Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 1 cited by

Error estimation for quasi-Monte Carlo

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Randomized quasi-Monte Carlo estimates can get reliable confidence intervals without a central limit theorem, thanks to a near-symmetry that appears as the sample size grows.

desk verdict A careful, well-scoped survey of RQMC error estimation with a practical R>=10 t-interval recommendation; no new theorem, but honest about what is known and a solid contribution to the proceedings. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00150 v3 pith:HETZ75GN submitted 2024-12-30 math.NA cs.NAstat.CO

Art B. Owen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAstat.CO MSC 65D3065C0562F25
keywords randomizedquasi-MonteCarloconfidenceintervalsStudent'stintervalskewnesskurtosisdigitalnetsmedianofmeansscrambling
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

Quasi-Monte Carlo can integrate high-dimensional functions far more accurately than plain Monte Carlo, but its very accuracy makes the error hard to estimate: rigorous bounds are usually uncomputable or far too wide. This survey asks what can still be said about the error of a QMC estimate, and it organizes the available answers into certificates, confidence intervals, and asymptotic intervals. The central finding is an empirical surprise documented in [61] and partially explained in [85]: for several randomized QMC methods the distribution of the estimator turns nearly symmetric as n grows, even when its kurtosis diverges and no central limit theorem holds. Because of that symmetry, the standard Student-t interval based on R >= 10 independent replications gives reliable 95% coverage, without needing a consistent estimate of the estimator variance. A sympathetic reader should care because this yields a simple, practical recipe for trustworthy error bars on high-accuracy QMC computations and identifies exactly where the theory is still open.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the distribution of the RQMC estimator μ̂_n, summarized by its skewness γ_n and kurtosis κ_n, together with the Student-t statistic built from R independent replicates. Edgeworth expansions for two-sided coverage error show that the standard interval's error is governed by terms like κ_n/R and $γ_n^{2}$/R, so a method with small skewness but large kurtosis can still have near-nominal two-sided coverage, and heavy-tailed replicate distributions tend to make the t interval slightly conservative. For random linear scrambling of base-2 digital nets, [84] shows there is an event of probability Ω(1/n) with squared error Ω(1/$n^{2}$) that drives κ_n to infinity, while [85] shows γ_n = O(n^ε), which is why the distribution can be non-Gaussian yet symmetric. The rare-outlier structure also explains why the sample variance s̃^2 often underestimates $σ_n^{2}$: with small R the outliers are usually unseen, and symmetry keeps the resulting interval reliable rather than misleading.

What would settle it

Repeat the [61] protocol with R=10 on an RQMC method outside the five tested, such as a random-start Halton sequence or a higher-order scrambled net, using an integrand whose estimator distribution is markedly skewed; if the standard t interval covers μ in fewer than roughly 94% of 1000 repetitions, the recipe fails to generalize. Alternatively, compute γ_n for random linear scrambling on a smooth integrand with a nonzero one-dimensional effect and look for a case where |γ_n| grows faster than O(n^ε), which would refute the theoretical explanation in [85].

