1The agent inherited the shipped uniform-random search baseline04 min · $0.20
  2. v2The agent ran plain CMA-ES from the box centre0.1562$0.51
  3. v3The agent shrank the population and the initial step size0.434914 min · $0.82
  4. v4The agent restarted CMA at the incumbent on stall or collapse0.467917 min · $1.11
  5. v5The agent pre-screened oversampled candidates with a weighted quadratic surrogate0.545334 min · $2.32
  6. v6The agent reserved one slot for the surrogate trust-region minimizer0.552153 min · $4.22
  7. v7The agent started surrogate pre-screening right after the first generation0.559569 min · $6.10
  8. v8The agent raised the surrogate ridge to one-thousandth0.561783 min · $8.06
  9. v9The agent raised the surrogate ridge to one-hundredth0.577688 min · $9.12
  10. v12The agent added diversity-penalized candidate selectiontune9 up, hold3 down$10.39
  11. v13The agent reranked each CMA batch by surrogate predictionslightly worse$10.39
  12. v16The agent deduplicated trust-region pointsno-op, removed$10.39
  13. v19The agent added a targeted-radius scout generation mid-run0.592$10.39
  14. v20-v25The agent re-tuned the trust-region, pool, sigma and ridge knobsall within noise$10.39
  15. v26The agent added a conditional second start on stagnationno-op, rejected$10.39

On the hidden set

Original metricNormalised score
Starter00.0
Upper0.51.0
This run (Qwen3.8 Max)12.39370.5416
95 minWall clock
$6.56Spend
21.2MTokens
4Versions, 3 kept

On the visible set

0.405 0.420 0.435 0.450 0.465 0.480 0 30 60 90 120 Agent step Oracle-norm. quality ↑ v1 v2 v3 v4
keptrolled backsubmitted
  1. v1The agent replaced random search with CMA-ES from the box centre0.409167 min · $3.19
  2. v2The agent forced a sigma anneal and separable covariance0.453178 min · $4.21
  3. v3The agent refreshed the covariance every four generations0.478994 min · $6.23
  4. v4The agent added defensive guards for edge cases0.478995 min · $6.50

On the hidden set

Original metricNormalised score
Starter00.0
Upper0.51.0
This run (GLM 5.3)17.89120.4537
79 minWall clock
$35.88Spend
61.2MTokens
116Versions, 31 kept

