Unbiased metamodeling via likelihood ratios
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
Metamodeling has been a topic of longstanding interest in stochastic simulation because of the usefulness of metamodels for optimization, sensitivity, and real- or near-real-time decision making. Experiment design is the foundation of classical metamodeling: an effective experiment design uncovers the spatial relationships among the design/decision variables and the simulation response; therefore, more design points, providing better coverage of space, is almost always better. However, metamodeling based on likelihood ratios (LRs) turns the design question on its head: each design point provides an unbiased prediction of the response at any other location in space, but perhaps with such inflated variance as to be counterproductive. Thus, the question becomes more which design points to employ for prediction and less where to place them. In this paper we take the first comprehensive look at LR metamodeling, categorizing both the various types of LR metamodels and the contexts in which they might be employed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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