Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2506.12157

Optimal Experimental Design Criteria for Data-Consistent Inversion

Troy Butler·John Jakeman·Michael Pilosov·Scott Walsh·Timothy Wildey
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The ability to design effective experiments is crucial for obtaining data that can substantially reduce the uncertainty in the predictions made using computational models. An optimal experimental design (OED) refers to the choice of a particular experiment that optimizes a particular design criteria, e.g., maximizing a utility function, which measures the information content of the data. However, traditional approaches for optimal experimental design typically require solving a large number of computationally intensive inverse problems to find the data that maximizes the utility function. Here, we introduce two novel OED criteria that are specifically crafted for the data consistent inversion (DCI) framework, but do not require solving inverse problems. DCI is a specific approach for solving a class of stochastic inverse problems by constructing a pullback measure on uncertain parameters from an observed probability measure on the outputs of a quantity of interest (QoI) map. While expected information gain (EIG) has been used for both DCI and Bayesian based OED, the characteristics and properties of DCI solutions differ from those of solutions to Bayesian inverse problems which should be reflected in the OED criteria. The new design criteria developed in this study, called the expected scaling effect and the expected skewness effect, leverage the geometric structure of pre-images associated with observable data sets, allowing for an intuitive and computationally efficient approach to OED. These criteria utilize singular value computations derived from sampled and approximated Jacobians of the experimental designs. We present both simultaneous and sequential (greedy) formulations of OED based on these innovative criteria. Numerical results demonstrate the effectiveness in our approach for solving stochastic inverse problems.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEmath.PR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Troy Butler, John Jakeman, Michael Pilosov, Scott Walsh, Timothy Wildey. 2025-06-13. Optimal Experimental Design Criteria for Data-Consistent Inversion. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12157

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

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↗
arXiv2026

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↗
arXiv2026

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↗