On the visible set

0 0.15 0.30 0.45 0 150 300 450 600 Agent step Oracle-norm. quality ↑ v0 v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16 v17 v18 v19 v20 v21 v22 v23 v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 v36 v37 v38 v39 v40 v41 v42 v43 v44 v45 v46 v47 v48 v49 v50 v51 v52 v53 v54 v55 v56 v57 v58 v59 v60 v61 v62 v63 v64 v65 v66 v67 v68 v69 v70 v71 v72 v73 v74 v75 v76 v77 v78 v79 v80 v81 v82 v83 v84 v85 v86 v87 v88 v89 v90 v91 v92 v93 v94 v95 v96 v97 v98 v99 v100 v101 v102 v103 v104 v105 v106 v107 v108 v109 v110 v111 v112 v113 v114 v115
keptrolled backsubmitted
  1. v0The agent inherited the shipped uniform-random search baseline03 min · $0.27
  2. v1The agent built a hybrid warm-up, differential-evolution and local-refinement search0.1900014 min · $0.51
  3. v2The agent lengthened the warm-up from thirty-two to forty queries0.1648255 min · $0.69
  4. v3The agent shortened the warm-up to twenty-four queries0.1994176 min · $0.82
  5. v4The agent shifted proposals toward elite-local moves with a smaller radius0.2270716 min · $0.96
  6. v5The agent added systematic coordinate polling to the local phase0.2580717 min · $1.13
  7. v6The agent raised coordinate-local exploitation and cut DE and restart share0.2922518 min · $1.28
  8. v7The agent pushed exploitation further with minimal exploration0.2841929 min · $1.43
  9. v8The agent shortened the warm-up to twenty queries0.2903539 min · $1.58
  10. v9The agent lengthened the warm-up to twenty-eight queries0.25279510 min · $1.72
  11. v10The agent biased local proposals toward the current best observation0.3262210 min · $1.92
  12. v11The agent raised the best-point bias to eighty percent with three elites0.31811211 min · $2.08
  13. v12The agent set the best-point bias to seventy percent0.33796311 min · $2.23
  14. v13The agent set the best-point bias to seventy-five percent0.31425212 min · $2.41
  15. v14The agent tightened the local radius schedule0.32871912 min · $2.58
  16. v15The agent widened the local radius schedule0.32271913 min · $2.74
  17. v16The agent shrank the local radius on success and expanded it on stagnation0.34127113 min · $2.92
  18. v17The agent dropped the post-improvement shrink and kept only mild expansion0.32594714 min · $3.11
  19. v18The agent expanded the local radius after twelve stale queries0.33381715 min · $3.29
  20. v19The agent reduced the coordinate poll multiplier0.33447315 min · $3.48
  21. v20The agent increased the coordinate poll multiplier0.31040616 min · $3.66
  22. v21The agent lowered the coordinate-poll probability to sixty percent0.3135616 min · $3.85
  23. v22The agent raised the coordinate-poll probability to seventy-five percent0.33355916 min · $4.03
  24. v23The agent removed the global restart proposals0.32402617 min · $4.22
  25. v24The agent doubled the global restart proposals0.31869417 min · $4.41
  26. v25The agent cut the DE proposal share to twenty-four percent0.32776518 min · $4.61
  27. v26The agent raised the DE proposal share to forty percent0.30681618 min · $4.80
  28. v27The agent reduced the DE current-to-best attraction to 0.550.34817219 min · $5.00
  29. v28The agent reduced the DE current-to-best attraction to 0.450.33447619 min · $5.21
  30. v29The agent set the DE current-to-best attraction to 0.650.34980320 min · $5.41
  31. v30The agent set the DE current-to-best attraction to 0.600.33606721 min · $5.63
  32. v31The agent lowered the DE differential scale range0.33695321 min · $5.85
  33. v32The agent raised the DE differential scale range0.31921122 min · $6.06
  34. v33The agent lowered the DE crossover range0.33470722 min · $6.31
  35. v34The agent raised the DE crossover range0.3487223 min · $6.53
  36. v35The agent disabled the early alternate DE mutation branch0.3278823 min · $6.75
  37. v36The agent raised the alternate DE mutation branch probability0.34756924 min · $6.97
  38. v37The agent kept the alternate DE branch active until three-quarters of budget0.35438624 min · $7.20
  39. v38The agent kept the alternate DE branch active for the whole run0.35424225 min · $7.44
  40. v39The agent kept the alternate DE branch active until eighty-five percent of budget0.3517625 min · $7.67
  41. v40The agent added a cheap local linear ridge surrogate proposal0.35456326 min · $7.95
  42. v41The agent cut the surrogate proposal rate to three percent0.337727 min · $8.20
  43. v42The agent raised the surrogate proposal rate to ten percent0.33094127 min · $8.45
  44. v43The agent restricted surrogate proposals to the first three-quarters of budget0.35059728 min · $8.70
  45. v44The agent switched to a diagonal quadratic ridge surrogate with Newton steps0.36537428 min · $8.97
  46. v45The agent raised the quadratic surrogate rate to ten percent0.36468529 min · $9.24
  47. v46The agent cut the quadratic surrogate rate to five percent0.35295730 min · $9.49
  48. v47The agent shrank the surrogate neighborhood to thirty-five points0.3642730 min · $9.75
  49. v48The agent grew the surrogate neighborhood to seventy points0.36043531 min · $10.01
  50. v49The agent made the surrogate distance weighting more local0.3613331 min · $10.27
  51. v50The agent made the surrogate distance weighting broader0.35797132 min · $10.54
  52. v51The agent shrank the surrogate step jitter0.37536632 min · $10.80
  53. v52The agent removed the surrogate step jitter entirely0.36528733 min · $11.09
  54. v53The agent increased the surrogate step jitter0.36804934 min · $11.36
  55. v54The agent reduced the surrogate clipped step radius0.3677834 min · $11.64
  56. v55The agent increased the surrogate clipped step radius0.36060935 min · $11.92
  57. v56The agent raised the surrogate curvature floor to 0.100.37803235 min · $12.20
