Optimal design of simultaneous source encoding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A broad range of parameter estimation problems involve the collection of an excessively large number of observations N. Typically, each such observation involves excitation of the domain through injection of energy at some predefined sites and recording of the response of the domain at another set of locations. It has been observed that similar results can often be obtained by considering a far smaller number K of multiple linear superpositions of experiments with K≪N. This allows the construction of the solution to the inverse problem in time O(K) instead of O(N). Given these considerations it should not be necessary to perform all the N experiments but only a much smaller number of K experiments with simultaneous sources in superpositions with certain weights. Devising such procedure would results in a drastic reduction in acquisition time. The question we attempt to rigorously investigate in this work is: what are the optimal weights? We formulate the problem as an optimal experimental design problem and show that by leveraging techniques from this field an answer is readily available. Designing optimal experiments requires some statistical framework and therefore the statistical framework that one chooses to work with plays a major role in the selection of the weights.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".