Fractional Simplex Designs for Interaction Screening in Complex Mixtures
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
In mixture experiments, one may be interested in estimating not only main effects but also some interactions. Main effects and significant interactions in a mixture may be estimated through appropriate mixture experiments, such as simplex-centroid designs. However, for mixtures with a large number of factors, the run size for these designs becomes impractically large. A subset of a full simplex-centroid design may be used, but the problem remains regarding which factor-level settings should be selected. In this paper, we propose a solution that considers design points with either one or p individual nonzero factor-level settings. These fractional simplex designs provide a means of screening for interactions and of investigating the behavior of many-component mixtures as a whole while greatly reducing the run size compared with full simplex-centroid designs. The means of construction of the design arrays is described, and designs for < or = 31 factors are presented. Some of the proposed methodology is illustrated using generated data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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) | 0.005 | 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