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim, stated on its own terms, is that uncertainty quantification for QMC is not hopeless: it is a matter of choosing the right tradeoff between accuracy and estimability. With a fixed budget of N=nR function evaluations, larger n gives a better estimate of the integral while larger R gives a better estimate of the error, and RQMC with small R is the regime where both goals can be met. The striking discovery is that some RQMC estimators have distributions that become nearly symmetric as n grows without becoming Gaussian: skewness stays at O(n^ε) or smaller while kurtosis can diverge to infinity. This near-symmetry is enough to make the ordinary Student-t confidence interval from R >= 10 independent replicates attain close to nominal 95% coverage, despite the fact that the sample variance of the replicates can badly underestimate the true variance and no CLT applies. The paper treats this as a surprise that needs more study, and it recommends R >= 10 independent replications with the standard t interval as the current best-supported recipe for RQMC uncertainty quantification.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the near-symmetry seen in the simulation study of five RQMC methods and six integrands, and partially explained for random linear scrambling, holds broadly enough across other RQMC methods and integrands to justify the 'R >= 10 with Student-t' recipe; the paper itself says in Sections 5 and 9 that this has not been established for the other methods and clearly needs more study.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A practitioner who wants a 95% confidence interval for an RQMC estimate can average R >= 10 independent replications and use the usual Student-t interval, without estimating σ_n^2 or relying on a CLT.
  • For a fixed budget N=nR, allocating essentially all effort to n leaves too few replicates for UQ; the tradeoff analysis supports keeping R at least 10 even at some cost in raw accuracy.
  • For matrix-scrambled Sobol' nets with a digital shift, the diverging kurtosis rules out CLT-based confidence intervals, so the near-symmetric, heavy-tailed regime is the correct asymptotic target for that family.
  • Bootstrap percentile intervals performed badly (1689 failures out of 2400 cases) and bootstrap-t was still worse than the standard t interval, so the standard interval is the strongest current recommendation.
  • Certificates do exist for special integrand classes, such as bracketing for convex or monotone functions and NNLD/NPLD bounds for completely monotone functions, but they are conservative and suffer a dimension effect; confidence intervals are the practical default.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If near-symmetry is the true mechanism, one could deliberately design RQMC randomizations, for example symmetric shifts or paired reflections, to force the estimator distribution symmetric and extend the t-interval guarantee beyond the five methods tested.
  • The same rare-outlier structure that makes kurtosis diverge is exactly what median-of-means is built to survive; combining a symmetric heavy-tailed estimator with a median or trimmed-mean aggregation could yield both super-polynomial accuracy and a computable confidence interval, an extension not developed in the paper.
  • The coverage evidence is for two-sided 95% intervals; Edgeworth expansions show one-sided coverage errors do not benefit from the same cancellation, so one-sided or 99% intervals may need larger R, a testable implication the paper does not pursue.
  • The NNLD/NPLD certificate idea suggests a deterministic analogue: point sets with symmetric discrepancy structure might yield guaranteed two-sided error bounds for completely monotone integrands without any randomization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This proceedings survey reviews methods for quantifying the error of quasi-Monte Carlo estimates. It distinguishes certificates, confidence intervals, and asymptotic intervals; covers the Koksma-Hlawka and weighted-space bounds, bracketing and NNLD/NPLD certificates, RQMC and the recent empirical finding that Student's t intervals from R≥10 independent replicates have reliable coverage; and surveys the Warnock-Halton quasi-standard error, GAIL, and new directions (unbiased MCMC, normalizing flows, median-of-means, and R growing with n). The central practical recommendation is the R≥10 rule, with the near-symmetry of RQMC error distributions identified as the key open theoretical mechanism.

Significance. If taken as a survey, the paper is valuable: it organizes a fragmented literature, gives the first accessible account of the RQMC confidence-interval simulation results of [61] and the skewness/kurtosis theory of [84,85], and makes a concrete, falsifiable recommendation. Its strength is careful scoping: Section 5 explicitly states that the empirical findings have not been established for other RQMC methods, and Section 9 states that the symmetry mechanism clearly needs more study. The paper also credits the relevant literature and points out known pitfalls (e.g., the Warnock-Halton QSE failure). No machine-checked proofs are supplied, but the survey does not claim them; its claims are traceable to published sources.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5 (kurtosis of matrix scrambling)] The statement 'Having κ_n→∞ completely rules out a CLT for \hat μ_n from matrix scrambling with a digital shift' is stronger than what a diverging kurtosis alone implies; a sequence of distributions can have diverging fourth moments and still converge in distribution to a Gaussian. If a stronger obstruction is proved in [84] or [85], it should be cited here; otherwise the wording should be weakened to say that the diverging kurtosis defeats the moment- and variance-estimation-based routes to a CLT confidence interval.
  2. [Section 5 (skewness of random linear scrambling)] The phrase 'γ_n=O(n^ε) for any ε>0, so it is almost O(1)' is not strictly correct, since such a sequence may be unbounded (e.g., log n); 'sub-polynomial' would be more accurate.
  3. [Section 5 (critical event for d>1)] The sentence 'the critical event has probability Ω(d/n^2)' appears inconsistent with the one-dimensional event probability Ω(1/n); for fixed d it would give a fourth-moment contribution Ω(n^{-6}), which does not produce the claimed diverging kurtosis. Please clarify whether the intended rate is Ω(d/n) or explain the extra factor 1/n.
  4. [Throughout] There are a few typos: 'random random vector' in Section 4, 'erroneosly' in Section 5, and 'ANOV A' in Section 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's claims rest on published, externally checkable results, with limitations explicitly stated.

