MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255223167 · doi:10.1002/9781118014967.ch13

Cross‐Entropy Method

2011· other· en· W4255223167 on OpenAlex
Dirk P. Kroese, Thomas Taimre, Zdravko I. Botev

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

VenueWiley series in probability and statistics · 2011
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-entropy methodMonte Carlo methodMathematical optimizationAdaptive samplingComputer scienceClosenessImportance samplingCross entropyEntropy (arrow of time)Divergence (linguistics)AlgorithmSampling (signal processing)Kullback–Leibler divergenceContinuous optimizationPrinciple of maximum entropyOptimization problemMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMulti-swarm optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cross-entropy (CE) methodology provides a systematic way to design simple and efficient simulation procedures. The CE method is a generic Monte Carlo technique for solving complicated estimation and optimization problems. In the estimation setting, the CE method can be viewed as an adaptive importance sampling procedure that uses the CE or Kullback-Leibler divergence as a measure of closeness between two sampling distributions. In the optimization setting, the optimization problem is first translated into a rare-event estimation problem and then the CE method for estimation is used as an adaptive algorithm to locate the optimum. This chapter gives examples of CE applied to unconstrained, constrained, and noisy continuous optimization problems. Controlled Vocabulary Terms cross-entropy method; estimation; importance sampling; Monte Carlo methods; probability

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.322 · 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