Effects of setting temperatures in the parallel tempering Monte Carlo algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parallel tempering Monte Carlo has proven to be an efficient method in optimization and sampling applications. Having an optimized temperature set enhances the efficiency of the algorithm through more-frequent replica visits to the temperature limits. The approaches for finding an optimal temperature set can be divided into two main categories. The methods of the first category distribute the replicas such that the swapping ratio between neighboring replicas is constant and independent of the temperature values. The second-category techniques including the feedback-optimized method, on the other hand, aim for a temperature distribution that has higher density at simulation bottlenecks, resulting in temperature-dependent replica-exchange probabilities. In this paper, we compare the performance of various temperature setting methods on both sparse and fully connected spin-glass problems as well as fully connected Wishart problems that have planted solutions. These include two classes of problems that have either continuous or discontinuous phase transitions in the order parameter. Our results demonstrate that there is no performance advantage for the methods that promote nonuniform swapping probabilities on spin-glass problems where the order parameter has a smooth transition between phases at the critical temperature. However, on Wishart problems that have a first-order phase transition at low temperatures, the feedback-optimized method exhibits a time-to-solution speedup of at least a factor of two over the other approaches.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".