full rationale

The paper is a survey. Its central actionable claim, that R>=10 independent RQMC replications with a Student-t interval give reliable 95% coverage, is explicitly presented as an empirical finding from the published simulation study [61], not as a prediction derived in this paper. The theoretical supports [84,85] are parameter-free theorems with stated assumptions that do not include the target coverage conclusion; they are externally checkable and are not fitted to the present paper. Section 5 explicitly states that the empirical findings 'have not been established for the other RQMC methods,' and Section 9 says the symmetry mechanism 'clearly needs more study,' so the paper scopes its claims honestly. Theorem 1 in Section 4 is proved by citation to [39]; although [39] shares an author, it is a separately published, peer-reviewed result with a proof independent of this paper, so this is ordinary scholarly citation, not circular reasoning. The Warnock-Halton QSE section defines QSE from replicate variability by construction, but the paper does not claim to predict accuracy from that definition; it reports the method's empirical successes and failures. I find no equation where a predicted quantity is equal to an input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness assertion is imported from the authors' own prior work. The main scientific risk, that the empirical coverage result may not generalize beyond the five RQMC methods and six integrands tested in [61], is a stated limitation, not an internal circularity.

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

The survey introduces no fitted constants. The central recommendation depends on transfer of near-symmetry from tested RQMC methods to untested ones, on a well-tested PRNG, and on complete monotonicity for the certificate Theorem 1.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The near-symmetry of RQMC error distributions observed in [61] and partially explained in [85] transfers to other RQMC methods and integrands beyond those tested.
    The paper's central surprise relies on this generalization, but Section 9 says it clearly needs more study and Section 5 says the findings have not been established for other RQMC methods.
  • domain assumption The pseudo-random number generator used to randomize QMC points is well tested, for example by the Big Crush battery of TestU01 [63].
    Section 1 states that the entire confidence interval approach depends on using a well tested pseudo-random number generator.
  • domain assumption For the NNLD/NPLD certificate in Theorem 1, the integrand f must have the representation f(x) = f(0) + lambda * nu([0,x]) with nu a probability measure, meaning f is completely monotone.
    Theorem 1 requires this strong monotonicity condition, which the paper notes is strict and is satisfied for cumulative distribution functions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Error estimation for quasi-Monte Carlo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HETZ75GN

@misc{pith2026250100150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Error estimation for quasi-Monte Carlo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HETZ75GN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00150}
}
read the original abstract

Quasi-Monte Carlo sampling can attain far better accuracy than plain Monte Carlo sampling. However, with plain Monte Carlo sampling it is much easier to estimate the attained accuracy. This article describes methods old and new to quantify the error in quasi-Monte Carlo estimates. An important challenge in this setting is that the goal of getting accuracy conflicts with that of estimating the attained accuracy. A related challenge is that rigorous uncertainty quantifications can be extremely conservative. A recent surprise is that some RQMC estimates have nearly symmetric distributions and that has the potential to allow confidence intervals that do not require either a central limit theorem or a consistent variance estimate.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The $L_p$-error rate for randomized quasi-Monte Carlo self-normalized importance sampling of unbounded integrands

    math.NA 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Rigorous Lp error bounds of order O(N^{-β+ε}) for RQMC self-normalized importance sampling with unbounded integrands on unbounded domains, with β near 1 under QMC-friendly growth conditions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [39]

    Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA 13(3), iaae021 (2024)

    Gnewuch, M., Kritzer, P., Owen, A.B., Pan, Z.: Computable error bounds for quasi-Monte Carlo using points with non-negative local discrepancy. Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA 13(3), iaae021 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [61]

    L ’Ecuyer, P., Nakayama, M.K., Owen, A.B., Tuffin, B.: Confidence intervals for randomized quasi-Monte Carlo estimators. In: C.G. Corlu, S.R. Hunter, H. Lam, B.S. Onggo, J. Shortle, B. Biller (eds.) 2023 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 445–456. IEEE (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Acta Arithmetica 167(2), 143–171 (2015)

    Aistleitner, C., Dick, J.: Functions of bounded variation, signed measures, and a general Koksma-Hlawka inequality. Acta Arithmetica 167(2), 143–171 (2015)

    2015

  4. [2]

    Andral, C.: Combining normalizing flows and quasi-Monte Carlo. Tech. rep., arXiv:2401.05934 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [3]

