Robustness of Maximin Space-filling Designs
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
In this report, we first have a review of the maximin space-filling design methods that is often applied and discussed in the literature (for example, Müller (2007)). Then we will discuss the robustness of the maximin space-filling design against model misspecification via numerical simulation. For this purpose, we will generate spatial data sets on a n x n grid and design points are selected from the n2 locations. The predictions at the unsampled locations are made based on the observations at these design points. Then the mean of the squared prediction errors are estimated as a measure of the robustness of the designs against possible model misspecification. Surprisingly, according to the simulation results, we find that the maximin space-filling designs may be robust against possible model misspecification in the sense that the mean of the squared prediction error does not increase significantly when the model is misspecified. Although the results were obtained based on simple models, this result is very inspiring. It will guide further numerical and theoretical studies which will be done as future work.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it