Cited by 1,693Markov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsTheoretical and Computational PhysicsSimulation Techniques and Applications

Weak convergence and optimal scaling of random walk Metropolis algorithms

Open access
Roberts, G. O., Gelman, A., Gilks, W. R.·1997·The Annals of Applied Probability

Abstract

This paper considers the problem of scaling the proposal distribution of a multidimensional random walk Metropolis algorithm in order to maximize the efficiency of the algorithm. The main result is a weak convergence result as the dimension of a sequence of target densities, n, converges to $\infty$. When the proposal variance is appropriately scaled according to n, the sequence of stochastic processes formed by the first component of each Markov chain converges to the appropriate limiting Langevin diffusion process. The limiting diffusion approximation admits a straightforward efficiency maximization problem, and the resulting asymptotically optimal policy is related to the asymptotic acceptance rate of proposed moves for the algorithm. The asymptotically optimal acceptance rate is 0.234 under quite general conditions. The main result is proved in the case where the target density has a symmetric product form. Extensions of the result are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1214/aoap/1034625254

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts, G. O., Gelman, A., & Gilks, W. R.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
The Annals of Applied Probability
Published
1997-02-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
110-120
ISSN
  • 1050-5164 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-8737
OpenAlex
W2030911724
Cited by
1,693
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 119 · 2020: 150 · 2019: 101 · 2018: 100 · 2017: 93 · 2016: 102 · 2015: 100 · 2014: 89 · 2013: 81 · 2012: 87
FWCI
7.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Applied Probability (publishedVersion)
  • Project Euclid (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (9457824, 9404305)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Markov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Condensed Matter Physics › Theoretical and Computational Physics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Simulation Techniques and Applications
Keywords
optimal scaling, weak convergence, Langevin diffusion, Markov chain Monte Carlo, acceptance rate, high-dimensional asymptotics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review