On the Convergence of Stochastic Gradient MCMC Algorithms with High-Order Integrators
Open accessAbstract
Recent advances in Bayesian learning with large-scale data have witnessed emergence of stochastic gradient MCMC algorithms (SG-MCMC), such as stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics (SGLD), stochastic gradient Hamiltonian MCMC (SGHMC), and the stochastic gradient thermostat. While finite-time convergence properties of the SGLD with a 1st-order Euler integrator have recently been studied, corresponding theory for general SG-MCMCs has not been explored. In this paper we consider general SG-MCMCs with high-order integrators, and develop theory to analyze finite-time convergence properties and their asymptotic invariant measures. Our theoretical results show faster convergence rates and more accurate invariant measures for SG-MCMCs with higher-order integrators. For example, with the proposed efficient 2nd-order symmetric splitting integrator, the {\em mean square error} (MSE) of the posterior average for the SGHMC achieves an optimal convergence rate of $L^{-4/5}$ at $L$ iterations, compared to $L^{-2/3}$ for the SGHMC and SGLD with 1st-order Euler integrators. Furthermore, convergence results of decreasing-step-size SG-MCMCs are also developed, with the same convergence rates as their fixed-step-size counterparts for a specific decreasing sequence. Experiments on both synthetic and real datasets verify our theory, and show advantages of the proposed method in two large-scale real applications.
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
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.
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?
SG-MCMC can be converged to the true posterior by decreasing the step sizes.
“In addition, SGMCMCcanbe converged to the true posterior by decreasing the step sizes [75], [76].”
From A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as [75]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 25 · Cited by 106
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- [1][1] T. Chen, E. B. Fox, and C. Guestrin. Stochastic gradient Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. In ICML , 2014. -
- [2][2] N. Ding, Y. Fang, R. Babbush, C. Chen, R. D. Skeel, and H. Neven. Bayesian sampling using stochastic gradient thermostats. In NIPS , 2014. -
- [3][3] H. Risken. The Fokker-Planck equation . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989. -
- [4][4] M. Welling and Y. W. Teh. Bayesian learning via stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics. In ICML , 2011. -
- [5][5] Y. W. Teh, A. H. Thiery, and S. J. Vollmer. Consistency and fluctuations for stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics. Technical Report arXiv:1409.0578, University of Oxford, UK, Sep. 2014. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0578 . - · arXiv
- [6][6] S. J. Vollmer, K. C. Zygalakis, and Y. W. Teh. (Non-)asymptotic properties of stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics. Technical Report arXiv:1501.00438, University of Oxford, UK, January 2015. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00438 . - · arXiv
- [7][7] M. Betancourt. The fundamental incompatibility of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and data subsampling. In ICML , 2015. -
- [8][8] I. Sato and H. Nakagawa. Approximation analysis of stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics by using Fokker-Planck equation and Itˆ o process. In ICML , 2014. -
- [9][9] B. Leimkuhler and X. Shang. Adaptive thermostats for noisy gradient systems. Technical Report arXiv:1505.06889v1, University of Edinburgh, UK, May 2015. URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/1505.06889 . - · arXiv
- [10][10] A. Abdulle, G. Vilmart, and K. C. Zygalakis. Long time accuracy of Lie-Trotter splitting methods for Langevin dynamics. SIAM J. NUMER. ANAL. , 53(1):1-16, 2015. -
- [11][11] R. Hasminskii. Stochastic stability of differential equations . Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. -
- [12][12] J. C. Mattingly, A. M. Stuart, and M. V. Tretyakov. Construction of numerical time-average and stationary measures via Poisson equations. SIAM J. NUMER. ANAL. , 48(2):552-577, 2010. -
- [13][13] P. Giesl. Construction of global Lyapunov functions using radial basis functions . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. -
- [14][14] N. N. Bogoliubov and N. M. Krylov. La theorie generalie de la mesure dans son application a l'etude de systemes dynamiques de la mecanique non-lineaire. Ann. Math. II (in French) , 38 (1):65-113, 1937. -
- [15][15] B. Leimkuhler and C. Matthews. Rational construction of stochastic numerical methods for molecular sampling. AMRX , 2013(1):34-56, 2013. -
- [16][16] D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, and M. I. Jordan. Latent Dirichlet allocation. JMLR , 2003. -
- [17][17] M. D. Hoffman, D. M. Blei, and F. Bach. Online learning for latent Dirichlet allocation. In NIPS , 2010. -
- [18][18] Z. Gan, C. Chen, R. Henao, D. Carlson, and L. Carin. Scalable deep Poisson factor analysis for topic modeling. In ICML , 2015. -
- [19][19] S. Patterson and Y. W. Teh. Stochastic gradient Riemannian Langevin dynamics on the probability simplex. In NIPS , 2013. -
- [20][20] Z. Gan, R. Henao, D. Carlson, and L. Carin. Learning deep sigmoid belief networks with data augmentation. In AISTATS , 2015. -
- [21][21] R. Salakhutdinov and I. Murray. On the quantitative analysis of deep belief networks. In ICML , 2008. -
- [22][22] A. Mnih and K. Gregor. Neural variational inference and learning in belief networks. In ICML , 2014. -
- [23][23] A. Debussche and E. Faou. Weak backward error analysis for SDEs. SIAM J. NUMER. ANAL. , 50(3):1734-1752, 2012. -
- Authors
- Chen, C., Ding, N., & Carin, L.
- Affiliations
- Google (United States) (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2016
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1610.06665
- OpenAlex
- W2186210550
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Energy
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
- Office of Naval Research
- Army Research Office
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Markov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- stochastic gradient MCMC, finite-time convergence, stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics, mean squared error, decreasing step size
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
