The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Importance Nested Sampling and the MultiNest Algorithm
Open accessAbstract
Bayesian inference involves two main computational challenges. First, in estimating the parameters of some model for the data, the posterior distribution may well be highly multi-modal: a regime in which the convergence to stationarity of traditional Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques becomes incredibly slow. Second, in selecting between a set of competing models the necessary estimation of the Bayesian evidence for each is, by definition, a (possibly high-dimensional) integration over the entire parameter space; again this can be a daunting computational task, although new Monte Carlo (MC) integration algorithms offer solutions of ever increasing efficiency. Nested sampling (NS) is one such contemporary MC strategy targeted at calculation of the Bayesian evidence, but which also enables posterior inference as a by-product, thereby allowing simultaneous parameter estimation and model selection. The widely-used MultiNest algorithm presents a particularly efficient implementation of the NS technique for multi-modal posteriors. In this paper we discuss importance nested sampling (INS), an alternative summation of the MultiNest draws, which can calculate the Bayesian evidence at up to an order of magnitude higher accuracy than `vanilla' NS with no change in the way MultiNest explores the parameter space. This is accomplished by treating as a (pseudo-)importance sample the totality of points collected by MultiNest, including those previously discarded under the constrained likelihood sampling of the NS algorithm. We apply this technique to several challenging test problems and compare the accuracy of Bayesian evidences obtained with INS against those from vanilla NS.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Planck 2018 results: X. Constraints on inflation
Planck Collaboration, Akrami, Y., Arroja, F., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Ballardini, M., Banday, A. J., Barreiro, R. B., Bartolo, N., et al. (2020) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833887 · Cited by 2,442
Planck 2013 results. XXII. Constraints on inflation
Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., Armitage-Caplan, C., Arnaud, M., Ashdown, M., Atrio-Barandela, F., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Banday, A. J., et al. (2014) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321569 · Cited by 1,082
Self-citationVeitch, J., Raymond, V., Farr, B., Farr, W., Graff, P., Vitale, S., Aylott, B., Blackburn, K., Christensen, N., Coughlin, M., et al. (2015) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.042003 · Cited by 958
Self-citationCarnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Davé, R. (2018) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 · Cited by 799
Heymans, C., Tröster, T., Asgari, M., Blake, C., Hildebrandt, H., Joachimi, B., Kuijken, K., Lin, C.-A., Sánchez, A. G., van den Busch, J. L., et al. (2021) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039063 · Cited by 772
Metadata
- Authors
- Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A. N.
- Venue
- The Open Journal of Astrophysics
- Publisher
- Maynooth University
- Published
- 2019-11-27
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2565-6120 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1886713477
- Cited by
- 973
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 79.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Importance Nested Sampling and the MultiNest Algorithm. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.21105/astro.1306.2144
- The paper
- Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A. N. (2019). Importance Nested Sampling and the MultiNest Algorithm. The Open Journal of Astrophysics. https://doi.org/10.21105/astro.1306.2144
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.