MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977245197 · doi:10.1111/rssb.12464

Non-Reversible Parallel Tempering: A Scalable Highly Parallel MCMC Scheme

2021· article· en· W2977245197 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsParallel temperingMarkov chain Monte CarloComputer scienceMarkov chainScalabilityPrior probabilityScalingPiecewiseAlgorithmRange (aeronautics)Applied mathematicsScheduleSimulated annealingDistribution (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationStatistical physicsMathematicsBayesian probabilityHybrid Monte CarloArtificial intelligencePhysicsMaterials scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Parallel tempering (PT) methods are a popular class of Markov chain Monte Carlo schemes used to sample complex high-dimensional probability distributions. They rely on a collection of N interacting auxiliary chains targeting tempered versions of the target distribution to improve the exploration of the state space. We provide here a new perspective on these highly parallel algorithms and their tuning by identifying and formalizing a sharp divide in the behaviour and performance of reversible versus non-reversible PT schemes. We show theoretically and empirically that a class of non-reversible PT methods dominates its reversible counterparts and identify distinct scaling limits for the non-reversible and reversible schemes, the former being a piecewise-deterministic Markov process and the latter a diffusion. These results are exploited to identify the optimal annealing schedule for non-reversible PT and to develop an iterative scheme approximating this schedule. We provide a wide range of numerical examples supporting our theoretical and methodological contributions. The proposed methodology is applicable to sample from a distribution π with a density L with respect to a reference distribution π0 and compute the normalizing constant ∫Ldπ0. A typical use case is when π0 is a prior distribution, L a likelihood function and π the corresponding posterior distribution.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.262 · 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