I am wondering if, instead of running MCMC and hoping that it has "mixed" ("achieved stationarity"), there are approaches based on computing (or approximating) the principal left eigenvector of the transition matrix
( Read more... )
To all appearances, solutions are one-off. My Brownian motion book cites Kac for the case of one-dimensional Brownian motion; I don't seem to have access to Kac's papers from here.
All of the above, though "non-generalizable" is the usual meaning of one-off.
It appears that the problem more or less reduces to solving differential equations in the space of interest and, as with solving DEs, you may be able to get a general solution for a tiny but useful class of problems (like linear DEs or one-dimensional Brownian motion), but in general you have to either discover rare completely ungeneral tricks or do numerical approximations.
Reply
Reply
It appears that the problem more or less reduces to solving differential equations in the space of interest and, as with solving DEs, you may be able to get a general solution for a tiny but useful class of problems (like linear DEs or one-dimensional Brownian motion), but in general you have to either discover rare completely ungeneral tricks or do numerical approximations.
Reply
I'm thinking I should ask a statistical physicist about this.
Reply
Reply
Our goal is to minimize the distance between the estimate and the posterior, i.e.:
Let f be our estimate. We want to minimize a functional like:
D(f) = \Integral |f(x) - (tf) (x)|^2 dx
where tf is the result of applying transition function t to f.
Transition function t is defined in terms of the proposal g:
t(i,j) = min(1,P(j)/P(i)) g(i,j) , as per Metropolis-Hastings.
g(i,j) is defined as the probability of being in state j at time t+1 given that we were in state i at time t.
Minimizing a function is a typical form of a variational problem.
This confirms my suspicion. (though they use reverse KL rather than L2 distance)
Reply
Leave a comment