MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288753048 · doi:10.1111/cgf.14585

Single‐pass stratified importance resampling

2022· article· en· W4288753048 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

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAutodesk
KeywordsResamplingComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)Stratified samplingMonte Carlo methodRendering (computer graphics)AlgorithmData miningStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionFilter (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Resampling is the process of selecting from a set of candidate samples to achieve a distribution (approximately) proportional to a desired target. Recent work has revisited its application to Monte Carlo integration, yielding powerful and practical importance sampling methods. One drawback of existing resampling methods is that they cannot generate stratified samples. We propose two complementary techniques to achieve efficient stratified resampling. We first introduce bidirectional CDF sampling which yields the same result as conventional inverse CDF sampling but in a single pass over the candidates, without needing to store them, similarly to reservoir sampling. We then order the candidates along a space‐filling curve to ensure that stratified CDF sampling of candidate indices yields stratified samples in the integration domain. We showcase our method on various resampling‐based rendering problems.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.233 · 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