  58. v57The agent raised the surrogate curvature floor to 0.150.37702836 min · $12.50
  59. v58The agent set the surrogate curvature floor to 0.080.3793836 min · $12.79
  60. v59The agent lowered the surrogate curvature floor to 0.060.37822137 min · $13.08
  61. v60The agent raised the surrogate curvature floor to 0.090.37671438 min · $13.38
  62. v61The agent replaced the diagonal surrogate with a full quadratic Newton step0.3254938 min · $13.72
  63. v62The agent shortened the warm-up to twenty queries again0.38721339 min · $14.02
  64. v63The agent shortened the warm-up to sixteen queries0.3623940 min · $14.34
  65. v64The agent tried a twenty-two-query warm-up0.37866240 min · $14.65
  66. v65The agent tightened the warm-up normal scales0.40612741 min · $14.97
  67. v66The agent tightened the warm-up normal scales further0.41567642 min · $15.29
  68. v67The agent tightened the warm-up scales to 1.00 and 1.500.41598242 min · $15.62
  69. v68The agent tightened the warm-up scales to 0.80 and 1.200.4177843 min · $15.96
  70. v69The agent tightened the warm-up scales to 0.60 and 1.000.40992844 min · $16.30
  71. v70The agent mixed the warm-up scales 0.80 and 1.500.4065944 min · $16.63
  72. v71The agent mixed the warm-up scales 1.00 and 1.200.43687745 min · $16.96
  73. v72The agent used equal warm-up scales of 1.000.43116345 min · $17.30
  74. v73The agent used warm-up scales 1.00 and 1.350.42692946 min · $17.64
  75. v74The agent used equal warm-up scales of 1.200.4218546 min · $17.98
  76. v75The agent replaced the box-wide LHS warm-up with centre-normal draws0.47315247 min · $18.34
  77. v76The agent tightened the all-normal warm-up scales0.4540648 min · $18.69
  78. v77The agent broadened the all-normal warm-up scales0.45084348 min · $19.05
  79. v78The agent set the all-normal warm-up scales to 1.00, 1.40 and 1.800.45690449 min · $19.40
  80. v79The agent set the all-normal warm-up scales to 0.90, 1.10 and 1.500.44716950 min · $19.76
  81. v80The agent replaced the deterministic centre query with a normal draw0.43270950 min · $20.12
  82. v81The agent swapped random warm-up draws for noisy coordinate probes0.42725951 min · $20.49
  83. v82The agent lengthened the all-normal warm-up to twenty-four queries0.44164651 min · $20.87
  84. v83The agent shortened the all-normal warm-up to eighteen queries0.47102352 min · $21.23
  85. v84The agent used a nineteen-query all-normal warm-up0.47211352 min · $21.60
  86. v85The agent raised the quadratic surrogate proposal rate to ten percent0.48593153 min · $22.06
  87. v86The agent raised the surrogate proposal rate to twelve percent0.49162854 min · $22.45
  88. v87The agent raised the surrogate proposal rate to fifteen percent0.50026855 min · $22.84
  89. v88The agent raised the surrogate proposal rate to twenty percent0.48693856 min · $23.24
  90. v89The agent tried a seventeen percent surrogate proposal rate0.49555556 min · $23.63
  91. v90The agent tried a fourteen percent surrogate proposal rate0.49470657 min · $24.02
  92. v91The agent cut the DE proposal share to twenty-five percent0.50534657 min · $24.41
  93. v92The agent cut the DE proposal share to twenty percent0.49924859 min · $24.82
  94. v93The agent set the DE proposal share to twenty-eight percent0.50917660 min · $25.22
  95. v94The agent raised the DE proposal share to thirty percent0.48864861 min · $25.64
  96. v95The agent trimmed the DE proposal share to twenty-seven percent0.50262561 min · $26.04
  97. v96The agent removed the global restart branch0.50692462 min · $26.46
  98. v97The agent raised the global restart branch to five percent0.51090563 min · $26.87
  99. v98The agent raised the global restart branch to seven percent0.50690464 min · $27.29
  100. v99The agent shrank the restart scales0.50429464 min · $27.71
  101. v100The agent widened the restart scales0.51196565 min · $28.13
  102. v101The agent widened the restart scales further0.5061266 min · $28.57
  103. v102The agent raised the early restart scale to 3.00.51491666 min · $29.00
  104. v103The agent raised the late restart scale to 2.00.51453967 min · $29.44
  105. v104The agent lowered the late restart scale to 1.60.51437268 min · $29.88
  106. v105The agent raised the early restart scale to 3.20.51020368 min · $30.31
  107. v106The agent switched restart scales earlier in the budget0.51490769 min · $30.75
  108. v107The agent raised the local best-point bias to eighty percent0.49160770 min · $31.19
  109. v108The agent lowered the local best-point bias to sixty percent0.50133270 min · $31.63
  110. v109The agent raised the coordinate local move probability to eighty percent0.50816371 min · $32.08
  111. v110The agent tightened the local radius schedule again0.49408272 min · $32.53
  112. v111The agent widened the local radius schedule again0.49653272 min · $32.98
  113. v112The agent disabled success and stagnation scaling of the local radius0.49883673 min · $33.43
  114. v113The agent raised the surrogate curvature floor under the new mix0.51208774 min · $33.88
  115. v114The agent reduced the surrogate clipped step radius under the new mix0.50754374 min · $34.34
  116. v115The agent removed the unused LHS warm-up computation and its burn-in0.48617275 min · $34.86

On the hidden set

Original metricNormalised score
Starter00.0
Upper0.51.0
This run (GPT-5.5)15.17380.4578

Leaderboard

Where each run landed on the sealed held-out set, on the same normalised-score scale as the anchors above.

0 0.3 0.6 1.0 1 GPT-5.6-sol codex · max 0.600 2 Qwen3.8 Max qwen coder · xhigh 0.542 3 GPT-5.5 codex · xhigh 0.458 4 GLM 5.3 claude code · max 0.454 5 DeepSeek V4 Pro claude code · max 0.450 6 Grok 4.6 grok · xhigh 0.379 7 Opus 5 claude code · max 0.319 8 Kimi K3 kimi cli · max 0.280 9 Gemini 3.7 Flash antigravity · high 0.175