MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003466463 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.11950

Non-reversibly updating a uniform [0,1] value for Metropolis accept/reject decisions

2020· preprint· en· W3003466463 on OpenAlexaff
Radford M. Neal

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLangevin dynamicsMarkov chain Monte CarloStatistical physicsGibbs samplingHyperparameterLangevin equationComputer scienceMarkov chainHybrid Monte CarloSampling (signal processing)Random walkMonte Carlo methodBayesian probabilityAlgorithmMathematicsPhysicsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I show how it can be beneficial to express Metropolis accept/reject decisions in terms of comparison with a uniform [0,1] value, u, and to then update u non-reversibly, as part of the Markov chain state, rather than sampling it independently each iteration. This provides a small improvement for random walk Metropolis and Langevin updates in high dimensions. It produces a larger improvement when using Langevin updates with persistent momentum, giving performance comparable to that of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) with long trajectories. This is of significance when some variables are updated by other methods, since if HMC is used, these updates can be done only between trajectories, whereas they can be done more often with Langevin updates. I demonstrate that for a problem with some continuous variables, updated by HMC or Langevin updates, and also discrete variables, updated by Gibbs sampling between updates of the continuous variables, Langevin with persistent momentum and non-reversible updates to u samples nearly a factor of two more efficiently than HMC. Benefits are also seen for a Bayesian neural network model in which hyperparameters are updated by Gibbs sampling.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.040 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsFrench-language works237,207