MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774974081 · doi:10.1002/env.2483

Design of monitoring networks using <i>k</i>‐determinantal point processes

2017· article· en· W2774974081 on OpenAlexafffund
Camila M. Casquilho-Resende, Nhu D. Le, James V. Zidek, Yu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmetrics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDeterminantal point processEntropy (arrow of time)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceOptimal designGaussianEngineering design processPoint processSampling (signal processing)MathematicsPrinciple of maximum entropyAlgorithmStatisticsMachine learningArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we introduce a design strategy based on k ‐determinantal point processes ( k ‐DPPs). The k ‐DPP design is a flexible design scheme that is able to yield spatially balanced designs while also imposing diversity of the selected locations based on extra sources of information known to be related to the underlying process of interest. The methodology is able to handle both the designing and the redesigning of a monitoring network. In particular, we discuss how a k ‐DPP design can be used as a randomized alternative for the space‐filling designs when the objective is to provide a good spatial coverage of the region of interest. Furthermore, we discuss how the k ‐DPP optimal design objective is remarkably similar to that of entropy design for Gaussian fields. Because the optimization for entropy designs is a NP‐hard problem, we explore an approximate solution based on a k ‐DPP sampling design strategy. Through a case study of augmentation of a network for monitoring temperatures, we illustrate how a k ‐DPP sampling design strategy can yield an approximation for the entropy solution.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmetricsSame topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207