Subsampling of Parametric Models with Bifidelity Boosting
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
Least squares regression is a ubiquitous tool for building emulators (a.k.a. surrogate models) of problems across science and engineering for purposes such as design space exploration and uncertainty quantification. When the regression data are generated using an experimental design process (e.g., a quadrature grid) involving computationally expensive models, or when the data size is large, sketching techniques have shown promise at reducing the cost of the construction of the regression model while ensuring accuracy comparable to that of the full data. However, random sketching strategies, such as those based on leverage scores, lead to regression errors that are random and may exhibit large variability. To mitigate this issue, we present a novel boosting approach that leverages cheaper, lower-fidelity data of the problem at hand to identify the best sketch among a set of candidate sketches. This in turn specifies the sketch of the intended high-fidelity model and the associated data. We provide theoretical analyses of this bifidelity boosting (BFB) approach and discuss the conditions the low- and high-fidelity data must satisfy for a successful boosting. In doing so, we derive a bound on the residual norm of the BFB sketched solution relating it to its ideal, but computationally expensive, high-fidelity boosted counterpart. Finally, empirical results on both manufactured and PDE data corroborate the theoretical analyses and illustrate the efficacy of the BFB solution in reducing the regression error, as compared to the nonboosted solution.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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