← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteWithout cards better114 / 280 · beu-a981b4d0aeecb296

Semi-discrete quadratic Wasserstein energy and state-dependent Langevin exploration

Mathematics · 2609.03405v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

Semi-discrete quadratic Wasserstein energy and state-dependent Langevin exploration

Introduction / related work

then ˆX τ n − →X∗ Pτ X-almost surely. By contrast, the raw iterates do not converge to a finite limit : Pτ X [ limn→∞X τ n exists in X N ] = 0. (1.36) The exact optimal mean temperature τλ is one admissible choice. More generally, if q : ˆX N → R is a fixed Borel approximation of qλ = ∆vλ, define τq(X) := ∫ 1 a ue −uq(X)/λdu ∫ 1 a e−uq(X)/λdu ∈ (a, 1). (1.37) Then q =qλ implies τq =τλ. Applying Theorem 1.3 with these two choices gives E(ˆX τλ n ) − →E∗ Pτλ X -almost surely, (1.38) and E(ˆX τq n ) − →E∗ Pτq X -almost surely. (1.39) The same conclusion holds for any fixed Borel approximation o f τλ clipped to [a, 1]. 8

Comparison with deterministic Lloyd iterations. For X ∈ ˆX N , define the deterministic fixed-mass Lloyd map associated with ( 1.4) by TL(X) := ( c1(X),...,c N (X) ) , X k+1 = TL(X k). By ( 1.12), its fixed points are precisely the critical points of E on ˆX N . The classical centroidal- Voronoi interpretation goes back to [ 6]. For the classical Lloyd algorithm, [ 5] establishes local and global convergence results, while [ 7] proves weak global convergence to the set of nondegenerate fixed-point quantizers. In a related power-diagram setting , [ 1] proves energy decrease

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: Without cards better

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = without cards · B = with cards

The draft is in the middle of a literature comparison paragraph about deterministic Lloyd iterations. It has just cited [1] for 'energy decrease' and needs a completion of that claim. Output A ('for a deterministic variant of the Lloyd iteration') directly completes the sentence 'In a related power-diagram setting, [1] proves energy decrease for a deterministic variant of the Lloyd iteration.' This is grammatically correct, fits the argument structure (comparing stochastic vs deterministic methods), and appropriately scopes the claim to match the source context. Output B ('and convergence of a generalized Lloyd algorithm for centroidal power diagrams') is also grammatical but adds 'convergence' which is not supported by the visible draft context—the sentence was about 'energy decrease' only, and adding a second claim about convergence makes the sentence structure awkward ('proves energy decrease and convergence') and expands the scope beyond what the draft was establishing. Output A more faithfully continues the specific point about energy decrease that the draft was making.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

and convergence of a generalized Lloyd algorithm for centroidal power diagrams.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Centroidal power diagrams, Lloyd's algorithm and applications to optimal location problems

In this paper we develop a numerical method for solving a class of optimization problems known as optimal location or quantization problems. The target energy can be written either in terms of atomic measures and the Wasserstein distance or in terms of weighted points and power diagrams (generalized…

Read full passage excerpt

In this paper we develop a numerical method for solving a class of optimization problems known as optimal location or quantization problems. The target energy can be written either in terms of atomic measures and the Wasserstein distance or in terms of weighted points and power diagrams (generalized Voronoi diagrams). The latter formulation is more suitable for computation. We show that critical points of the energy are centroidal power diagrams, which are generalizations of centroidal Voronoi tessellations, and that they can be approximated by a generalization of Lloyd's algorithm (Lloyd's algorithm is a common method for finding centroidal Voronoi tessellations). We prove that the algorithm is energy decreasing and prove a convergence theorem. Numerical experiments suggest that the algorithm converges linearly. We illustrate the algorithm in two and three dimensions using simple models of optimal location and crystallization. In particular, we test a conjecture about the optimality o …

Card 2 · Discrete Optimal Transport: Rapid Convergence of Simulated Annealing Algorithms

We develop a discrete optimal transport framework for analyzing simulated annealing algorithms on finite state spaces. Building on the discrete Wasserstein metric introduced by Maas (J. Funct. Anal., 2011), we define a generalized discrete Wasserstein-2 distance and the associated notion of \emph{di…

Read full passage excerpt

We develop a discrete optimal transport framework for analyzing simulated annealing algorithms on finite state spaces. Building on the discrete Wasserstein metric introduced by Maas (J. Funct. Anal., 2011), we define a generalized discrete Wasserstein-2 distance and the associated notion of \emph{discrete action} for paths of probability measures on graphs. Using these tools, we establish non-asymptotic convergence guarantees for simulated annealing: the KL divergence between the algorithm's output and the target distribution is controlled by the discrete action of the annealing path. This can be viewed as the discrete counterpart of the action-based analysis of annealed Langevin dynamics in continuous spaces by Guo, Tao, and Chen (ICLR 2025). As applications, we analyze simulated annealing for two fundamental models in statistical physics. For the \emph{mean-field Ising model}, we show that annealed single-site Glauber dynamics achieves $\varepsilon$ error in KL divergence in $O(n^5β^ …

