Comparison of sampling techniques for Bayesian parameter estimation
Rupert Allison, Joanna Dunkley

TL;DR
This paper compares three sampling techniques—Metropolis-Hastings, nested sampling, and affine-invariant MCMC—for Bayesian parameter estimation, evaluating their performance on toy and real-world data to guide method selection.
Contribution
It provides a detailed comparison of sampling algorithms, highlighting nested sampling's efficiency and suitability for complex distributions over traditional methods.
Findings
Nested sampling provides high-fidelity posterior estimates at low computational cost.
Affine-invariant MCMC is effective with massive parallelisation on computing clusters.
Both affine-invariant MCMC and nested sampling handle multi-modal and curved distributions well.
Abstract
The posterior probability distribution for a set of model parameters encodes all that the data have to tell us in the context of a given model; it is the fundamental quantity for Bayesian parameter estimation. In order to infer the posterior probability distribution we have to decide how to explore parameter space. Here we compare three prescriptions for how parameter space is navigated, discussing their relative merits. We consider Metropolis-Hasting sampling, nested sampling and affine-invariant ensemble MCMC sampling. We focus on their performance on toy-model Gaussian likelihoods and on a real-world cosmological data set. We outline the sampling algorithms themselves and elaborate on performance diagnostics such as convergence time, scope for parallelisation, dimensional scaling, requisite tunings and suitability for non-Gaussian distributions. We find that nested sampling delivers…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
