On the Ergodicity, Bias and Asymptotic Normality of Randomized Midpoint Sampling Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The randomized midpoint method, proposed by [SL19], has emerged as an optimal discretization procedure for simulating the continuous time Langevin diffusions. Focusing on the case of strong-convex and smooth potentials, in this paper, we analyze several probabilistic properties of the randomized midpoint discretization method for both overdamped and underdamped Langevin diffusions. We first characterize the stationary distribution of the discrete chain obtained with constant step-size discretization and show that it is biased away from the target distribution. Notably, the step-size needs to go to zero to obtain asymptotic unbiasedness. Next, we establish the asymptotic normality for numerical integration using the randomized midpoint method and highlight the relative advantages and disadvantages over other discretizations. Our results collectively provide several insights into the behavior of the randomized midpoint discretization method, including obtaining confidence intervals for numerical integrations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".