Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 7, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
A Gaussian process (GP) model can agree with the data for two reasons: its assumptions are right, or the chosen inputs could never have shown that they are wrong. The distinction can be checked from the design before any responses are observed. Every model implies relations that its noiseless responses must satisfy at the chosen inputs, such as the middle value lies on the line through its two neighbours. For GPs built from finitely many features, these relations are exactly the null space of the kernel matrix. Gale duality gives them a geometric interpretation, in which each observation has a vector and the smallest groups of observations that can expose an error are the circuits. For other kernels the relations become soft: response patterns may be improbable under the prior rather than algebraically impossible. A standard test then combines two kinds of evidence. Structural evidence comes from a violated relation and grows without limit as the noise falls. Prior-based evidence only says that a departure is improbable under the prior. With all inputs at the two ends of an interval, for example, a GP can reject a straight line against a large curvature, but only because the implied intercept is improbable, never because curvature was seen. In simulations the predicted power matched the observed rejection rates. Choosing the next input by predicted power raised the power against a localised discrepancy from 0.48 to 0.72, against 0.51 when choosing by predictive variance, and a grid in two dimensions contained exact tests of additivity that a Latin hypercube lacked. The test itself is classical. The contribution is the prospective reading of that test: before observing the responses, the design already determines what kind of contradiction it can produce.