Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A crude Monte Carlo (MC) method allows to calculate integrals over a d-dimensional cube. As the number N of integration nodes becomes large, the rate of probable error of the MC method decreases as O ( 1 / N ) {O(1/\sqrt{N})} . The use of quasi-random points instead of random points in the MC algorithm converts it to the quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC) method. The asymptotic error estimate of QMC integration of d-dimensional functions contains a multiplier 1 / N {1/N} . However, the multiplier ( ln N ) d {(\ln N)^{d}} is also a part of the error estimate, which makes it virtually useless. We have proved that, in the general case, the QMC error estimate is not limited to the factor 1 / N {1/N} . However, our numerical experiments show that using quasi-random points of Sobol sequences with N = 2 m {N=2^{m}} with natural m makes the integration error approximately proportional to 1 / N {1/N} . In our numerical experiments, d ≤ 15 {d\leq 15} , and we used N ≤ 2 40 {N\leq 2^{40}} points generated by the SOBOLSEQ16384 code published in 2011. In this code, d ≤ 2 14 {d\leq 2^{14}} and N ≤ 2 63 {N\leq 2^{63}} .
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 | 0.013 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".