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
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd Two-level orthogonal designs play an important role in industrial screening experiments, in which the primary goal is to identify the treatment factors with the largest main effects on the output of a process or the performance of a product. Often, the experimental tests suggested by the orthogonal designs cannot be performed on a single day or using a single batch of raw material. This causes day-to-day or batch-to-batch variation in the experimental results, and necessitates the use of orthogonal blocking patterns. These blocking patterns ensure that the factors’ main effects can be estimated independently from the day-to-day or batch-to-batch variation. Finding an optimal orthogonal blocking pattern for an orthogonal design is a major challenge. Recently, mixed integer linear programming has been used for that purpose. While this approach is promising, computational experiments have indicated it is quite slow. We show how to speed up the mixed integer linear programming approach by adding symmetry breaking constraints to the formulation, and study the usefulness of an asymmetric representatives formulation. In other words, we introduce state-of-the-art symmetry breaking approaches in optimal experimental design. We perform extensive computational experiments to test which combinations of symmetry breaking constraints work best. Throughout, we consider two kinds of symmetry: symmetry due to the fact that the blocks can be relabeled without affecting the quality of the blocking pattern, and symmetry due to replicated test combinations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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