Healthcare companies must submit pharmaceutical drugs or medical device to regulatory bodies before marketing new technology. Regulatory bodies frequently require transparent and interpretable computational modelling to justify a new healthcare technology, but researchers may have several competing models for a biological system and too little data to discriminate between the models. In design of experiments for model discrimination, where the goal is to design maximally informative physical experiments in order to discriminate between rival predictive models, research has focused either on analytical approaches, which cannot manage all functions, or on data-driven approaches, which may have computational difficulties or lack interpretable marginal predictive distributions. We develop a methodology for introducing Gaussian process surrogates in lieu of the original mechanistic models. This allows us to extend existing design and model discrimination methods developed for analytical models to cases of non-analytical models.

Program synthesis is a class of regression problems where one seeks a solution, in the form of a source-code program, mapping the inputs to their corresponding outputs exactly. Due to its precise and combinatorial nature, program synthesis is commonly formulated as a constraint satisfaction problem, where input-output examples are encoded as constraints and solved with a constraint solver. A key challenge of this formulation is scalability: while constraint solvers work well with a few well-chosen examples, a large set of examples can incur significant overhead in both time and memory. We describe a method to discover a subset of examples that is both small and representative: the subset is constructed iteratively, using a neural network to predict the probability of unchosen examples conditioned on the chosen examples in the subset, and greedily adding the least probable example. We empirically evaluate the representativeness of the subsets constructed by our method, and demonstrate such subsets can significantly improve synthesis time and stability.

While active learning offers potential cost savings, the actual data efficiency---the reduction in amount of labeled data needed to obtain the same error rate---observed in practice is mixed. This paper poses a basic question: when is active learning actually helpful? We provide an answer for logistic regression with the popular active learning algorithm, uncertainty sampling. Empirically, on 21 datasets from OpenML, we find a strong inverse correlation between data efficiency and the error rate of the final classifier. Theoretically, we show that for a variant of uncertainty sampling, the asymptotic data efficiency is within a constant factor of the inverse error rate of the limiting classifier.