Training neural control variates using correlated configurations

Hyunwoo Oh

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Training neural control variates using correlated configurations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Training neural control variates on correlated MCMC configurations reduces estimator variance even when the Monte Carlo chain length is fixed.

desk verdict Worth a referee's time: the practical tip to reuse correlated MCMC samples for NCV training is likely sound, but the paper's central mechanism claim is not isolated from a sample-count confound. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07719 v4 pith:6UXEMO6F submitted 2025-05-12 hep-lat cs.LGnucl-th

Hyunwoo Oh This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-latcs.LGnucl-th

keywords neuralcontrolvariatesvariancereductionMarkovchainMonteCarloautocorrelatedconfigurationslatticefieldtheoryU(1)gaugescalartrainingdata

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that Markov-chain configurations usually discarded as autocorrelated are not wasted for training neural control variates. With a fixed-length Monte Carlo chain, feeding the network the closely spaced consecutive configurations can produce a lower-variance estimator than training only on a sparse set of decorrelated samples. The proposed reason is that local Metropolis updates make successive configurations trace smooth paths through configuration space, and those paths expose structure in the distribution and in the observable's fluctuations. The claim is demonstrated on Wilson loops in $U(1)$ gauge theory and on two-point correlators in two-, three-, and four-dimensional scalar field theory, with training on $10^4$ correlated samples and testing on $10^3$ decorrelated samples. If correct, large lattice simulations with only about a thousand independent configurations can repurpose the many correlated configurations in between to build better control variates at no extra sampling cost.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Markov chain run with an unusually high Metropolis acceptance rate (0.9–0.95), so consecutive configurations are strongly correlated and trace smooth trajectories in configuration space. The control variate is built from Stein's identity as $f=\sum_i(\partial g_i/\partial\phi_i - g_i\,\partial S/\partial\phi_i)$, with the vector-valued function $g$ realized by a neural network and trained by minimizing $L(w,\mu)=\langle (O-f-\mu)^2\rangle$ on minibatches drawn from the correlated chain. The integrated autocorrelation time $\tau_{\mathrm{int}}=1+2\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\mathrm{Cov}(\theta_k,\theta_{k+i})/\sigma^2$ is the dial that sets how correlated the training samples are. This machinery works because more closely spaced samples give the optimizer more examples of the observable's fluctuation patterns, while unbiasedness is preserved by evaluating the final mean and error on a separate decorrelated test set.

What would settle it

Run two NCV training experiments matched in architecture, learning rate, optimizer settings, number of training samples, and number of gradient steps: one trained on consecutive configurations from a short chain, and one trained on every $k$-th configuration from a chain long enough that the sample counts match. If the variance reductions are equal, the claim that autocorrelation itself carries useful structural information is falsified; if the consecutive-configuration training wins, the claim survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that using correlated samples to train neural control variates can lead to more effective variance reduction, even when the total length of the Monte Carlo chain is fixed. The control variate under study is $f=\sum_i(\partial g_i/\partial\phi_i - g_i\,\partial S/\partial\phi_i)$ obtained from Stein's identity, with $g$ parametrized by a neural network and trained by minimizing $L(w,\mu)=\langle (O-f-\mu)^2\rangle$. Correlated samples are statistically redundant for error estimation but are argued to be informative for training: correlations arise from smooth local transitions in configuration space, which carry structural information about the distribution, and the improved estimator $\tilde O=O-f$ can have an autocorrelation time shorter than that of $O$, making samples called correlated for $O$ effectively independent for $\tilde O$. Numerically, training on $10^4$ correlated samples yields better variance reduction than decorrelated training for $U(1)$ Wilson loops of area $4$ and $16$ and for scalar field theory correlators in two, three, and four dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The experiments assume the improvement comes from the correlations between successive configurations, but every correlated training set in the paper also contains more samples and more gradient updates than the decorrelated one, so the benefit could come from having more data rather than from autocorrelation structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Training neural control variates no longer requires generating extra independent configurations; the correlated configurations already produced in a fixed-length production chain can supply the training data.
The standard rule that NCV training data must be decorrelated should be relaxed, with autocorrelation properties evaluated per observable: samples considered correlated for $O$ may be nearly independent for $\tilde O=O-f$.
In large-scale lattice simulations that possess only about $10^3$ independent configurations, the intervening correlated configurations become a cheap resource for variance reduction.
The paper identifies correlated-sample training as an open avenue for other neural-network-based Monte Carlo methods, including contour deformation, neural network quantum states, and self-learning Monte Carlo.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper's comparisons do not separate the number of training samples from their autocorrelation: for a fixed chain length, the correlated training sets also contain more configurations and more gradient updates, so the benefit attributed to correlation could in part be a sample-count effect.
A matched experiment that thins the correlated chain to the same number of training samples and gradient steps as the decorrelated chain would test the paper's mechanism directly; the paper reports no such control.
The unusually high acceptance rates (0.9–0.95) make the correlated configurations especially informative; production chains with lower acceptance may show a smaller benefit, so the practical gain is likely regime-dependent.
The paper's autocorrelation-time argument suggests a tuning rule the author leaves untested: thin the training data by the autocorrelation time of $\tilde O$, not of $O$, to recover even more usable samples.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The one thing to know: this paper asks a question the NCV literature skipped—should you keep autocorrelated MCMC configurations for training neural control variates instead of thinning to decorrelated samples?—and gives the first systematic empirical look at it. The practical answer it reaches is probably right: with a fixed chain length, using all configurations for training reduces estimator variance more than using a thinned set. That matters for lattice QCD and other MCMC-heavy calculations where independent samples are scarce.

