MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252429658 · doi:10.1109/wsc.1998.745037

Efficiency improvement by lattice rules for pricing Asian options

2002· article· en· W4252429658 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

Venue1998 Winter Simulation Conference. Proceedings (Cat. No.98CH36274) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Approximation and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodVariance reductionQuasi-Monte Carlo methodPseudorandom number generatorLattice (music)Monte Carlo integrationHybrid Monte CarloComputer scienceRandom number generationMathematical optimizationLattice reductionControl variatesAlgorithmMathematicsStatistical physicsMarkov chain Monte CarloStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the approximation of multidimensional integrals, two types of methods are widely used. Monte Carlo (MC) methods are the best known and require the use of a pseudorandom generator. Quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC) methods use low discrepancy point sets and are deterministic. The idea is to use points that are more regularly distributed over the integration space than random points. The best known methods to achieve this are the lattice rules and (t,s) sequences (or (t,m,s) nets) (A.B. Owen, 1998; H. Niederreiter; 1992; I.H. Sloan and S. Joe, 1994). The paper compares Monte Carlo methods, lattice rules, and other low discrepancy point sets on the problem of evaluating Asian options. The combination of these methods with variance reduction techniques is also explored.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.248 · 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