    Atchad ´e, Y.F., Jacob, P.E.: Unbiased Markov chain Monte Carlo: what, why and how. Tech. rep., arxiv:2406.06825 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  6. [4]

    Austern, M., Mackey, L.: Efficient concentration with Gaussian approximation. Tech. rep., arXiv:2208.09922 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  7. [5]

    The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 27(4), 1115–1122 (1956)

    Bahadur, R.R., Savage, L.J.: The nonexistence of certain statistical procedures in nonpara- metric problems. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 27(4), 1115–1122 (1956)

    1956

  8. [6]

    Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, Seriya Matematiki, Mehaniki, Astronomi, Fiziki, Himii 4, 3–18 (1959)

    Bakhvalov, N.S.: On approximate calculation of multiple integrals. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, Seriya Matematiki, Mehaniki, Astronomi, Fiziki, Himii 4, 3–18 (1959). (In Russian)

    1959

Show all 102 references
  1. [7]

    Benjamini, Y.: Is the 𝑡 test really conservative when the parent distribution is long-tailed? Journal of the American Statistical Association 78(383), 645–654 (1983)

    1983

  2. [8]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

    Boyd, S., Vandeberghe, L.: Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

    2004

  3. [9]

    Statistical Science 34(1), 1–22 (2019)

    Briol, F.X., Oates, C.J., Girolami, M., Osborne, M.A., Sejdinovic, D.: Probabilistic integra- tion. Statistical Science 34(1), 1–22 (2019)

    2019

  4. [10]

    CRC press, Boca Raton, FL (2011) Error estimation for QMC 25

    Brooks, S., Gelman, A., Jones, G., Meng, X.L.: Handbook of Markov chain Monte Carlo. CRC press, Boca Raton, FL (2011) Error estimation for QMC 25

    2011

  5. [11]

    Chen, S.: Consistency and convergence rate of Markov chain quasi Monte Carlo with examples. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (2011)

    2011

  6. [12]

    Annals of Statistics 39(2), 673–701 (2011)

    Chen, S., Dick, J., Owen, A.B.: Consistency of Markov chain quasi-Monte Carlo on contin- uous spaces. Annals of Statistics 39(2), 673–701 (2011)

    2011

  7. [13]

    (eds.): A Panorama of Discrepancy Theory

    Chen, W., Srivastav, A., Travaglini, G. (eds.): A Panorama of Discrepancy Theory. Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2014)

    2014

  8. [14]

    Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 7, 218–233 (1967)

    Chentsov, N.N.: Pseudorandom numbers for modelling Markov chains. Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 7, 218–233 (1967)

    1967

  9. [15]

    https://pypi.org/project/qmcpy/ (2024)

    Choi, S.C.T., Hickernell, F.J., Rathinavel, J., McCourt, M.J., Sorokin, A.G.: QMCPy: A quasi-Monte Carlo Python library. https://pypi.org/project/qmcpy/ (2024)

    2024

  10. [16]

    Springer (2020)

    Chopin, N., Papaspiliopoulos, O.: An introduction to sequential Monte Carlo. Springer (2020)

    2020

  11. [17]

    Australian Journal of Statistics 22(2), 143–153 (1980)

    Cressie, N.: Relaxing assumptions in the one sample t-test. Australian Journal of Statistics 22(2), 143–153 (1980)

    1980

  12. [18]

    Cruz-Uribe, D., Neugebauer, C.J.: Sharp error bounds for the trapezoidal rule and Simpson’s rule. J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math 3(4), 1–22 (2002)

    2002

  13. [19]

    Academic Press, San Diego (1984)

    Davis, P.J., Rabinowitz, P.: Methods of Numerical Integration (2nd Ed.). Academic Press, San Diego (1984)

    1984

  14. [20]

    Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge (1997)

    Davison, A.C., Hinkley, D.V.: Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge (1997)

    1997

  15. [21]

    Springer (1986)

    Devroye, L.: Non-uniform Random Variate Generation. Springer (1986)

    1986

  16. [22]

    The Annals of Statistics 44(6), 2695–2725 (2016)

    Devroye, L., Lerasle, M., Lugosi, G., Oliveira, R.I.: Sub-Gaussian mean estimators. The Annals of Statistics 44(6), 2695–2725 (2016)

    2016

  17. [23]

    Statistical science 11(3), 189–228 (1996)

