Searching permutations for constructing uniformly distributed point sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uniformly distributed point sets of low discrepancy are heavily used in experimental design and across a very wide range of applications such as numerical integration, computer graphics, and finance. Recent methods based on Graph Neural Networks [T. K. Rusch, N. Kirk, M. M. Bronstein, C. Lemieux, D. Rus, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121, e2409913121 (2024).] and solver-based optimization identified point sets having much lower discrepancy than previously known constructions. We show in this note that further substantial improvements are possible by separating the construction of low-discrepancy point sets into i) the relative position of the points, and ii) the optimal placement respecting these relationships. Using tailored permutations, we construct point sets that are of 20% smaller discrepancy on average than those proposed by Rusch et al. In terms of inverse discrepancy, our sets reduce the number of points in dimension 2 needed to obtain a discrepancy of 0.005 from more than 500 points to less than 350. For applications where the sets are used to query time-consuming models, this is a significant reduction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".