MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7091187492

Reinforced sequential Monte Carlo for amortised sampling

2025· article· en· W7091187492 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodImportance samplingSampling (signal processing)Stability (learning theory)Particle filterReinforcement learningProbabilistic logicMarkov chain Monte CarloSampling distribution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a synergy of amortised and particle-based methods for sampling from distributions defined by unnormalised density functions. We state a connection between sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) and neural sequential samplers trained by maximum-entropy reinforcement learning (MaxEnt RL), wherein learnt sampling policies and value functions define proposal kernels and twist functions. Exploiting this connection, we introduce an off-policy RL training procedure for the sampler that uses samples from SMC -- using the learnt sampler as a proposal -- as a behaviour policy that better explores the target distribution. We describe techniques for stable joint training of proposals and twist functions and an adaptive weight tempering scheme to reduce training signal variance. Furthermore, building upon past attempts to use experience replay to guide the training of neural samplers, we derive a way to combine historical samples with annealed importance sampling weights within a replay buffer. On synthetic multi-modal targets (in both continuous and discrete spaces) and the Boltzmann distribution of alanine dipeptide conformations, we demonstrate improvements in approximating the true distribution as well as training stability compared to both amortised and Monte Carlo methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207