MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393221521 · doi:10.1080/01621459.2024.2335587

Automatic Regenerative Simulation via Non-Reversible Simulated Tempering

2024· article· en· W4393221521 on OpenAlexafffund
Miguel Biron-Lattes, Trevor Campbell, Alexandre Bouchard‐Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Probabilistic logicAlgorithmMetric (unit)Mathematical optimizationVariance (accounting)Bounded functionSet (abstract data type)MathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulated Tempering (ST) is an MCMC algorithm for complex target distributions that operates on a path between the target and a more amenable reference distribution. Crucially, if the reference enables i.i.d. sampling, ST is regenerative and can be parallelized across independent tours. However, the difficulty of tuning ST has hindered its widespread adoption. In this work, we develop a simple nonreversible ST (NRST) algorithm, a general theoretical analysis of ST, and an automated tuning procedure for ST. A core contribution that arises from the analysis is a novel performance metric—Tour Effectiveness (TE)—that controls the asymptotic variance of estimates from ST for bounded test functions. We use the TE to show that NRST dominates its reversible counterpart. We then develop an automated tuning procedure for NRST algorithms that targets the TE while minimizing computational cost. This procedure enables straightforward integration of NRST into existing probabilistic programming languages. We provide extensive experimental evidence that our tuning scheme improves the performance and robustness of NRST algorithms on a diverse set of probabilistic models.

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 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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsFrench-language works237,207