Parameter estimation and prediction uncertainties for multi-response kinetic models with uncertain inputs
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
Error-in-variables model (EVM) methods are used for parameter estimation when independent variables are uncertain. During EVM parameter estimation, output measurement variances are required as weighting factors in the objective function. These variances can be estimated based on data from replicate experiments. However, conducting replicates is complicated when independent variables are uncertain. Instead, pseudo-replicate runs may be performed where the target values of inputs for repeated runs are the same, but the true input values may be different. Here, we propose a method to estimate output-measurement variances for use in multivariate EVM estimation problems, based on pseudo-replicate data. We also propose a bootstrap technique for quantifying uncertainties in resulting parameter estimates and model predictions. The methods are illustrated using a case study involving n-hexane hydroisomerization in a well-mixed reactor. Case-study results reveal that assumptions about input uncertainties can have important influences on parameter estimates, model predictions and their confidence intervals.
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) | 0.000 | 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