Cost Comparisons for Random and Deterministic Scans in Component-Wise Markov Chains
Youngwoo Kwon
Abstract
Gibbs samplers, and more generally component-wise Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms such as Metropolis-within-Gibbs, can be implemented using either random-scan or deterministic-scan updates. How much convergence can depend on this choice of scanning rule has been a longstanding question. We study this problem through L2 spectral gaps, measuring computational cost in units of component updates. For a d-block Gibbs sampler, the cost of random scan is at most twice that of any fixed deterministic scan, while the reverse cost ratio is at most of order d2. We extend these comparisons to general reversible component-wise updates under the global block-wise contraction condition. If Kj denotes the update of block j and Pj its Gibbs counterpart, and \|Kj-Pj\|≤ λ0<1 for j=1,…,d, then the cost of random scan is at most 2/(1-λ0) times that of deterministic scan, while the reverse cost ratio is of order at most d2/(1-λ0). Examples show that the cost bounds for random scan relative to deterministic scan are asymptotically sharp and that the joint dependence on d and (1-λ0)-1 in the reverse comparison cannot be improved uniformly. This work was assisted by generative AI, including for formal verification of mathematical results in Lean. The human author reviewed and verified the mathematical content and takes full responsibility for the results.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Sample complexity bounds for categorical Markov random fields via Discrete Diffusions
Shivam Kumar, Nabarun Deb
User-friendly approximation theory for statistical regression
Felix Benning
Gradient-Guided Density Peak Clustering
Yikun Zhang, Yen-Chi Chen
Integration of external predictions for efficient estimation of the risk ratio
Victoria Mezger, Nils Krüger, Georg Hahn
Weighted Power Fréchet Means in Metric Spaces with Curvature Bounded Above
Christof Schötz
Weak Convergence Rates for Partial-Sum Processes of Nonlinear Stochastic Approximation
Xiang Li, Jiadong Liang, Zhihua Zhang