Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Multiple Objective Optimal Regression Designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We typically construct optimal designs based on a single objective function. To better capture the breadth of an experiment's goals, we could instead construct a multiple objective optimal design based on multiple objective functions. While algorithms have been developed to find multi-objective optimal designs (e.g. efficiencyconstrained and maximin optimal designs), it is far less clear how to verify the optimality of a solution obtained from an algorithm. In this paper, we provide theoretical results characterizing optimality for efficiency-constrained and maximin optimal designs on a discrete design space. We demonstrate how to use our results in conjunction with linear programming algorithms to verify optimality.
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 | 0.058 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".