MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079018405 · doi:10.1115/detc2013-12663

Visual HDMR Model Refinement Through Iterative Interaction

2013· article· en· W2079018405 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamodelingComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Radial basis functionSurrogate modelIterative methodSampling (signal processing)Basis (linear algebra)Mathematical optimizationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsComputer visionArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In engineering design, time-consuming simulations may be needed to find the input-output relationship of a system. High Dimensional Model Representation (HDMR) alleviates the need for intensive simulation by approximating the system’s design space with a surrogate model. Although HDMR can provide an overview, specific regions of interest to the designer may require higher accuracy. This paper presents a tool to visualize and interactively improve HDMR accuracy in specified regions of the design space. Regions of the HDMR are selected by iterative brushing in two-dimensional scatterplot planes. Once a region is chosen, designers may concentrate sampling within its bounds to improve the model locally. Regions can be also improved by modeling the error with a localized radial basis function (RBF) metamodel. The effect of local refinement was further evaluated with localized performance metrics. Testing of the tool shows that it can effectively display and improve HDMR models in regions of interest, if there are variables which have a dominating influence on the output.

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 score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.289 · 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