Improved polytope volume calculations based on Hamiltonian Monte Carlo with boundary reflections and sweet arithmetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computing the volume of a high dimensional polytope is a fundamental problem in geometry, also connected to the calculation of densities of states in statistical physics, and a central building block of such algorithms is the method used to sample a target probability distribution. This paper studies Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) with reflections on the boundary ofdomain, providing an enhanced alternative to Hit-and-run (HAR) to sample a target distribution restricted to the polytope. We make three contributions. First, we provide a convergence bound, paving the way to more precise mixing time analysis. Second, we present a robust implementation based on multi-precision arithmetic, a mandatory ingredient to guarantee exact predicates and robust constructions. We however allow controlled failures to happen, introducing the Sweeten Exact Geometric Computing (SEGC) paradigm. Third, we use our HMC random walk to perform H-polytope volume calculations, using it as an alternative to HAR within the volume algorithm by Cousins and Vempala. The systematic tests conducted up to dimension n = 100 on the cube, the isotropic and the standard simplex show that HMC significantly outperforms HAR both in terms of accuracy and running time. Additional tests show that calculations may be handled up to dimension n = 500. These tests also establish that multiprecision is mandatory to avoid exits from the polytope.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".