Quasi-Monte Carlo simulation of the light environment of plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of light in the canopy is a major factor regulating the growth and development of a plant. The main variables of interest are the amount of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) reaching different elements of the plant canopy, and the quality (spectral composition) of light reaching these elements. A light environment model based on Monte Carlo (MC) path tracing of photons, capable of computing both PAR and the spectral composition of light, was developed by Měch (1997), and can be conveniently interfaced with virtual plants expressed using the open L-system formalism. To improve the efficiency of the light distribution calculations provided by Měch's MonteCarlo program, we have implemented a similar program QuasiMC, which supports a more efficient randomised quasi-Monte Carlo sampling method (RQMC). We have validated QuasiMC by comparing it with MonteCarlo and with the radiosity-based CARIBU software (Chelle et al. 2004), and we show that these two programs produce consistent results. We also assessed the performance of the RQMC path tracing algorithm by comparing it with Monte Carlo path tracing and confirmed that RQMC offers a speed and/or accuracy improvement over MC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".