What is genuinely good: the control-variate construction is standard and correct, the test models (U(1) gauge theory and scalar field theory) are sensible and exhibit real signal-to-noise problems, and the unbiasedness of the final estimator is untouched by the training-data choice. The author also honestly flags in the discussion that the optimal measurement frequency was not investigated, which is exactly the right open question.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note says, and it is not minor. Every comparison confounds sample count with autocorrelation: measuring every sweep yields 10^4 correlated training samples, while thinning to decorrelated samples yields fewer. So the observed improvement could simply be the well-known benefit of more training data and more gradient steps. The Section III claim that correlated configurations encode 'structural information' is an appealing hypothesis, but no experiment isolates it. To support it you would need to hold the number of training samples fixed while varying autocorrelation—for example, compare 10^4 thinned samples against 10^4 correlated samples, or equal gradient budgets. The paper's own wording in Section IV.A ('more samples while being highly correlated') shows the two variables moving together. I would also want seed averaging and error bars on the training curves; the figures show single trajectories, so it is hard to tell whether the differences are significant. The unusually high acceptance rates (0.9–0.95) are another uncontrolled choice that could affect the comparison.

Who gets value from this: lattice practitioners looking for cheap ways to improve NCV training from existing ensembles. The practical hint is likely sound even if the mechanism is unproven. But as a conceptual paper it overreaches. The fix is straightforward: add a control experiment that separates sample count from autocorrelation, report seed statistics, and soften or substantiate the structural-information mechanism.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, but require the control experiment in the revision. The question deserves referee time, and the experimental design can be repaired.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that autocorrelated MCMC configurations, which are normally discarded for error estimation, can be used profitably to train neural control variates (NCVs). After reviewing the control-variate construction via Stein's identity and the neural parametrization in Section II, the paper develops a qualitative argument in Section III that correlated samples encode structural information about the target distribution. Section IV presents empirical studies in U(1) gauge theory and scalar field theory in 2-4 dimensions, comparing training on 10^4 samples measured every sweep with training on thinned decorrelated samples, all within a fixed Monte Carlo chain length. Figures 2, 3, 5-7 show loss curves and variance-reduction ratios on a decorrelated test set. Section V concludes that correlated samples should be retained for NCV training.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide practical guidance for lattice field theory and other MCMC-intensive applications where independent configurations are scarce. The empirical scope (two theories, several dimensions, and observables with signal-to-noise problems) is appropriate for a first study, and the paper is clearly written. However, as detailed below, the current experimental design does not separate the effect of autocorrelation from the effect of training-set size, so the distinctive conceptual claim is not yet supported. The paper also omits statistical uncertainty estimates for all learning curves, which is essential in this context. The NCV construction itself is standard and the paper does not relabel fitted constants as predictions, so circularity is not a concern.

