Leveraging neural networks to estimate parameters with confidence intervals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This manuscript presents a proof of concept for the estimation of parameters in a bioprocess while providing reliable confidence intervals. Specifically, Bayesian inference is used to estimate the uncertainty in the prediction of a parameter due to the presence of measurement noise in the process. The resultant joint probability distribution is utilized to infer the confidence interval of the resultant estimates. This method is numerically applied using a technique known as nested sampling. This algorithm iteratively samples parameters from a pre‐determined range of values to compare model predictions and obtain a probability density function. One challenge typically associated with this algorithm is in the determination of the prediction error, especially when a high‐fidelity dynamic model is being utilized. For the motivating example in the present manuscript, where a high‐fidelity simulated bioprocess is being considered, the use of the high‐fidelity model provided by Sartorius AG as part of the estimation algorithm poses computational challenges. To overcome this challenge, a universal approximator such as a parameterized neural network is used. This neural network is designed to simulate the results of the first principles model (while also capturing the dependence of the model parameters on the output), and once trained can provide near instantaneous results making the use of nested sampling computationally tractable for the application. Simulation results demonstrate the feasibility and capability of the proposed approach.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".