Variable Selection for Gaussian Process Models in Computer Experiments
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractIn many situations, simulation of complex phenomena requires a large number of inputs and is computationally expensive. Identifying the inputs that most impact the system so that these factors can be further investigated can be a critical step in the scientific endeavor. In computer experiments, it is common to use a Gaussian spatial process to model the output of the simulator. In this article we introduce a new, simple method for identifying active factors in computer screening experiments. The approach is Bayesian and only requires the generation of a new inert variable in the analysis; however, in the spirit of frequentist hypothesis testing, the posterior distribution of the inert factor is used as a reference distribution against which the importance of the experimental factors can be assessed. The methodology is demonstrated on an application in material science, a computer experiment from the literature, and simulated examples.KEY WORDS : Computer simulationLatin hypercubeRandom fieldScreeningSpatial process
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it