Connecting the Dots: Numerical Randomized Hamiltonian Monte Carlo with State-Dependent Event Rates

References

• Abraham, M. J., Murtola, T., Schulz, R., Páll, S., Smith, J. C., Hess, B., and Lindahl, E. (2015), “GROMACS: High Performance Molecular Simulations Through Multi-Level Parallelism from Laptops to Supercomputers,” SoftwareX, 1–2, 19–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, H. C. (1980), “Molecular Dynamics Simulations at Constant Pressure and/or Temperature,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, 72, 2384–2393. DOI: 10.1063/1.439486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bierkens, J., Fearnhead, P., and Roberts, G. (2019), “The Zig-Zag Process and Super-Efficient Sampling for Bayesian Analysis of Big Data,” The Annals of Statistics, 47, 1288–1320. DOI: 10.1214/18-AOS1715.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bierkens, J., Grazzi, S., Kamatani, K., and Roberts, G. (2020), “The Boomerang Sampler,” arXiv:2006.13777.
   Google Scholar
• Bou-Rabee, N., and Eberle, A. (2020), “Couplings for Andersen Dynamics,” arXiv:2009.14239.
   Google Scholar
• Bou-Rabee, N., and Eberle, A. (2021), “Mixing Time Guarantees for Unadjusted Hamiltonian Monte Carlo,” arXiv:2105.00887.
   Google Scholar
• Bou-Rabee, N., and Sanz-Serna, J. M. (2017), “Randomized Hamiltonian Monte Carlo,” Annals of Applied Probability, 27, 2159–2194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bou-Rabee, N., and Sanz-Serna, J. M. (2018), “Geometric Integrators and the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Method,” Acta Numerica, 27, 113–206.
   Google Scholar
• Bou-Rabee, N., and Schuh, K. (2020), “Convergence of Unadjusted Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for Mean-Field Models,” arXiv:2009.08735.
   Google Scholar
• Bouchard-Côté, A., Vollmer, S. J., and Doucet, A. (2018), “The Bouncy Particle Sampler: A Nonreversible Rejection-Free Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113, 855–867. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1294075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cambanis, S., Huang, S., and Simons, G. (1981), “On the Theory of Elliptically Contoured Distributions,” Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 11, 368–385. DOI: 10.1016/0047-259X(81)90082-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cances, E., Legoll, F., and Stoltz, G. (2007), “Theoretical and Numerical Comparison of Some Sampling Methods for Molecular Dynamics,” ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 41, 351–389. DOI: 10.1051/m2an:2007014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., Brubaker, M., Guo, J., Li, P., and Riddell, A. (2017), “Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language,” Journal of Statistical Software, 76, 1–32. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v076.i01.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Z., and Vempala, S. S. (2019), “Optimal Convergence Rate of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for Strongly Logconcave Distributions,” in Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, APPROX/RANDOM 2019, September 20–22, 2019, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, Volume 145 of LIPIcs, eds. D. Achlioptas and L. A. Végh, pp. 64:1–64:12, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, X., Chatterji, N. S., Bartlett, P. L., and Jordan, M. I. (2018), “Underdamped Langevin mcmc: A Non-asymptotic Analysis,” in Proceedings of the 31st Conference On Learning Theory, Volume 75 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, eds. S. Bubeck, V. Perchet, and P. Rigollet, pp. 300–323. PMLR.
   Google Scholar
• Chopin, N., and Ridgway, J. (2017), “Leave Pima Indians Alone: Binary Regression as a Benchmark for Bayesian Computation,” Statistical Science, 32, 64–87. DOI: 10.1214/16-STS581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotter, S., House, T., and Pagani, F. (2020), “The NuZZ: Numerical ZigZag Sampling for General Models,” arXiv:2003.03636.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, M. H. A. (1984), “Piecewise-Deterministic Markov Processes: A General Class of Non-diffusion Stochastic Models,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 46, 353–376. DOI: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1984.tb01308.x.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, M. H. A. (1993), Markov Models and Optimization, London: Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Deligiannidis, G., Paulin, D., Bouchard-Côté, A., and Doucet, A. (2018), “Randomized Hamiltonian Monte Carlo as Scaling Limit of the Bouncy Particle Sampler and Dimension-Free Convergence Rates,” arXiv:1808.04299.
   Google Scholar
• Dormand, J., and Prince, P. (1987), “Runge-Kutta-Nystrom Triples,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 13, 937–949.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang, Y., Sanz-Serna, J. M., and Skeel, R. D. (2014), “Compressible Generalized Hybrid Monte Carlo,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, 140, 174108. DOI: 10.1063/1.4874000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fearnhead, P., Bierkens, J., Pollock, M., and Roberts, G. O. (2018), “Piecewise Deterministic Markov Processes for Continuous-Time Monte Carlo,” Statistical Science, 33, 386–412. DOI: 10.1214/18-STS648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., and Rubin, D. (2014), Bayesian Data Analysis, (3rd ed.), Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Geyer, C. J. (1992), “Practical Markov chain Monte Carlo,” Statistical Science, 7, 473–483. DOI: 10.1214/ss/1177011137.