    DiCiccio, T.J., Efron, B.: Bootstrap confidence intervals. Statistical science 11(3), 189–228 (1996)

    1996

  18. [24]

    Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society 80(3), 430–453 (2009)

    Dick, J.: The decay of the Walsh coefficients of smooth functions. Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society 80(3), 430–453 (2009)

    2009

  19. [25]

    The Annals of Statistics 39(3), 1372–1398 (2011)

    Dick, J.: Higher order scrambled digital nets achieve the optimal rate of the root mean square error for smooth integrands. The Annals of Statistics 39(3), 1372–1398 (2011)

    2011

  20. [26]

    Monte Carlo Methods and Applications 12(1), 1–17 (2006)

    Dick, J., Kritzer, P.: A best possible upper bound on the star discrepancy of (t, m, 2)-nets. Monte Carlo Methods and Applications 12(1), 1–17 (2006)

    2006

  21. [27]

    Acta Numerica 22, 133–288 (2013)

    Dick, J., Kuo, F.Y., Sloan, I.H.: High-dimensional integration: the quasi-Monte Carlo way. Acta Numerica 22, 133–288 (2013)

    2013

  22. [28]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    Dick, J., Pillichshammer, F.: Digital sequences, discrepancy and quasi-Monte Carlo inte- gration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    2010

  23. [29]

    World Scientific, Singapore (2008)

    Dimov, I.T.: Monte Carlo methods for applied scientists. World Scientific, Singapore (2008)

    2008

  24. [30]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 15(4), 354–376 (1996)

    Dobkin, D.P., Eppstein, D., Mitchell, D.P.: Computing the discrepancy with applications to supersampling patterns. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 15(4), 354–376 (1996)

    1996

  25. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04407 (2024)

    Du, J., He, Z.: Unbiased Markov chain quasi-Monte Carlo for Gibbs samplers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04407 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association 64(328), 1278–1302 (1969)

    Efron, B.: Student’s t-test under symmetry conditions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 64(328), 1278–1302 (1969)

    1969

  27. [33]

    Journal of the American statistical Association 82(397), 171–185 (1987)

    Efron, B.: Better bootstrap confidence intervals (with discussion). Journal of the American statistical Association 82(397), 171–185 (1987)

    1987

  28. [34]

    Chapman and Hall (1993)

    Efron, B.M., Tibshirani, R.J.: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall (1993)

    1993

  29. [35]

    The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38(5), 1466–1474 (1967)

    Esary, J.D., Proschan, F., Walkup, D.W.: Association of random variables, with applications. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38(5), 1466–1474 (1967)

    1967

  30. [36]

    Acta Arithmetica 41, 337–351 (1982)

    Faure, H.: Discr ´epance de suites associ ´ees `a un syst `eme de num ´eration (en dimension 𝑠). Acta Arithmetica 41, 337–351 (1982)

    1982

  31. [37]

    Nouvelles Annales de Math´ematiques 10, 241–256 (1910) 26 A

    Fr ´echet, M.: Extension au cas des int´egrales multiples d’une d´efinition de l’int´egrale due `a Stieltjes. Nouvelles Annales de Math´ematiques 10, 241–256 (1910) 26 A. B. Owen

    1910

  32. [38]

    Illinois Journal of Mathematics 11(1), 1–12 (1967)

    Gabai, H.: On the discrepancy of certain sequences mod 1. Illinois Journal of Mathematics 11(1), 1–12 (1967)

    1967

  33. [40]

    Gobet, E., Lerasle, M., M ´etivier, D.: Mean estimation for randomized quasi Monte Carlo method. Tech. rep., hal-03631879 (2022)

    2022

  34. [41]

    Goda, T., Krieg, D.: A simple universal algorithm for high-dimensional integration. Tech. rep., arXiv:2411.19164 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 44(4), A2765–A2788 (2022)

    Goda, T., L ’Ecuyer, P.: Construction-free median quasi-Monte Carlo rules for function spaces with unspecified smoothness and general weights. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 44(4), A2765–A2788 (2022)

    2022

  36. [43]

    Mathematics of computation 73(247), 1365–1384 (2004)

    Guessab, A., Schmeisser, G.: Convexity results and sharp error estimates in approximate multivariate integration. Mathematics of computation 73(247), 1365–1384 (2004)

    2004

  37. [44]

