Efficiently transforming from values of a function on a sparse grid to basis coefficients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many contexts it is necessary to determine coefficients of a basis expansion of a function ${f}\left(x_1, \ldots, x_D\right) $ from values of the function at points on a sparse grid. Knowing the coefficients, one has an interpolant or a surrogate. For example, such coefficients are used in uncertainty quantification. In this chapter, we present an efficient method for computing the coefficients. It uses basis functions that, like the familiar piecewise linear hierarchical functions, are zero at points in previous levels. They are linear combinations of any, e.g. global, nested basis functions $\varphi_{i_k}^{\left(k\right)}\left(x_k\right)$. Most importantly, the transformation from function values to basis coefficients is done, exploiting the nesting, by evaluating sums sequentially. When the number of functions in level $\ell_k$ equals $\ell_k$ (i.e. when the level index is increased by one, only one point (function) is added) and the basis function indices satisfy ${\left\lVert\mathbf{i}-\mathbf{1}\right\lVert_1 \le b}$, the cost of the transformation scales as $\mathcal{O}\left(D \left[\frac{b}{D+1} + 1\right] N_\mathrm{sparse}\right)$, where $N_\mathrm{sparse}$ is the number of points on the sparse grid. We compare the cost of doing the transformation with sequential sums to the cost of other methods in the literature.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".