Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Four-Point, 2D, Free-Ranging, IMSPE-Optimal, Twin-Point Designs

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Selden Crary, Jan Stormann

Methodology · Submitted 6 Oct 2015

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We report the discovery of a set of four-point, two-factor, free-ranging, putatively IMSPE-optimal designs with a pair of twin points, in the statistical design of computer experiments, under Gaussian-process, fixed-Gaussian-covariance parameter, and zero-nugget assumptions.

how it is stated · asserted 0.66 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1510.01685 (version 4)
Pith IDN23Q6W5L, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationJan Stormann, Selden Crary. "Four-Point, 2D, Free-Ranging, IMSPE-Optimal, Twin-Point Designs." arXiv:1510.01685 (2015). https://pith.science/paper/N23Q6W5L
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,348 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.11 · states limitation 0.52 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.02 · states quantitative result 0.51 · compares with prior results 0.09 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v4. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We report the discovery of a set of four-point, two-factor, free-ranging, putatively IMSPE-optimal designs with a pair of twin points, in the statistical design of computer experiments, under Gaussian-process, fixed-Gaussian-covariance parameter, and zero-nugget assumptions. We conjecture this is the set of free-ranging, twin-point designs with the smallest number of degrees of freedom.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We report the discovery of a set of four-point, two-factor, free-ranging, putatively IMSPE-optimal designs with a pair of twin points, in the statistical design of computer experiments, under Gaussian-process, fixed-Gaussian-covariance parameter, and zero-nugget assumptions. contribution 0.55 0.94 0.68 asserted 0.66
s1 We conjecture this is the set of free-ranging, twin-point designs with the smallest number of degrees of freedom. interpretation 0.88 0.40 0.30 speculative 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.75 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.53.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v4
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

We report the discovery of a set of four-point, two-factor, free-ranging, putatively IMSPE-optimal designs with a pair of twin points, in the statistical design of computer experiments, under Gaussian-process, fixed-Gaussian-covariance parameter, and zero-nugget assumptions. We conjecture this is the set of free-ranging, twin-point designs with the smallest number of degrees of freedom.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.