MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912321885 · doi:10.5555/3320516.3320763

Green simulation optimization using likelihood ratio estimators

2018· article· en· W2912321885 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 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorContext (archaeology)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationMaximum likelihoodComputer simulationReuseMathematicsStatisticsSimulationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green simulation is the reuse of past simulation outputs to enhance the efficiency of current and future simulation experiments. One natural application of green simulation is in the context of simulation optimization, wherein outputs from past iterations in a search can be reused in subsequent iterations. In this article, we draw attention to challenges that arise when green simulation likelihood ratio estimators are naively employed in simulation optimization. In particular, we show that for searches that identify new designs based on past outputs, outputs in different iterations are conditionally dependent, violating one of the assumptions for the validity of the likelihood ratio estimator. As a result, green simulation likelihood ratio estimators of the objective and gradient can become biased. We demonstrate how this conditional dependence and bias can adversely affect the behavior of gradient-based optimization algorithms.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.284 · 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