    The Annals of Statistics pp

    Hall, P.G.: On the bootstrap and confidence intervals. The Annals of Statistics pp. 1431–1452 (1986)

    1986

  38. [45]

    The Annals of Statistics 16(3), 927–953 (1988)

    Hall, P.G.: Theoretical comparisons of bootstrap confidence intervals. The Annals of Statistics 16(3), 927–953 (1988)

    1988

  39. [46]

    Springer, New York (1992)

    Hall, P.G.: The Bootstrap and Edgeworth Expansion. Springer, New York (1992)

    1992

  40. [47]

    Monte Carlo methods and applications11(3), 203–350 (2005)

    Halton, J.: Quasi-probability: Why quasi-Monte-Carlo methods are statistically valid and how their errors can be estimated statistically. Monte Carlo methods and applications11(3), 203–350 (2005)

    2005

  41. [48]

    Hickernell, F.J.: Obtaining 𝑂(𝑁−2+𝜖) convergence for lattice quadrature rules. In: K.T. Fang, F.J. Hickernell, H. Niederreiter (eds.) Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 2000, pp. 274–289. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2002)

    2002

  42. [49]

    Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online (2014)

    Hickernell, F.J.: Koksma-Hlawka inequality. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online (2014)

    2014

  43. [50]

    Hickernell, F.J., Jiang, L., Liu, Y., Owen, A.B.: Guaranteed conservative fixed width confi- dence intervals via Monte Carlo sampling. In: J. Dick, F.Y. Kuo, G. Peters, I.H. Sloan (eds.) Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 2012, pp. 105–128. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    2013

  44. [51]

    Hickernell, F.J., Rugama, L.A.J.: Reliable adaptive cubature using digital sequences. In: R. Cools, D. Nuyens (eds.) Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 2014, pp. 367–383. Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2016)

    2016

  45. [52]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association 58, 13–30 (1963)

    Hoeffding, W.: Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58, 13–30 (1963)

    1963

  46. [53]

    Jain, A., Hickernell, F.J., Owen, A.B., Sorokin, A.G.: Empirical Bernstein and betting confidence intervals for randomized quasi-Monte Carlo. Tech. rep., arXiv:2504.18677 (2025)

    2025

  47. [54]

    In: Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods: MCQMC, Leuven, Belgium, April 2014, pp

    Jim ´enez Rugama, L.A., Hickernell, F.J.: Adaptive multidimensional integration based on rank-1 lattices. In: Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods: MCQMC, Leuven, Belgium, April 2014, pp. 407–422. Springer (2016)

    2016

  48. [55]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 30(5), 2635–2654 (2008)

    Joe, S., Kuo, F.Y.: Constructing Sobol’ sequences with better two-dimensional projections. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 30(5), 2635–2654 (2008)

    2008

  49. [56]

    Journal of Complexity 12(1), 5–16 (1996)

    Katscher, C., Novak, E., Petras, K.: Quadrature formulas for multivariate convex functions. Journal of Complexity 12(1), 5–16 (1996)

    1996

  50. [57]

    Management Science46(9), 1214–1235 (2000)

    L ’Ecuyer, P., Lemieux, C.: Variance reduction via lattice rules. Management Science46(9), 1214–1235 (2000)

    2000

  51. [58]

    L ’Ecuyer, P., Lemieux, C.: A survey of randomized quasi-Monte Carlo methods. In: M. Dror, P. L ’Ecuyer, F. Szidarovszki (eds.) Modeling Uncertainty: An Examination of Stochastic Theory, Methods, and Applications, pp. 419–474. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002) Error estimation...

    2002

  52. [59]

    ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 42(2), Article 15 (2016)

    L ’Ecuyer, P., Munger, D.: Algorithm 958: Lattice Builder: A general software tool for constructing rank-1 lattice rules. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 42(2), Article 15 (2016)

    2016

  53. [60]

    Electronic Journal of Statistics 4, 950–993 (2010)

    L ’Ecuyer, P., Munger, D., Tuffin, B.: On the distribution of integration error by randomly- shifted lattice rules. Electronic Journal of Statistics 4, 950–993 (2010)

    2010

  54. [62]

    Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 81(3), 476–489 (2010)

    L ’Ecuyer, P., Sanvido, C.: Coupling from the past with randomized quasi-Monte Carlo. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 81(3), 476–489 (2010)

