Convergence rates of Metropolis–Hastings algorithms
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Given a target probability density known up to a normalizing constant, the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm simulates realizations from a Markov chain which are eventual realizations from the target probability density. A key element for ensuring a reliable Metropolis–Hastings simulation experiment is understanding how quickly the simulation will generate a representative sample from target density. This corresponds to understanding the convergence properties of the Metropolis–Hastings Markov chain. State‐of‐the‐art methods for convergence analysis of Metropolis–Hastings algorithms are considered and reviewed. Practically important topics are discussed for an interdisciplinary audience. This includes convergence properties in high dimensions, proper tuning, initialization, and limitations of current convergence analyses. This article is categorized under: Statistical and Graphical Methods of Data Analysis > Markov Chain Monte Carlo Statistical and Graphical Methods of Data Analysis > Monte Carlo Methods Statistical and Graphical Methods of Data Analysis > Bayesian Methods and Theory
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it