Is having a burn-in time relevant when only trying to sample from a distribution?
$begingroup$
I'm trying to simulate - via the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm - a sample $X$ of size 10000 from a density $f$ using a proposal distribution $g$.
The Markov chain $X$ obtained by this algorithm has the stationary distribution $f$, i.e: for every starting point $x, yin M$ we have :
$$P_x(X_n = y) → f(y) text{ as } n→infty.$$
A classical step after generating my sample X is to discard the first thousand values or so, so I only have $X_n$ with $n$ big enough such that $X_n$ approximately follows $f$.
However, after some reading (here and here), I am under the impression that this is unnecessary if we start from a state $x_0in M$ that should be reached with high probability.
While I think I get the point these texts are trying to make, starting at a large $n$ seems absolutely necessary to me so that $X$ starting from $n$ follows $f$.
So, should I skip a thousand values and only consider my chain from then on, or should I inspect the output values and start from the mode of $f$ ?
markov-chains monte-carlo simulation
asked Dec 22 '18 at 0:17
dequedeque
413111
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm trying to simulate - via the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm - a sample $X$ of size 10000 from a density $f$ using a proposal distribution $g$.
The Markov chain $X$ obtained by this algorithm has the stationary distribution $f$, i.e: for every starting point $x, yin M$ we have :
$$P_x(X_n = y) → f(y) text{ as } n→infty.$$
A classical step after generating my sample X is to discard the first thousand values or so, so I only have $X_n$ with $n$ big enough such that $X_n$ approximately follows $f$.
However, after some reading (here and here), I am under the impression that this is unnecessary if we start from a state $x_0in M$ that should be reached with high probability.
While I think I get the point these texts are trying to make, starting at a large $n$ seems absolutely necessary to me so that $X$ starting from $n$ follows $f$.
So, should I skip a thousand values and only consider my chain from then on, or should I inspect the output values and start from the mode of $f$ ?
markov-chains monte-carlo simulation
asked Dec 22 '18 at 0:17
dequedeque
413111
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I find that burn-ins are useful when you don't know much about the (possibly multiple) mode(s) of the distribution. So you start the chain somewhere that is simply convenient and let the burn-in move you to somewhere sensible to start the recorded samples. If you know the mode of $f$ then it's acceptable to start there without a burn-in. If you are worried about damaging the reliability of the results by choosing the first sample, you can always do a burn-in anyway, unless it's prohibitively expensive.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 22 '18 at 12:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm trying to simulate - via the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm - a sample $X$ of size 10000 from a density $f$ using a proposal distribution $g$.
The Markov chain $X$ obtained by this algorithm has the stationary distribution $f$, i.e: for every starting point $x, yin M$ we have :
$$P_x(X_n = y) → f(y) text{ as } n→infty.$$
A classical step after generating my sample X is to discard the first thousand values or so, so I only have $X_n$ with $n$ big enough such that $X_n$ approximately follows $f$.
However, after some reading (here and here), I am under the impression that this is unnecessary if we start from a state $x_0in M$ that should be reached with high probability.
While I think I get the point these texts are trying to make, starting at a large $n$ seems absolutely necessary to me so that $X$ starting from $n$ follows $f$.
So, should I skip a thousand values and only consider my chain from then on, or should I inspect the output values and start from the mode of $f$ ?
markov-chains monte-carlo simulation
asked Dec 22 '18 at 0:17
dequedeque
413111
$endgroup$
I'm trying to simulate - via the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm - a sample $X$ of size 10000 from a density $f$ using a proposal distribution $g$.
The Markov chain $X$ obtained by this algorithm has the stationary distribution $f$, i.e: for every starting point $x, yin M$ we have :
$$P_x(X_n = y) → f(y) text{ as } n→infty.$$
A classical step after generating my sample X is to discard the first thousand values or so, so I only have $X_n$ with $n$ big enough such that $X_n$ approximately follows $f$.
However, after some reading (here and here), I am under the impression that this is unnecessary if we start from a state $x_0in M$ that should be reached with high probability.
While I think I get the point these texts are trying to make, starting at a large $n$ seems absolutely necessary to me so that $X$ starting from $n$ follows $f$.
So, should I skip a thousand values and only consider my chain from then on, or should I inspect the output values and start from the mode of $f$ ?
markov-chains monte-carlo simulation
markov-chains monte-carlo simulation
asked Dec 22 '18 at 0:17
dequedeque
413111
asked Dec 22 '18 at 0:17
dequedeque
413111
asked Dec 22 '18 at 0:17
dequedeque
413111
asked Dec 22 '18 at 0:17
dequedeque
413111
asked Dec 22 '18 at 0:17
dequedeque
413111
413111
$begingroup$
I find that burn-ins are useful when you don't know much about the (possibly multiple) mode(s) of the distribution. So you start the chain somewhere that is simply convenient and let the burn-in move you to somewhere sensible to start the recorded samples. If you know the mode of $f$ then it's acceptable to start there without a burn-in. If you are worried about damaging the reliability of the results by choosing the first sample, you can always do a burn-in anyway, unless it's prohibitively expensive.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 22 '18 at 12:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I find that burn-ins are useful when you don't know much about the (possibly multiple) mode(s) of the distribution. So you start the chain somewhere that is simply convenient and let the burn-in move you to somewhere sensible to start the recorded samples. If you know the mode of $f$ then it's acceptable to start there without a burn-in. If you are worried about damaging the reliability of the results by choosing the first sample, you can always do a burn-in anyway, unless it's prohibitively expensive.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 22 '18 at 12:41
$begingroup$
I find that burn-ins are useful when you don't know much about the (possibly multiple) mode(s) of the distribution. So you start the chain somewhere that is simply convenient and let the burn-in move you to somewhere sensible to start the recorded samples. If you know the mode of $f$ then it's acceptable to start there without a burn-in. If you are worried about damaging the reliability of the results by choosing the first sample, you can always do a burn-in anyway, unless it's prohibitively expensive.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 22 '18 at 12:41
$begingroup$
I find that burn-ins are useful when you don't know much about the (possibly multiple) mode(s) of the distribution. So you start the chain somewhere that is simply convenient and let the burn-in move you to somewhere sensible to start the recorded samples. If you know the mode of $f$ then it's acceptable to start there without a burn-in. If you are worried about damaging the reliability of the results by choosing the first sample, you can always do a burn-in anyway, unless it's prohibitively expensive.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 22 '18 at 12:41
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3049027%2fis-having-a-burn-in-time-relevant-when-only-trying-to-sample-from-a-distribution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3049027%2fis-having-a-burn-in-time-relevant-when-only-trying-to-sample-from-a-distribution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
I find that burn-ins are useful when you don't know much about the (possibly multiple) mode(s) of the distribution. So you start the chain somewhere that is simply convenient and let the burn-in move you to somewhere sensible to start the recorded samples. If you know the mode of $f$ then it's acceptable to start there without a burn-in. If you are worried about damaging the reliability of the results by choosing the first sample, you can always do a burn-in anyway, unless it's prohibitively expensive.
$endgroup$
– Alex
Dec 22 '18 at 12:41