CVXSADes: a stochastic algorithm for constructing optimal exact regression designs with single or multiple objectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose an algorithm to construct optimal exact designs (EDs). Most of the work in the optimal regression design literature focuses on the approximate design (AD) paradigm due to its desired properties, including the optimality verification conditions derived by Kiefer (1959, 1974). ADs may have unbalanced weights, and practitioners may have difficulty implementing them with a designated run size $n$. Some EDs are constructed using rounding methods to get an integer number of runs at each support point of an AD, but this approach may not yield optimal results. To construct EDs, one may need to perform new combinatorial constructions for each $n$, and there is no unified approach to construct them. Therefore, we develop a systematic way to construct EDs for any given $n$. Our method can transform ADs into EDs while retaining high statistical efficiency in two steps. The first step involves constructing an AD by utilizing the convex nature of many design criteria. The second step employs a simulated annealing algorithm to search for the ED stochastically. Through several applications, we demonstrate the utility of our method for various design problems. Additionally, we show that the design efficiency approaches unity as the number of design points increases.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".