Proportional volume sampling and approximation algorithms for A-optimal design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the A-optimal design problem where we are given vectors v1, ..., vn ∈ Rd, an integer k ≥ d, and the goal is to select a set S of k vectors that minimizes the trace of (Σi∈SviviT)−1. Traditionally, the problem is an instance of optimal design of experiments in statistics [35] where each vector corresponds to a linear measurement of an unknown vector and the goal is to pick k of them that minimize the average variance of the error in the maximum likelihood estimate of the vector being measured. The problem also finds applications in sensor placement in wireless networks [22], sparse least squares regression [8], feature selection for k-means clustering [9], and matrix approximation [13, 14, 5]. In this paper, we introduce proportional volume sampling to obtain improved approximation algorithms for A-optimal design.Given a matrix, proportional volume sampling involves picking a set of columns S of size k with probability proportional to μ(S) times det(Σi∈SviviT) for some measure μ. Our main result is to show the approximability of the A-optimal design problem can be reduced to approximate independence properties of the measure μ. We appeal to hard-core distributions as candidate distributions μ that allow us to obtain improved approximation algorithms for the A-optimal design. Our results include a d-approximation when k = d, an (1 + ϵ)-approximation when [MATH HERE] and [MATH HERE]-approximation when repetitions of vectors are allowed in the solution. We also consider generalization of the problem for k ≤ d and obtain a k-approximation.We also show that the proportional volume sampling algorithm gives approximation algorithms for other optimal design objectives (such as D-optimal design [36] and generalized ratio objective [27]) matching or improving previous best known results. Interestingly, we show that a similar guarantee cannot be obtained for the E-optimal design problem. We also show that the A-optimal design problem is NP-hard to approximate within a fixed constant when k = d.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".