Papers › Offline Model-Based Optimization by Learning to Rank
Offline Model-Based Optimization by Learning to Rank
Rong-Xi Tan, Ke Xue, Shen-Huan Lyu, Haopu Shang, Yao Wang, Yaoyuan Wang, Sheng Fu, Chao Qian
Offline model-based optimization (MBO) aims to identify a design that maximizes a black-box function using only a fixed, pre-collected dataset of designs and their corresponding scores. A common approach in offline MBO is to train a regression-based surrogate model by minimizing mean squared error (MSE) and then find the best design within this surrogate model by different optimizers (e.g., gradient ascent). However, a critical challenge is the risk of out-of-distribution errors, i.e., the surrogate model may typically overestimate the scores and mislead the optimizers into suboptimal regions. Prior works have attempted to address this issue in various ways, such as using regularization techniques and ensemble learning to enhance the robustness of the model, but it still remains. In this paper, we argue that regression models trained with MSE are not well-aligned with the primary goal of offline MBO, which is to select promising designs rather than to predict their scores precisely. Notably, if a surrogate model can maintain the order of candidate designs based on their relative score relationships, it can produce the best designs even without precise predictions. To validate it, we conduct experiments to compare the relationship between the quality of the final designs and MSE, finding that the correlation is really very weak. In contrast, a metric that measures order-maintaining quality shows a significantly stronger correlation. Based on this observation, we propose learning a ranking-based model that leverages learning to rank techniques to prioritize promising designs based on their relative scores. We show that the generalization error on ranking loss can be well bounded. Empirical results across diverse tasks demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed ranking-based models than twenty existing methods.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2410.11502")
Code
Syntology Ran 15 of 17 code samples harvested from 4 repositories linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · our draft was wrong; 13 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 8 samples from 2 repositories, 8 ran; found in paper text by Syntology: 8 samples from 1 repository, 6 ran; community: 1 sample from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
17 samples harvested; 15 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 9 of the 17 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from 4 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
878f7feaba547fb6 · report
f39d3df3ce16b87c · report
f40a7926c73e49c1 · report
fd1924a6479e1fa4 · report
9c71991dafef6c40 · report
3f6fcd223948503e · report
c754deebeb9906bf · report
089fa157d43247ba · report
97d1dadc0092cddc · report
cd881bdf30de1f0a · report
7dbee57a564eced6 · report
fb3792dae3b52c70 · report
9bdda179859c7e1c · report
9254b9a1999e5ab9 · report
bee40bc7b8e40002 · report
0508c25f44e088dc · report
3006c520eff7c841 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections