Nelder–Mead method
Numerical optimization algorithm

The Nelder–Mead method (also downhill simplex method, amoeba method, or polytope method) is a numerical method used to find a local minimum or maximum of an objective function in a multidimensional space. It is a direct search method (based on function comparison) and is often applied to nonlinear optimization problems for which derivatives may not be known. However, the Nelder–Mead technique is a heuristic search method that can converge to non-stationary points on problems that can be solved by alternative methods.
The Nelder–Mead technique was proposed by John Nelder and Roger Mead in 1965, as a development of the method of Spendley et al.
Overview
The method uses the concept of a simplex, which is a special polytope of n + 1 vertices in n dimensions. Examples of simplices include a line segment in one-dimensional space, a triangle in two-dimensional space, a tetrahedron in three-dimensional space, and so forth.
The method approximates a local optimum of a problem with n variables when the objective function varies smoothly and is unimodal. Typical implementations minimize functions, and we maximize
f
(
x
)
{\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )}
by minimizing
−
f
(
x
)
{\displaystyle -f(\mathbf {x} )}
.
For example, a suspension bridge engineer has to choose how thick each strut, cable, and pier must be. These elements are interdependent, but it is not easy to visualize the impact of changing any specific element.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Nelder–Mead method” is numerical optimization algorithm. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Nelder, Mead and method, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “numerical optimization algorithm” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1253278. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1965.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Nelder–Mead method”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Nelder–Mead method primary sources, Nelder–Mead method archive and Nelder research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Nelder–Mead method”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Nelder–Mead method” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.