Card 3 · A Lagrangian method for solving the spherical shallow water equations using power diagrams

Numerical simulations of the air in the atmosphere and water in the oceans are essential for numerical weather prediction. The state-of-the-art for performing these fluid simulations relies on an Eulerian viewpoint, in which the fluid domain is discretized into a mesh, and the governing equations de…

Read full passage excerpt

Numerical simulations of the air in the atmosphere and water in the oceans are essential for numerical weather prediction. The state-of-the-art for performing these fluid simulations relies on an Eulerian viewpoint, in which the fluid domain is discretized into a mesh, and the governing equations describe the fluid motion as it passes through each cell of the mesh. However, it is unclear whether a Lagrangian viewpoint, in which the fluid is discretized by a collection of particles, can outperform Eulerian simulations in global atmospheric simulations. To date, Lagrangian approaches have shown promise, but tend to produce smoother solutions. In this work, a new Lagrangian method is developed to simulate the atmosphere in which particles are represented with spherical power cells. We introduce an efficient algorithm for computing these cells which are then used to discretize the spherical shallow water equations. Mass conservation is enforced by solving a semi-discrete optimal transport …

Card 4 · Higher-dimensional power diagrams for semi-discrete optimal transport

Efficient algorithms for solving optimal transport problems are important for measuring and optimizing distances between functions. In the $L^2$ semi-discrete context, this problem consists of finding a map from a continuous density function to a discrete set of points so as to minimize the transpor…

Read full passage excerpt

Efficient algorithms for solving optimal transport problems are important for measuring and optimizing distances between functions. In the $L^2$ semi-discrete context, this problem consists of finding a map from a continuous density function to a discrete set of points so as to minimize the transport cost, using the squared Euclidean distance as the cost function. This has important applications in image stippling, clustering, resource allocation and in generating blue noise point distributions for rendering. Recent algorithms have been developed for solving the semi-discrete problem in $2d$ and $3d$, however, algorithms in higher dimensions have yet to be demonstrated, which rely on the efficient calculation of the power diagram (Laguerre diagram) in higher dimensions. Here, we introduce an algorithm for computing power diagrams, which extends to any topological dimension. We first evaluate the performance of the algorithm in $2d-6d$. We then restrict our attention to four-dimensional …

Card 5 · Optimal Transport Approximation of 2-Dimensional Measures

We propose a fast and scalable algorithm to project a given density on a set of structured measures defined over a compact 2D domain. The measures can be discrete or supported on curves for instance. The proposed principle and algorithm are a natural generalization of previous results revolving arou…

Read full passage excerpt

We propose a fast and scalable algorithm to project a given density on a set of structured measures defined over a compact 2D domain. The measures can be discrete or supported on curves for instance. The proposed principle and algorithm are a natural generalization of previous results revolving around the generation of blue-noise point distributions, such as Lloyd's algorithm or more advanced techniques based on power diagrams. We analyze the convergence properties and propose new approaches to accelerate the generation of point distributions. We also design new algorithms to project curves onto spaces of curves with bounded length and curvature or speed and acceleration. We illustrate the algorithm's interest through applications in advanced sampling theory, non-photorealistic rendering and path planning.

Model-reported card use

Card 1 · fact

Affected output: and convergence of a generalized Lloyd algorithm for centroidal power diagrams.

Model explanation: Supplied the specific power-diagram counterpart result needed to complete the sentence about what the related power-diagram setting establishes.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Preferred by blind review

for a deterministic variant of the Lloyd iteration.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

The blinded model review preferred the Evidence version. Its original rationale appears below.

Read the original model judgment

Both outputs complete the sentence about energy decrease. Output A claims the energy decrease is 'for a deterministic variant of the Lloyd iteration,' but the draft already established the deterministic Lloyd map TL(X) in the preceding text, and the cited source [1] (Centroidal power diagrams...) specifically proves energy decrease for a generalized Lloyd algorithm in the power diagram setting, not merely a 'deterministic variant' of the classical iteration. Output B more precisely captures that [1] proves 'energy decrease and convergence of a generalized Lloyd algorithm for centroidal power diagrams,' which matches the source's actual contribution as described in its snippet: 'We prove that the algorithm is energy decreasing and prove a convergence theorem' for 'centroidal power diagrams, which are generalizations of centroidal Voronoi tessellations' via 'a generalization of Lloyd's algorithm.' Output B's wording better preserves the specific mathematical content and scope of the citation, aligning with the paper's power diagram context established in the draft.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.