MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618635624 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201701018

An Adaptive Sampling Strategy to Accelerate Markov Chains Monte Carlo

2017· article· en· W2618635624 on OpenAlexaff
Hamidreza Hamdi, Ivo Couckuyt, Mário Costa Sousa, Tom Dhaene, Christopher R. Clarkson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloComputer scienceLatin hypercube samplingKrigingProxy (statistics)Importance samplingSampling (signal processing)Monte Carlo methodAdaptive samplingMathematical optimizationRejection samplingAlgorithmGibbs samplingMarkov chainData miningMachine learningStatisticsHybrid Monte CarloArtificial intelligenceMathematicsBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Markov chain Monte Carlo (McMC) is a technique to sample the posterior distributions in order to quantify the uncertainty and update our knowledge about the model parameters. However, this technique is computationally costly. Therefore, it is frequently combined with a cheap-to-evaluate proxy model. Building an efficient and accurate proxy model using one-shot sampling method (such as Latin-Hypercube) is a challenging task as we do not know a prior the best sample locations and the number of required samples to tune our proxy model. In this paper, we present a novel adaptive sampling techniques using LOLA-Voronoi and Expected Improvement techniques to sequentially update our proxy (here ordinary Kriging model) using best sampling locations and density. This algorithm is used to balance between the exploration and exploitation to create an accurate proxy model for the IC fault model’s misfit function. The results show a large improvement comparing to the one-shot Latin-Hypercube design. The built proxy is then employed to reduce the computational cost of McMC process to find the posterior distributions of the model parameters.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedingsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207