A sequential split‐and‐conquer approach for the analysis of big dependent data in computer experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Massive correlated data with many inputs are often generated from computer experiments to study complex systems. The Gaussian process (GP) model is a widely used tool for the analysis of computer experiments. Although GPs provide a simple and effective approximation to computer experiments, two critical issues remain unresolved. One is the computational issue in GP estimation and prediction where intensive manipulations of a large correlation matrix are required. For a large sample size and with a large number of variables, this task is often unstable or infeasible. The other issue is how to improve the naive plug‐in predictive distribution which is known to underestimate the uncertainty. In this article, we introduce a unified framework that can tackle both issues simultaneously. It consists of a sequential split‐and‐conquer procedure, an information combining technique using confidence distributions (CD), and a frequentist predictive distribution based on the combined CD. It is shown that the proposed method maintains the same asymptotic efficiency as the conventional likelihood inference under mild conditions, but dramatically reduces the computation in both estimation and prediction. The predictive distribution contains comprehensive information for inference and provides a better quantification of predictive uncertainty as compared with the plug‐in approach. Simulations are conducted to compare the estimation and prediction accuracy with some existing methods, and the computational advantage of the proposed method is also illustrated. The proposed method is demonstrated by a real data example based on tens of thousands of computer experiments generated from a computational fluid dynamic simulator.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".