major comments (3)

[Section IV.A, Figures 2, 3, 5-7] The main comparison conflates sample count with autocorrelation. For a fixed chain length, measuring every sweep gives 10^4 training samples, while the 'decorrelated' conditions are obtained by thinning and therefore contain at most 10^3 samples (Section IV.A). Consequently, the correlated condition also receives more minibatch gradient updates under fixed hyperparameters. The text in Section IV.A explicitly states 'more samples while being highly correlated can achieve a better training result,' which concedes the confound. To support the conclusion in Section V that correlation itself is beneficial, the authors need experiments in which the number of training samples and gradient steps are held fixed while the integrated autocorrelation time is varied (e.g., by subsampling a correlated chain to the same N_train, or by comparing chains with different proposal step sizes at identical N_train).
[Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7] Every learning curve appears to be a single training run; no error bars, standard deviations, or averaging over random seeds, network initializations, or independent MCMC chains are shown. Some displayed differences, for example between the curves in the left panels of Figure 6, appear modest and could be within run-to-run variability. The authors should provide seed-averaged curves with uncertainty bands and a quantitative summary table of final error-reduction ratios, including the number of seeds, so the reader can assess statistical significance.
[Section III] The central 'structural information' mechanism is asserted rather than tested. The statement that local updates 'encode structural information about the distribution beyond what is captured by a sparse set of decorrelated samples' (Section III) is not operationalized: no quantity measures this information, and the experiments in Section IV cannot distinguish the proposed mechanism from the alternative that a larger correlated training set merely supplies more gradient updates. Even after deconfounding sample count, a positive result would not uniquely confirm the mechanism; the paper should either test the mechanism more directly or reframe the claim as a practical observation.

minor comments (6)

[Section IV.A and figures] The values of the integrated autocorrelation times used in each figure are not stated; report them (for example, in a table) so the independent variable is quantified and the results are reproducible.
[Figures 1 and 4] The signal-to-noise ratios in Figures 1 and 4 are shown without error bars or a description of how the errors were estimated; please add this information.
[Figure captions] The caption of Figure 2 refers to 'the same MC chain sampled with different integrated autocorrelation times,' but the text does not explain how the autocorrelation time is varied (measurement interval, proposal step size, or acceptance rate). State the protocol explicitly.
[Section IV.A] The sentence 'To isolate this effect, we use unusually large acceptance rates' is unclear because the acceptance rate is not varied between the compared curves; clarify what this choice isolates.
[Throughout] The manuscript would benefit from a statement on code/data availability for reproducibility, especially since the training curves depend on random seeds and network initialization.
[Throughout] There are minor typographical artifacts, e.g., 'parametrizeg' in Section II.A and a line break in 'T raining' in Section III; please proofread the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the correlated-training claim is an empirical finding supported by held-out test loss, not a relabeled fit or a conclusion forced by self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's variance-reduction identity, Eq. (2), and the Stein-based control variate construction, Eqs. (3)-(4), are standard and independent of the paper's claim. The NCV training loss, Eq. (6), is evaluated on decorrelated test configurations, so the reported gains are measured out-of-sample rather than defined into the training objective. No fitted parameter is subsequently renamed as a prediction: the neural network is trained to minimize a loss and its performance is reported as error reduction on test data. The self-citations, Refs. [3] and [20], appear only as background for translational covariance and for a perfect-control-variate construction that the paper explicitly does not use; neither is load-bearing for the central empirical claim. The possible confound between sample count and autocorrelation in Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 is an experimental design limitation, not a circularity: the claim could be wrong, or only true for a trivial reason, without being true by construction. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no physical constants. It relies on standard MCMC convergence theory, Stein's identity for zero-mean control variates, universal approximation, and two ad hoc assumptions: that correlated samples carry extra structural information, and that omitting L2 regularization does not change conclusions. The main free quantities are the trained network parameters and hyperparameters, which are not independently benchmarked.

