Exploring the generalizability of the optimal 0.234 acceptance rate in random-walk metropolis and parallel tempering algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For random-walk Metropolis (RWM) and parallel tempering (PT) algorithms, an asymptotic acceptance rate of around 0.234 is known to be optimal in certain high-dimensional limits. However, its practical relevance is uncertain due to restrictive derivation conditions. We synthesize previous theoretical advances in extending the 0.234 acceptance rate to more general settings, and demonstrate its applicability with a comprehensive empirical simulation study on examples examining how acceptance rates affect Expected Squared Jumping Distance (ESJD). Our experiments show the optimality of the 0.234 acceptance rate for RWM is surprisingly robust even in lower dimensions across various non-spherically symmetric proposal distributions, multimodal target distributions that may not have an i.i.d. product density, and curved Rosenbrock target distributions with nonlinear correlation structure. Parallel tempering experiments also show that the idealized 0.234 spacing of inverse temperatures may be approximately optimal for low dimensions and non i.i.d. product target densities, and that constructing an inverse temperature ladder with spacings given by a swap acceptance of 0.234 is a viable strategy.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".