Search — where it appears
Named by 10 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The third parameter, run
An aspect has three numbers and this site has been searching two of them, with a note admitting it. Searching all three is worth up to 2.1 times — and the obvious way to do it, starting from the two-parameter answer and letting the third move, finds a fraction of that or nothing at all.
The landscape the search walks on
The three-parameter aspect search was run and its answer recorded with a note admitting nothing proved it global. Mapping the objective finds 26 to 34 local minima for every projection and region tried, a downhill walk from a random start reaching the best of them 6 to 35 per cent of the time — and one seed from the coarse grid the search already uses reaching it in all four cases. The score is reproducible to two per cent across a sevenfold refinement; the pole it names moves 60 degrees.
Report the map, not the parameters
The aspect search was found returning the same score to 2.3 per cent from poles sixty degrees of latitude apart, which left the answer looking irreproducible. That reading assumed the disagreeing triples make disagreeing maps. They do not — the three answers agree on the distortion field to a quarter of the deformation the map already has.
A net can land on top of itself
Every one of the cube's 384 unfoldings is a net, and every one of the icosahedron's five million is too. Past the regular solids that stops being true: at 180 faces, 99 of every 100 randomly chosen unfoldings have faces sitting on top of each other, so choosing a net stops being a choice and becomes a search — except that the net anybody would actually draw works every time.
What the net heuristic cannot find
Choosing a net by unfolding outwards from a face beats guessing, and the earlier measurement of that left its own limit unknown. Enumerated in full, the heuristic turns out to be exactly optimal on every solid small enough to check — rank one of 384 — and above that ceiling no sample can tell whether it still is, because eight hundred random nets never reach it.
The shape of the valley
An aspect search returns three numbers, two searches return triples that differ by a hemisphere, and the maps they produce agree. One cause is an exact degeneracy and the rest was called a valley and left unmeasured. Sampled densely, it is neither a valley nor a basin: a connected sheet spanning 170° of pole that splits in two at twice the best score and into thirteen pieces by 1.7 times it.
Where the valley breaks in two
A near-optimal set is one connected sheet at a loose threshold and thirteen basins at a tight one, and the transition was explained without being tested. The explanation is a prediction about region size and projection sharpness: swept over both, the threshold falls from 2.10 to 0.27 as a region grows from 6° to 30°, three projections lie on nearly one curve, and a fourth declines to join for a reason worth having.
A residual cannot count the pieces of a map
A compiled map does not say how many sheets went into it, and trying every count and keeping the best fit cannot tell. Seven pieces always fit better than two, because they contain them. A criterion that charges ln N for each number a piece spends recovers the true count in every trial, for one copied stretch and for two, until the digitising error reaches a thousandth of the map. AIC charges two and takes every piece it is offered. And an eased copy defeats the right criterion the other way: it is not a projection, so BIC buys pieces to explain it, three seams, then four, then six.
A second tracing tells a drifting hand from a copied stretch
A hand tracing a coast drifts rather than jitters, and a drifting error is a smooth departure no projection explains — so the criterion that counted copied stretches correctly under independent noise counts four or five seams where two were made, and three or four on a coast with no copy at all. Undo the drift before fitting and every count comes back, for no copy, one and two, in every tracing. That needs the drift's correlation length from outside the coast, known to within a factor of three on the short side and much less on the long, and a second tracing of the same coast supplies it: the difference between two tracings holds nothing but the two errors, and read that way the count is right in 22 tracings of 24, and never too high.
An easing is a seam with a width, and a drifting hand hides the width
A copy eased into a compiled coast is not a projection, so a count that explains the coast in rigid pieces buys four, five or six seams for one copy. Give each seam a width — the copy blended into the host over that width, the same linear fit at every width, the width charged as one more number — and the count is two seams at every easing up to 17.5 per cent of the coast, and the width it reports is the one drawn, wherever the copy departs from the host by many times the digitising error. Where it departs by seven, the width is a guess. On a tracing made by a drifting hand the easing disappears: whitened for the drift, the rigid count already calls two seams in every tracing, because an easing as long as the drift is a stretch of drift, and its width can no longer be read until it is twice the drift's length.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
OptimisationAspectDegrees of freedomLocal minimumObjective functionReproducibilityCompilationDegeneracyEstimatorIdentifiabilityLeast-squaresParameter search