A Note on Convergence of the Equi-Energy Sampler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent article, ‘The equi-energy sampler with applications statistical inference and statistical mechanics' [Ann. Stat., 34 (2006) 1581–1619], Kou, Zhou, and Wong presented a new stochastic simulation method called the equi-energy (EE) sampler. This technique is designed to simulate from a probability measure π, perhaps only known up to a normalizing constant. The authors demonstrate that the sampler performs well in quite challenging problems but their convergence results (Theorem 2) appear incomplete. This was pointed out, in the discussion of the article, by Atchadé and Liu [3 Atchadé , Y. , and Liu , J.S. 2006 . Discussion of Kou, Zhou and Wong . Ann. Statist. 34 : 1620 – 1628 .[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]] who proposed an alternative convergence proof. However, this alternative proof, whilst theoretically correct, does not correspond to the algorithm that is implemented. In this note we provide a new proof of convergence of the equi-energy sampler based on the Poisson equation and on the theory developed in Andrieu et al. [2 Andrieu , C. , Jasra , A. , Doucet , A. , and Del Moral , P. 2007 . Non-linear Markov chain Monte Carlo via self interacting approximations . Technical Report , University of Bristol . [Google Scholar]] for non linear Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). The objective of this note is to provide a proof of correctness of the EE sampler when there is only one feeding chain; the general case requires a much more technical approach than is suitable for a short note. In addition, we also seek to highlight the difficulties associated with the analysis of this type of algorithm and present the main techniques that may be adopted to prove the convergence of it.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".