Reinforcement Learning-Based Sequential Batch-Sampling for Bayesian Optimal Experimental Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Engineering problems that are modeled using sophisticated mathematical methods or are characterized by expensive-to-conduct tests or experiments are encumbered with limited budget or finite computational resources. Moreover, practical scenarios in the industry, impose restrictions, based on logistics and preference, on the manner in which the experiments can be conducted. For example, material supply may enable only a handful of experiments in a single-shot or in the case of computational models one may face significant wait-time based on shared computational resources. In such scenarios, one usually resorts to performing experiments in a manner that allows for maximizing one’s state-of-knowledge while satisfying the above-mentioned practical constraints. Sequential design of experiments (SDOE) is a popular suite of methods that have yielded promising results in recent years across different engineering and practical problems. A common strategy that leverages Bayesian formalism is the Bayesian SDOE, which usually works best in the one-step-ahead or myopic scenario of selecting a single experiment at each step of a sequence of experiments. In this work, we aim to extend the SDOE strategy, to query the experiment or computer code at a batch of inputs. To this end, we leverage deep reinforcement learning (RL)-based policy gradient methods, to propose batches of queries that are selected taking into account the entire budget in hand. The algorithm retains the sequential nature, inherent in the SDOE while incorporating elements of reward based on task from the domain of deep RL. A unique capability of the proposed methodology is its ability to be applied to multiple tasks, for example, optimization of a function, once its trained. We demonstrate the performance of the proposed algorithm on a synthetic problem and a challenging high-dimensional engineering problem.
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 | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".