MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081241186 · doi:10.5555/510378.510456

Quasi-random numbers and their applications: using lattice rules for variance reduction in simulation

2000· article· en· W2081241186 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Approximation and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodVariance reductionQuasi-Monte Carlo methodMonte Carlo integrationControl variatesHybrid Monte CarloMonte Carlo molecular modelingEstimatorMonte Carlo method in statistical physicsLattice (music)Computer scienceDynamic Monte Carlo methodStatistical physicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsAlgorithmApplied mathematicsMarkov chain Monte CarloStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quasi-Monte Carlo methods are designed to improve upon the Monte Carlo method for multidimensional numerical integration by using a more regularly distributed point set than the i.i.d. sample associated with Monte Carlo. Lattice rules are one family of quasi-Monte Carlo methods, originally proposed by Korobov in 1959. In this paper, we explain how randomized lattice rules can be used to construct efficient estimators for typical simulation problems, and we give several numerical examples. We are interested in two main aspects: Studying the variance of these estimators and finding which properties of the lattice rules should be considered when defining a selection criterion to rate and choose them. Our numerical results for three different problems illustrate how this methodology typically improves upon the usual Monte Carlo simulation method.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.267 · 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