A Prediction Region‐based Approach to Model Uncertainty for Multi‐response Optimization
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
Multi‐response optimization methods rely on empirical process models based on the estimates of model parameters that relate response variables to a set of design variables. However, in determining the optimal conditions for the design variables, model uncertainty is typically neglected, resulting in an unstable optimal solution. This paper proposes a new optimization strategy that takes model uncertainty into account via the prediction region for multiple responses. To avoid obtaining an overly conservative design, the location and dispersion performances are constructed based on the best‐case strategy and the worst‐case strategy of expected loss. We reveal that the traditional loss function and the minimax/maximin strategy are both special cases of the proposed approach. An example is illustrated to present the procedure and the effectiveness of the proposed loss function. The results show that the proposed approach can give reasonable results when both the location and dispersion performances are important issues. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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