MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399061781 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.15059

Message-Passing Monte Carlo: Generating low-discrepancy point sets via Graph Neural Networks

2024· preprint· en· W4399061781 on OpenAlexfundno aff
T. Konstantin Rusch, Nathan Kirk, Michael M. Bronstein, Christiane Lemieux, Daniela Rus

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Approximation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSorbonne UniversitéCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodComputer scienceArtificial neural networkGraphPoint (geometry)Message passingTheoretical computer scienceStatistical physicsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsParallel computingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discrepancy is a well-known measure for the irregularity of the distribution of a point set. Point sets with small discrepancy are called low-discrepancy and are known to efficiently fill the space in a uniform manner. Low-discrepancy points play a central role in many problems in science and engineering, including numerical integration, computer vision, machine perception, computer graphics, machine learning, and simulation. In this work, we present the first machine learning approach to generate a new class of low-discrepancy point sets named Message-Passing Monte Carlo (MPMC) points. Motivated by the geometric nature of generating low-discrepancy point sets, we leverage tools from Geometric Deep Learning and base our model on Graph Neural Networks. We further provide an extension of our framework to higher dimensions, which flexibly allows the generation of custom-made points that emphasize the uniformity in specific dimensions that are primarily important for the particular problem at hand. Finally, we demonstrate that our proposed model achieves state-of-the-art performance superior to previous methods by a significant margin. In fact, MPMC points are empirically shown to be either optimal or near-optimal with respect to the discrepancy for low dimension and small number of points, i.e., for which the optimal discrepancy can be determined. Code for generating MPMC points can be found at https://github.com/tk-rusch/MPMC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMathematical Approximation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207