MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391052357 · doi:10.1093/biomet/asae001

A note on minimax robustness of designs against correlated or heteroscedastic responses

2024· article· en· W4391052357 on OpenAlexafffund
Douglas P. Wiens

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrika · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsMinimaxHeteroscedasticityRobustness (evolution)EconometricsStatisticsApplied mathematicsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a result according to which certain functions of covariance matrices are maximized at scalar multiples of the identity matrix. This is used to show that experimental designs that are optimal under an assumption of independent, homoscedastic responses can be minimax robust, in broad classes of alternate covariance structures. In particular, it can justify the common practice of disregarding possible dependence, or heteroscedasticity, at the design stage of an experiment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.106
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.281
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1060.281
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.330
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometrikaSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207