MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193567672

Comparison of Methodologies to Assess the Convergence of Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods

2003· article· en· W3193567672 on OpenAlexaff
Salah‐Eddine El Adlouni, Anne‐Catherine Favre, Bernard Bobée

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloConvergence (economics)Monte Carlo methodBivariate analysisMarkov chainApplied mathematicsParametric statisticsMathematicsComputer scienceEconometricsMathematical optimizationStatisticsEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One major challenge with the modelisation of complex problems using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods is the determination of the length of the chain in order to reach convergence. This paper is devoted to parametric empirical methods testing the stationarity. We compare the methods of Gelman and Rubin, Yu and Mykland, Raftery and Lewis, Geweke, Riemann sums and the subsampling. These methods are tested using three examples: the simple case of the generation of a normal random variable, the shifting level model and a bivariate mixture of normal models. Results show that no method works in every case. We therefore suggest a joint use of these techniques.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsFrench-language works237,207