    2010

  55. [63]

    ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) 33(4), 1–40 (2007)

    L ’Ecuyer, P., Simard, R.: TestU01: A C library for empirical testing of random number generators. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) 33(4), 1–40 (2007)

    2007

  56. [64]

    International Mathematics Research Notices pp

    Levin, M.B.: Discrepancy estimates of completely uniformly distributed and pseudo-random number sequences. International Mathematics Research Notices pp. 1231–1251 (1999)

    1999

  57. [65]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    Liu, S.: Langevin quasi-Monte Carlo. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Liu, S.: Transport quasi-Monte Carlo. Tech. rep., arXiv:2412.16416 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Annals of Statistics 31(4), 1282–1324 (2003)

    Loh, W.L.: On the asymptotic distribution of scrambled net quadrature. Annals of Statistics 31(4), 1282–1324 (2003)

    2003

  60. [68]

    SIAM Review 25, 63–87 (1983)

    Lyness, J.N.: When not to use an automatic quadrature routine. SIAM Review 25, 63–87 (1983)

    1983

  61. [69]

    Journal of Complexity 14, 527– 556 (1998)

    Matou ˇsek, J.: On the L2–discrepancy for anchored boxes. Journal of Complexity 14, 527– 556 (1998)

    1998

  62. [70]

    Maurer, A., Pontil, M.: Empirical Bernstein bounds and sample variance penalization. Tech. rep., arXiv:0907.3740 (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Wiley (1986)

    Miller, R.G.: Beyond ANOV A, Basics of Applied Statistics. Wiley (1986)

    1986

  64. [72]

    ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation 34(3), 1–38 (2024)

    Nakayama, M.K., Tuffin, B.: Sufficient conditions for central limit theorems and confidence intervals for randomized quasi-Monte Carlo methods. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation 34(3), 1–38 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 84(6), 957–1041 (1978)

    Niederreiter, H.: Quasi-Monte Carlo methods and pseudo-random numbers. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 84(6), 957–1041 (1978)

    1978

  66. [74]

    S.I.A.M., Philadelphia, PA (1992)

    Niederreiter, H.: Random Number Generation and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods. S.I.A.M., Philadelphia, PA (1992)

    1992

  67. [75]

    Owen, A.B.: Small sample central confidence intervals for the mean. Tech. Rep. 302, Stan- ford University, Department of Statistics (1988). https://purl.stanford.edu/mz765np4744, Accessed 14th August 2023

    1988

  68. [76]

    Owen, A.B.: Randomly permuted (𝑡,𝑚,𝑠 )-nets and(𝑡,𝑠)-sequences. In: H. Niederreiter, P.J.S. Shiue (eds.) Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods in Scientific Computing, pp. 299–317. Springer-Verlag, New York (1995)

    1995

  69. [77]

    Owen, A.B.: Multidimensional variation for quasi-Monte Carlo. In: J. Fan, G. Li (eds.) International Conference on Statistics in honour of Professor Kai-Tai Fang’s 65th birthday (2005)

    2005

  70. [78]

    Monte Carlo Methods & Appli- cations 12(1) (2006)

    Owen, A.B.: On the Warnock-Halton quasi-standard error. Monte Carlo Methods & Appli- cations 12(1) (2006)

    2006

  71. [79]

    https://artowen.su.domains/mc/ practicalqmc.pdf (2023)

    Owen, A.B.: Practical Quasi-Monte Carlo Integration. https://artowen.su.domains/mc/ practicalqmc.pdf (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    Owen, A.B.: Coverage errors for Student’s 𝑡 confidence intervals comparable to those in Hall (1988). Tech. rep., arxiv:2501.07645 (2025)

    1988 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Botev, A

    Owen, A.B., Pan, Z.: Where are the logs? In: Z. Botev, A. Keller, B. Tuffin (eds.) Advances in Modeling and Simulation: Festschrift for Pierre L ’Ecuyer, pp. 381–400. Springer (2022) 28 A. B. Owen

    2022

  74. [82]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(25), 8844–8849 (2005)

    Owen, A.B., Tribble, S.D.: A quasi-Monte Carlo Metropolis algorithm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(25), 8844–8849 (2005)

    2005

  75. [83]

    Pan, Z.: Automatic optimal-rate convergence of randomized nets using median-of-means. Tech. rep., arXiv:2411.01397 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Mathematics of Computation 92(340), 805–837 (2023)

