MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1766801768 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.08.165

Robust design of experiments using constrained stochastic optimization

2015· article· en· W1766801768 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationMathematical optimizationMonte Carlo methodOptimal designSet (abstract data type)Robust optimizationFisher informationDesign of experimentsMaximizationStochastic optimizationComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Process models that are affected by uncertainties need a robust mechanism to account for them in the model based design of experiments (DOE). The aim of this study is to design a set of experiments to estimate the parameters of multiscale kinetic models for the catalytic decomposition of ammonia. Along with uncertainties in the model, the problem is challenging due to constraints on experimental conditions. A stochastic D-optimal design is used to find the optimal experimental conditions using maximization of the expectation of properties of the Fisher information matrix (FIM). The expectation of FIM is calculated by sample average approximation (SAA) based on Monte Carlo simulations. Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is used to perform stochastic optimization to find the optimal set of experimental conditions. A novel method based on the rescaling of velocities is proposed for handling of equality and inequality constraints in particle swarm optimization.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it