SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1911.00955

Gaussian process surrogate modeling with manipulating factors for carbon nanotube growth experiments

Abstract

This paper presents a new Gaussian process (GP) surrogate modeling for predicting the outcome of a physical experiment where some experimental inputs are controlled by other manipulating factors. Particularly, we are interested in the case where the control precision is not very high, so the input factor values vary significantly even under the same setting of the corresponding manipulating factors. The case is observed in our main application to carbon nanotube growth experiments, where one experimental input among many is manipulated by another manipulating factors, and the relation between the input and the manipulating factors significantly varies in the dates and times of operations. Due to this variation, the standard GP surrogate that directly relates the manipulating factors to the experimental outcome does not provide a great predictive power on the outcome. At the same time, the GP model relating the main factors to the outcome directly is not appropriate for the prediction purpose because the main factors cannot be accurately set as planned for a future experiment. Motivated by the carbon nanotube example, we propose a two-tiered GP model, where the bottom tier relates the manipulating factors to the corresponding main factors with potential biases and variation independent of the manipulating factors, and the top tier relates the main factors to the experimental outcome. Our two-tier model explicitly models the propagation of the control uncertainty to the experimental outcome through the two GP modeling tiers. We present the inference and hyper-parameter estimation of the proposed model. The proposed approach is illustrated with the motivating example of a closed-loop autonomous research system for carbon nanotube growth experiments, and the test results are reported with the comparison to a benchmark method, i.e. a standard GP model.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Chiwoo Park, Rahul Rao, Pavel Nikolaev, Benji Maruyama. 2020-05-09. Gaussian process surrogate modeling with manipulating factors for carbon nanotube growth experiments. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.00955

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME