MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472752992 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2015.1030414

Computing A-optimal and E-optimal designs for regression models via semidefinite programming

2015· article· en· W2472752992 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSemidefinite programmingOptimal designMathematical optimizationMATLABLinear programmingComputer scienceMathematicsConvergence (economics)Semidefinite embeddingConstruct (python library)Quadratically constrained quadratic programMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In semidefinite programming (SDP), we minimize a linear objective function subject to a linear matrix being positive semidefinite. A powerful program, SeDuMi, has been developed in MATLAB to solve SDP problems. In this article, we show in detail how to formulate A-optimal and E-optimal design problems as SDP problems and solve them by SeDuMi. This technique can be used to construct approximate A-optimal and E-optimal designs for all linear and nonlinear regression models with discrete design spaces. In addition, the results on discrete design spaces provide useful guidance for finding optimal designs on any continuous design space, and a convergence result is derived. Moreover, restrictions in the designs can be easily incorporated in the SDP problems and solved by SeDuMi. Several representative examples and one MATLAB program are given.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.569
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.003 · 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