Discovering an active subspace in a single-diode solar cell model

Predictions from science and engineering models depend on the values of the model's input parameters. As the number of parameters increases, algorithmic parameter studies like optimization or uncertainty quantification require many more model evaluations. One way to combat this curse of dimensionality is to seek an alternative parameterization with fewer variables that produces comparable predictions. The active subspace is a low-dimensional linear subspace defined by important directions in the model's input space; input perturbations along these directions change the model's prediction more, on average, than perturbations orthogonal to the important directions. We describe a method for checking if a model admits an exploitable active subspace, and we apply this method to a single-diode solar cell model with five input parameters. We find that the maximum power of the solar cell has a dominant one-dimensional active subspace, which enables us to perform thorough parameter studies in one dimension instead of five

The Safe, the Sensitive, and the Severely Tested: A Unified Account

This essay presents a unified account of safety, sensitivity, and severe testing. S’s belief is safe iff, roughly, S could not easily have falsely believed p, and S’s belief is sensitive iff were p false S would not believe p. These two conditions are typically viewed as rivals but, we argue, they instead play symbiotic roles. Safety and sensitivity are both valuable epistemic conditions, and the relevant alternatives framework provides the scaffolding for their mutually supportive roles. The relevant alternatives condition holds that a belief is warranted only if the evidence rules out relevant error possibilities. The safety condition helps categorise relevant from irrelevant possibilities. The sensitivity condition captures ‘ruling out’. Safety, sensitivity, and the relevant alternatives condition are typically presented as conditions on warranted belief or knowledge. But these properties, once generalised, help characterise other epistemic phenomena, including warranted inference, legal verdicts, scientific claims, reaching conclusions, addressing questions, warranted assertion, and the epistemic force of corroborating evidence. We introduce and explain Mayo’s severe testing account of statistical inference. A hypothesis is severely tested to the extent it passes tests that probably would have found errors, were they present. We argue Mayo’s account is fruitfully understood using the resulting relevant alternatives framework. Recasting Mayo’s condition using the conceptual framework of contemporary epistemology helps forge fruitful connections between two research areas—philosophy of statistics and the analysis of knowledge—not currently in sufficient dialogue. The resulting union benefits both research areas