MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950867586 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1605.08473

Robust designs for experiments with blocks

2016· preprint· en· W2950867586 on OpenAlexafffund
Rena K. Mann, Roderick Edwards, Julie Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMinimaxEstimatorCovariance matrixAlgorithmSimulated annealingCovarianceConstruct (python library)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsDesign matrixMatrix (chemical analysis)Computer scienceLeast-squares function approximationDesign of experimentsGeneralized least squaresMinimax estimatorApplied mathematicsLinear modelStatisticsMinimum-variance unbiased estimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For experiments running in field plots or over time, the observations are often correlated due to spatial or serial correlation, which leads to correlated errors in a linear model analyzing the treatment means. Without knowing the exact correlation matrix of the errors, it is not possible to compute the generalized least squares estimator for the treatment means and use it to construct optimal designs for the experiments. In this paper we propose to use neighbourhoods to model the covariance matrix of the errors, and apply a modified generalized least squares estimator to construct robust designs for experiments with blocks. A minimax design criterion is investigated, and a simulated annealing algorithm is developed to find robust designs. We have derived several theoretical results, and representative examples are presented.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.531
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207