free parameters (3)

Learned offset mu = trained via Eq. (6)
The offset mu in the loss L(w, mu) = <(O - f - mu)^2> is fitted to the training data, and the reported error reduction depends on the trained mu.
Neural network weights w = trained via ADAM on Eq. (6)
The control variate f is a neural network whose weights are fit to the same MCMC samples, so the central result depends on this fitted function.
Hyperparameters (learning rate 10^-4, minibatch 32, layer sizes, CELU alpha=1.0) = chosen by hand
The qualitative comparison may depend on these choices; no sensitivity study is provided.

assumptions (6)

standard math Metropolis-Hastings chains converge to the target Boltzmann distribution, and the integrated autocorrelation time characterizes the effective sample size.
Used throughout Appendix A and Sections III-IV to define correlated versus decorrelated samples and to motivate the training-data comparison.
standard math Stein's identity (Eq. 3) and the parametrization (Eq. 4) define a zero-expectation control variate for any differentiable g satisfying the relevant boundary conditions.
Foundation of the neural control variate construction; cited from Refs. [11-13] and assumed throughout.
domain assumption Neural networks of the chosen widths are expressive enough to approximate effective control variates in these toy models.
Relies on universal approximation theorems [14,15]; no approximation-error bounds are given for these specific models or training budgets.
ad hoc to paper Correlated MCMC samples encode structural information about the target distribution beyond a sparse set of decorrelated samples.
Stated in Section III as the paper's central narrative claim, but no formal derivation or quantitative measure of information is provided.
ad hoc to paper Omitting L2 regularization does not qualitatively change the comparison between correlated and decorrelated training.
Stated in Section IV.B without a supporting ablation or sensitivity check.
domain assumption The chosen Wilson loop areas (A=4, A=16) and lattice sizes have signal-to-noise problems strong enough to be relevant but not so strong that training effects are obscured.
The paper restricts to these areas because larger areas make training effects hard to distinguish; this selection is acknowledged but not quantitatively justified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Training neural control variates using correlated configurations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6UXEMO6F

@misc{pith2026250507719,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Training neural control variates using correlated configurations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6UXEMO6F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07719}
}

abstract

Neural control variates (NCVs) have emerged as a powerful tool for variance reduction in Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, particularly in high-dimensional problems where traditional control variates are difficult to construct analytically. By training neural networks to learn auxiliary functions correlated with the target observable, NCVs can significantly reduce estimator variance while preserving unbiasedness. However, a critical but often overlooked aspect of NCV training is the role of autocorrelated samples generated by Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). While such samples are typically discarded for error estimation due to their statistical redundancy, they may contain useful information about the structure of the underlying probability distribution that can benefit the training process. In this work, we systematically examine the effect of using correlated configurations in training neural control variates. We demonstrate, both conceptually and numerically, that training on correlated data can improve control variate performance, especially in settings with limited computational resources. Our analysis includes empirical results from $U(1)$ gauge theory and scalar field theory, illustrating when and how autocorrelated samples enhance NCV construction. These findings provide practical guidance for the efficient use of MCMC data in training neural networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07719 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Training history for the Wilson loop with area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Training history for the Wilson loop with area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Signal-to-noise ratio of the two-point correlator with chang [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Training history of two-dimensional scalar field theory on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Training history of three-dimensional scalar field theory on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Training history of four-dimensional scalar field theory on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. An example of estimating the autocorrelation time from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Kahn and A

H. Kahn and A. W. Marshall, Methods of reducing sample size in monte carlo computations, Journal of the Operations Re- search Society of America 1, 263 (1953)

work page 1953
[2]

E. C. Fieller and H. O. Hartley, Sampling with control variables, Biometrika 41, 494 (1954)

work page 1954
[3]

P. F. Bedaque and H. Oh, Leveraging neural control variates for enhanced precision in lattice field theory, Phys. Rev. D109, 094519 (2024), arXiv:2312.08228 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2024
[4]

