MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003327131 · doi:10.1145/1190095.1190121

Splitting with weight windows to control the likelihood ratio in importance sampling

2006· article· en· W2003327131 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre L’Ecuyer, Bruno Tuffin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRare eventsEstimatorVariance (accounting)Event (particle physics)Importance samplingComputer scienceStatisticsLikelihood functionSampling (signal processing)Minimum-variance unbiased estimatorMathematicsAlgorithmMaximum likelihoodMonte Carlo method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance sampling (IS) is the most widely used efficiency improvement method for rare-event simulation. When estimating the probability of a rare event, the IS estimator is the product of an indicator function (that the rare event has occurred) by a likelihood ratio. Reducing the variance of that likelihood ratio can increase the efficiency of the IS estimator if (a) this does not reduce significantly the probability of the rare event under IS, and (b) this does not require much more work. In this paper, we explain how this can be achieved via weight windows and illustrate the idea by numerical examples. The savings can be large in some situations. We also show how the technique can backlash when the weight windows are wrongly selected.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207