Bayesian sequential I-optimal designs for split-plot experiments under model uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Split-plot designs have enjoyed great popularity since their inception. The I-optimality criterion is frequently employed to select split-plot designs that exhibit good predictive performance under a specified model. However, in situations where the true model is highly uncertain and/or the assumed model is misspecified, I-optimal split-plot designs may lack efficiency in fitting the true model. To address this issue, we propose the Bayesian version of the I-optimality criterion for split-plot experiments, encompassing both primary and potential terms in the full model. Subsequently, we extend the Bayesian I-optimal split-plot design into a two-stage sequential framework, in which the first-stage design is constructed based on this Bayesian criterion, and experimental data are analyzed to rearrange potential terms according to their activeness, then the second-stage design is selected via an augmented I-optimality criterion under the rearranged primary model. Through comparison with counterparts using several numerical examples and a practical experiment, the proposed Bayesian I-I optimal split-plot designs demonstrate superior performance. In addition, further numerical results are discussed in the Supplementary Materials.
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 | 0.024 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".