Error analysis of estimators that use combinations of stochastic sampling strategies for direct illumination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a theoretical analysis of error of combinations of Monte Carlo estimators used in image synthesis. Importance sampling and multiple importance sampling are popular variance‐reduction strategies. Unfortunately, neither strategy improves the rate of convergence of Monte Carlo integration. Jittered sampling (a type of stratified sampling), on the other hand is known to improve the convergence rate. Most rendering software optimistically combine importance sampling with jittered sampling, hoping to achieve both. We derive the exact error of the combination of multiple importance sampling with jittered sampling. In addition, we demonstrate a further benefit of introducing negative correlations (antithetic sampling) between estimates to the convergence rate. As with importance sampling, antithetic sampling is known to reduce error for certain classes of integrands without affecting the convergence rate. In this paper, our analysis and experiments reveal that importance and antithetic sampling, if used judiciously and in conjunction with jittered sampling, may improve convergence rates. We show the impact of such combinations of strategies on the convergence rate of estimators for direct illumination.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".