R. Wan, M. Zhong, H. Xiong, and Z. Zhu, Neural control vari- ates for monte carlo variance reduction, in Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, edited by U. Brefeld, E. Fromont, A. Hotho, A. Knobbe, M. Maathuis, and C. Ro- bardet (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020) pp. 533–547

work page 2020
[5]

Z. Sun, A. Barp, and F.-X. Briol, Vector-valued control vari- ates, in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’23 (JMLR.org, 2023)

work page 2023
[6]

Z. Sun, C. J. Oates, and F.-X. Briol, Meta-learning control vari- ates: variance reduction with limited data, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelli- gence, UAI ’23 (JMLR.org, 2023)

work page 2023
[7]

K. Ott, M. Tiemann, P. Hennig, and F.-X. Briol, Bayesian nu- merical integration with neural networks, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelli- 7 FIG. 7. Training history of four-dimensional scalar field theory on a 16 × 8 × 8 × 8 lattice with parametersm2 = 0.1 andλ = 0.5, using the same Monte Carlo chain sample...

work page 2023
[8]

Grathwohl, D

W. Grathwohl, D. Choi, Y . Wu, G. Roeder, and D. Duvenaud, Backpropagation through the void: Optimizing control variates for black-box gradient estimation, in International Conference on Learning Representations (2018)

work page 2018

Show all 35 references

[9]

M ¨uller, F

T. M ¨uller, F. Rousselle, A. Keller, and J. Nov´ak, Neural control variates, ACM Trans. Graph. 39, 10.1145/3414685.3417804 (2020)

2020
[10]

Belomestny, A

D. Belomestny, A. Goldman, A. Naumov, and S. Samsonov, Theoretical guarantees for neural control variates in mcmc, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 220, 382 (2024)

2024
[11]

C. Stein, A bound for the error in the normal approximation to the distribution of a sum of dependent random variables, in Proceedings of the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathemati- cal Statistics and Probability , V ol. 2 (University of California Press, 1972) pp. 583–602

1972
[12]

S. Si, C. J. Oates, A. B. Duncan, L. Carin, and F.-X. Briol, Scalable control variates for monte carlo methods via stochastic optimization, in Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods, edited by A. Keller (Springer International Publishing, Cham,
[13]

Lawrence, Schwinger-Dyson control variates for lattice fermions, (2024), arXiv:2404.10707 [hep-lat]

S. Lawrence, Schwinger-Dyson control variates for lattice fermions, (2024), arXiv:2404.10707 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[14]

Hornik, M

K. Hornik, M. Stinchcombe, and H. White, Multilayer feedfor- ward networks are universal approximators, Neural Networks 2, 359 (1989)

1989
[15]

Cybenko, Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, Math

G. Cybenko, Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, Math. Control Signals Syst. 2, 303 (1989)

1989
[16]

L. F. South, C. J. Oates, A. Mira, and C. Drovandi, Regular- ized Zero-Variance Control Variates, Bayesian Analysis18, 865 (2023)

2023
[17]

Bhattacharya, S

T. Bhattacharya, S. Lawrence, and J.-S. Yoo, Control variates for lattice field theory, Phys. Rev. D 109, L031505 (2024), arXiv:2307.14950 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[18]

Lawrence and Y

S. Lawrence and Y . Yamauchi, Mitigating a discrete sign problem with extreme learning machines, (2023), arXiv:2312.12636 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[19]

Detmold, G

W. Detmold, G. Kanwar, M. L. Wagman, and N. C. Warrington, Path integral contour deformations for noisy observables, Phys. Rev. D 102, 014514 (2020), arXiv:2003.05914 [hep-lat]

2020 arXiv
[20]

Oh, Control variates with neural networks, in 41st International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (2025) arXiv:2501.14614 [hep-lat]

H. Oh, Control variates with neural networks, in 41st International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (2025) arXiv:2501.14614 [hep-lat]

2025 arXiv
[21]

J. T. Barron, Continuously differentiable exponential linear units (2017), arXiv:1704.07483 [cs.LG]

2017 arXiv
[22]

Kingma and J

D. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (San Diega, CA, USA, 2015)