    Pan, Z., Owen, A.B.: Super-polynomial accuracy of one dimensional randomized nets using the median-of-means. Mathematics of Computation 92(340), 805–837 (2023)

    2023

  77. [85]

    Pan, Z., Owen, A.B.: Skewness of a randomized quasi-Monte Carlo estimate. Tech. rep., arXiv:2405.06136 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Mathematics of Computation (2024)

    Pan, Z., Owen, A.B.: Super-polynomial accuracy of multidimensional randomized nets using the median-of-means. Mathematics of Computation (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    Journal of Com- plexity 9(2), 252–268 (1993)

    Papageorgiou, A.: Integration of monotone functions of several variables. Journal of Com- plexity 9(2), 252–268 (1993)

    1993

  80. [88]

    Random Structures and Algorithms 9, 223–252 (1996)

    Propp, J.G., Wilson, D.B.: Exact sampling with coupled Markov chains and applications to statistical mechanics. Random Structures and Algorithms 9, 223–252 (1996)

    1996

  81. [89]

    In: International conference on machine learning, pp

    Rezende, D., Mohamed, S.: Variational inference with normalizing flows. In: International conference on machine learning, pp. 1530–1538. PMLR (2015)

    2015

  82. [90]

    Probability Surveys 10, 69–93 (2013)

    Shao, Q.M., Wang, Q.: Self-normalized limit theorems: A survey. Probability Surveys 10, 69–93 (2013)

    2013

  83. [91]

    Shevtsova, I.: On the absolute constants in the Berry-Esseen type inequalities for identically distributed summands. Tech. rep., arXiv:1111.6554 (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Oxford Science Publications, Oxford (1994)

    Sloan, I.H., Joe, S.: Lattice Methods for Multiple Integration. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford (1994)

    1994

  85. [93]

    Sloan, I.H., Wozniakowski, H.: When are quasi-Monte Carlo algorithms efficient for high dimensional integration? Journal of Complexity 14, 1–33 (1998)

    1998

  86. [94]

    Sobol’, I.M.: The use of Haar series in estimating the error in the computation of infinite- dimensional integrals. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 8(4), 810–813 (1967)

    1967

  87. [95]

    In: International Conference on Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods in Scientific Computing, pp

    Sorokin, A.G., Rathinavel, J.: On bounding and approximating functions of multiple ex- pectations using Quasi-Monte Carlo. In: International Conference on Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods in Scientific Computing, pp. 583–599. Springer (2022)

    2022

  88. [96]

    Journal of Open Research Software 10(1) (2022)

    Tong, X., Choi, S.C.T., Ding, Y., Hickernell, F.J., Jiang, L., Rugama, L.A.J., Rathinavel, J., Zhang, K., Zhang, Y., Zhou, X.: Guaranteed automatic integration library (GAIL): An open-source MATLAB library for function approximation, optimization, and integration. Journal of O...

    2022

  89. [97]

    Tribble, S.D.: Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms using completely uniformly distributed driving sequences. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (2007)

    2007

  90. [98]

    Electronic Journal of Statistics 2, 634–660 (2008)

    Tribble, S.D., Owen, A.B.: Construction of weakly CUD sequences for MCMC sampling. Electronic Journal of Statistics 2, 634–660 (2008)

    2008

  91. [99]

    Warnock, T.: Effective error estimates for quasi-Monte Carlo computations. Tech. Rep. LA-UR-01-1950, Los Alamos National Labs (2001)

    2001

  92. [100]

    http://lib- www.lanl.gov/la-pubs/00367143.pdf (2002)

    Warnock, T.: Effective error estimates for quasi-Monte Carlo computations. http://lib- www.lanl.gov/la-pubs/00367143.pdf (2002)

    2002

  93. [101]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology86(1), 1–27 (2024)

    Waudby-Smith, I., Ramdas, A.: Estimating means of bounded random variables by betting. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology86(1), 1–27 (2024)

    2024

  94. [102]

    Hiroshima Mathematical Journal 47(2), 155–179 (2017)

    Yoshiki, T.: Bounds on Walsh coefficients by dyadic difference and a new Koksma-Hlawka type inequality for quasi-Monte Carlo integration. Hiroshima Mathematical Journal 47(2), 155–179 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.