MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128699672 · doi:10.5555/1218112.1218142

Splitting for rare-event simulation

2006· article· en· W2128699672 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 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRare eventsEstimatorDisjoint setsMonte Carlo methodSampling (signal processing)Importance samplingVariance (accounting)Computer scienceEvent (particle physics)State spaceRejection samplingAlgorithmStatisticsTheoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsHybrid Monte CarloDiscrete mathematicsMarkov chain Monte CarloTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Splitting and importance sampling are the two primary techniques to make important rare events happen more frequently in a simulation, and obtain an unbiased estimator with much smaller variance than the standard Monte Carlo estimator. Importance sampling has been discussed and studied in several articles presented at the winter simulation conference in the past. A smaller number of WSC articles have examined splitting. In this paper, we review the splitting technique and discuss some of its strengths and limitations from the practical viewpoint. We also introduce improvements in the implementation of the multilevel splitting technique. This is done in a setting where we want to estimate the probability of reaching B before reaching (or returning to) A when starting from a fixed state xo notin B where A and B are two disjoint subsets of the state space and B is very rarely attained. This problem has several practical applications

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.239 · 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