2015
[23]

Pascanu, T

R. Pascanu, T. Mikolov, and Y . Bengio, On the difficulty of training recurrent neural networks, in Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on International Conference on Ma- chine Learning - Volume 28 , ICML’13 (JMLR.org, 2013) p. III–1310–III–1318

2013
[24]

Lawrence, H

S. Lawrence, H. Oh, and Y . Yamauchi, Lattice scalar field the- ory at complex coupling, Phys. Rev. D 106, 114503 (2022), arXiv:2205.12303 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[25]

Catumba and A

G. Catumba and A. Ramos, Stochastic automatic differentiation and the Signal to Noise problem, (2025), arXiv:2502.15570 [hep-lat]

2025 arXiv
[26]

Alexandru, G

A. Alexandru, G. Basar, P. F. Bedaque, and N. C. Warrington, Complex paths around the sign problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015006 (2022), arXiv:2007.05436 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[27]

Carleo and M

G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017)

2017
[28]

J. Liu, Y . Qi, Z. Y . Meng, and L. Fu, Self-learning Monte Carlo method, Phys. Rev. B 95, 041101 (2017)

2017
[29]

D. Levy, M. D. Hoffman, and J. Sohl-Dickstein, Generalizing hamiltonian monte carlo with neural networks, in International Conference on Learning Representations (2018)

2018
[30]

M ¨uller, B

T. M ¨uller, B. Mcwilliams, F. Rousselle, M. Gross, and J. Nov´ak, Neural importance sampling, ACM Trans. Graph.38, 10.1145/3341156 (2019)

2019 doi
[31]

Metropolis, A

N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast com- puting machines, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953)

1953
[32]

W. K. Hastings, Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications, Biometrika 57, 97 (1970)

1970
[33]

Geman and D

S. Geman and D. Geman, Stochastic Relaxation, Gibbs Distri- butions, and the Bayesian Restoration of Images, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. PAMI-6, 721 (1984)

1984
[34]

M. H. Quenouille, Approximate tests of correlation in time- series, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 11, 68 (1949)

1949
[35]

M. H. Quenouille, Notes on bias in estimation, Biometrika 43, 353 (1956). Appendix A: Markov Chain Monte Carlo and error estimation Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods are a family of algorithms used to approximate complex probability dis- tributions through iterative samp...

1956

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Kahn and A

H. Kahn and A. W. Marshall, Methods of reducing sample size in monte carlo computations, Journal of the Operations Re- search Society of America 1, 263 (1953)

work page 1953

[2] [2]

E. C. Fieller and H. O. Hartley, Sampling with control variables, Biometrika 41, 494 (1954)

work page 1954

[3] [3]

P. F. Bedaque and H. Oh, Leveraging neural control variates for enhanced precision in lattice field theory, Phys. Rev. D109, 094519 (2024), arXiv:2312.08228 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

R. Wan, M. Zhong, H. Xiong, and Z. Zhu, Neural control vari- ates for monte carlo variance reduction, in Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, edited by U. Brefeld, E. Fromont, A. Hotho, A. Knobbe, M. Maathuis, and C. Ro- bardet (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020) pp. 533–547

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Z. Sun, A. Barp, and F.-X. Briol, Vector-valued control vari- ates, in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’23 (JMLR.org, 2023)

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Z. Sun, C. J. Oates, and F.-X. Briol, Meta-learning control vari- ates: variance reduction with limited data, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelli- gence, UAI ’23 (JMLR.org, 2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

K. Ott, M. Tiemann, P. Hennig, and F.-X. Briol, Bayesian nu- merical integration with neural networks, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelli- 7 FIG. 7. Training history of four-dimensional scalar field theory on a 16 × 8 × 8 × 8 lattice with parametersm2 = 0.1 andλ = 0.5, using the same Monte Carlo chain sample...

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Grathwohl, D

W. Grathwohl, D. Choi, Y . Wu, G. Roeder, and D. Duvenaud, Backpropagation through the void: Optimizing control variates for black-box gradient estimation, in International Conference on Learning Representations (2018)

work page 2018