Assessing the Quality of Binomial Samplers: A Statistical Distance Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Randomized algorithms depend on accurate sampling from probability distributions, as their correctness and performance hinge on the quality of the generated samples. However, even for common distributions like Binomial, exact sampling is computationally challenging, leading standard library implementations to rely on heuristics. These heuristics, while efficient, suffer from approximation and system representation errors, causing deviations from the ideal distribution. Although seemingly minor, such deviations can accumulate in downstream applications requiring large-scale sampling, potentially undermining algorithmic guarantees. In this work, we propose statistical distance as a robust metric for analyzing the quality of Binomial samplers, quantifying deviations from the ideal distribution. We derive rigorous bounds on the statistical distance for standard implementations and demonstrate the practical utility of our framework by enhancing APSEst, a DNF model counter, with improved reliability and error guarantees. To support practical adoption, we propose an interface extension that allows users to control and monitor statistical distance via explicit input/output parameters. Our findings emphasize the critical need for thorough and systematic error analysis in sampler design. As the first work to focus exclusively on Binomial samplers, our approach lays the groundwork for extending rigorous analysis to other common distributions, opening avenues for more robust and reliable randomized algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".