MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399574839 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.2022.0392

Efficient Nested Simulation Experiment Design via the Likelihood Ratio Method

2024· article· en· W4399574839 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorComputer scienceMean squared errorSoftwareStatisticsMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the nested simulation literature, a common assumption is that the experimenter can choose the number of outer scenarios to sample. This paper considers the case when the experimenter is given a fixed set of outer scenarios from an external entity. We propose a nested simulation experiment design that pools inner replications from one scenario to estimate another scenario’s conditional mean via the likelihood ratio method. Given the outer scenarios, we decide how many inner replications to run at each outer scenario as well as how to pool the inner replications by solving a bilevel optimization problem that minimizes the total simulation effort. We provide asymptotic analyses on the convergence rates of the performance measure estimators computed from the optimized experiment design. Under some assumptions, the optimized design achieves [Formula: see text] mean squared error of the estimators given simulation budget [Formula: see text]. Numerical experiments demonstrate that our design outperforms a state-of-the-art design that pools replications via regression. History: Accepted by Bruno Tuffin, Area Editor for Simulation. Funding: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [Grant CMMI-2045400] and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Grant RGPIN-2018-03755]. Supplemental Material: The software that supports the findings of this study is available within the paper and its Supplemental Information ( https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/suppl/10.1287/ijoc.2022.0392 ) as well as from the IJOC GitHub software repository ( https://github.com/INFORMSJoC/2022.0392 ). The complete IJOC Software and Data Repository is available at https://informsjoc.github.io/ .

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.317 · 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