   Google Scholar
• Giles, M. B. (2015), “Multilevel Monte Carlo Methods,” Acta Numerica, 24, 259–328. DOI: 10.1017/S096249291500001X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Girolami, M., and Calderhead, B. (2011), “Riemann Manifold Langevin and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Methods,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 73, 123–214. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00765.x.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, H., Poole, C., and Safko, J. (2002), Classical Mechanics (3rd ed.), Boston: Addison Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Golosnoy, V., Gribisch, B., and Liesenfeld, R. (2012), “The Conditional Autoregressive Wishart Model for Multivariate Stock Market Volatility,” Journal of Econometrics, 167, 211–223. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grothe, O., Kleppe, T. S., and Liesenfeld, R. (2019), “The Gibbs Sampler with Particle Efficient Importance Sampling for State-Space Models,” Econometric Reviews, 38, 1152–1175. DOI: 10.1080/07474938.2018.1536098.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hairer, E., Nørsett, S. P., and Wanner, G. (1993), Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I (2nd Rev. Ed.): Nonstiff Problems, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, M. D., and Gelman, A. (2014), “The no-u-turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15, 1593–1623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, A. M. (1991), “A Generalized Guided Monte Carlo Algorithm,” Physics Letters B, 268, 247–252. DOI: 10.1016/0370-2693(91)90812-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleppe, T. S. (2016), “Adaptive Step Size Selection for Hessian-based Manifold Langevin Samplers,” Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 43, 788–805. DOI: 10.1111/sjos.12204.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. T., Song, Z., and Vempala, S. S. (2018), “Algorithmic Theory of ODEs and Sampling from Well-Conditioned Logconcave Densities,” arXiv:1812.06243.
   Google Scholar
• Leimkuhler, B., and Matthews, C. (2015), Molecular Dynamics With Deterministic and Stochastic Numerical Methods, New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Leimkuhler, B., and Reich, S. (2004), Simulating Hamiltonian Dynamics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, D. (2007), “On the Rate of Convergence to Equilibrium of the Andersen Thermostat in Molecular Dynamics,” Journal of Statistical Physics, 129, 265–287. DOI: 10.1007/s10955-007-9391-0.
   Google Scholar
• Livingstone, S., Faulkner, M. F., and Roberts, G. O. (2019), “Kinetic Energy Choice in Hamiltonian/Hybrid Monte Carlo,” Biometrika, 106, 303–319. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/asz013.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, J., and Wang, L. (2020), “On Explicit l2-convergence Rate Estimate for Piecewise Deterministic Markov Processes in MCMC Algorithms,” arXiv:2007.14927.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenze, P. B. (1989), “An Improved Hybrid Monte Carlo Method,” Physics Letters B, 226, 369–371. DOI: 10.1016/0370-2693(89)91212-4.
   Google Scholar
• Mangoubi, O., and Smith, A. (2017), “Rapid Mixing of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo on Strongly Log-Concave Distributions,” arXiv:1708.07114.
   Google Scholar
• Mangoubi, O., and Smith, A. (2019), “Mixing of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo on Strongly Log-Concave Distributions 2: Numerical Integrators,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Volume 89 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, eds. K. Chaudhuri and M. Sugiyama, pp. 586–595. PMLR.
   Google Scholar
• Michie, D., Spiegelhalter, D. J., and Taylor, C. C., Eds. (1994), Machine Learning, Neural and Statistical Classification. Series in Artificial Intelligence. Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Ellis Horwood.
   Google Scholar
• Neal, R. M. (2003), “Slice Sampling,” The Annals of Statistics, 31, 705–767. DOI: 10.1214/aos/1056562461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, R. M. (2010), “MCMC using Hamiltonian Dynamics,” in Handbook of Markov chain Monte Carlo, eds. S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, and X.-L. Meng, pp. 113–162, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nishimura, A., and Dunson, D. (2020), “Recycling Intermediate Steps to Improve Hamiltonian Monte Carlo,” Bayesian Analysis, 15, 1087–1108. DOI: 10.1214/19-BA1171.
   Google Scholar
• Osmundsen, K. K., Kleppe, T. S., and Liesenfeld, R. (2021), “Importance Sampling-Based Transport Map Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for Bayesian Hierarchical Models,” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, forthcoming. DOI: 10.1080/10618600.2021.1923519.
   Google Scholar
• Pakman, A., and Paninski, L. (2014), “Exact Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for Truncated Multivariate Gaussians,” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 23, 518–542. DOI: 10.1080/10618600.2013.788448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robert, C. P., and Casella, G. (2004), Monte Carlo Statistical Methods (2nd ed.), New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, G. O., and Rosenthal, J. S. (1998), “Optimal Scaling of Discrete Approximations to Langevin Diffusions,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 60, 255–268. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9868.00123.
   Google Scholar
• Rudolf, D., and Schweizer, N. (2018), “Perturbation Theory for Markov Chains via Wasserstein Distance,” Bernoulli, 24, 2610–2639. DOI: 10.3150/17-BEJ938.
   Google Scholar
• Sanz-Serna, J., and Calvo, M. (1994), Numerical Hamiltonian Problems, New York: Dover Publications Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Stan Development Team. (2017), “Stan Modeling Language Users Guide and Reference Manual version 2.17.0.”
   Google Scholar
• Vanetti, P., Bouchard-Côté, A., Deligiannidis, G., and Doucet, A. (2018), “Piecewise-Deterministic Markov chain Monte Carlo,” arXiv:1707.05296v2.
   Google Scholar
• Weinan, E., and Li, D. (2008), “The Andersen Thermostat in Molecular Dynamics,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 61, 96–136. DOI: 10.1002/cpa.20198.
   Google Scholar
• Welling, M., and Teh, Y. W. (2011), “Bayesian Learning via Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics,” in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 681–688, Omnipress.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, C., Stoehr, J., and Robert, C. P. (2018), “Faster Hamiltonian Monte Carlo by Learning Leapfrog Scale,” arXiv:1810.04449.
   Google Scholar