Approximations of geometrically ergodic reversible markov chains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A common tool in the practice of Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) is to use approximating transition kernels to speed up computation when the desired kernel is slow to evaluate or is intractable. A limited set of quantitative tools exists to assess the relative accuracy and efficiency of such approximations. We derive a set of tools for such analysis based on the Hilbert space generated by the stationary distribution we intend to sample, $L_2(\pi)$ . Our results apply to approximations of reversible chains which are geometrically ergodic, as is typically the case for applications to MCMC. The focus of our work is on determining whether the approximating kernel will preserve the geometric ergodicity of the exact chain, and whether the approximating stationary distribution will be close to the original stationary distribution. For reversible chains, our results extend the results of Johndrowet al.(2015) from the uniformly ergodic case to the geometrically ergodic case, under some additional regularity conditions. We then apply our results to a number of approximate MCMC algorithms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".