I'm not an expert, but the phrase 'the stationary distribution' suggests uniqueness to me, but my intuition suggests there could be cases where it isn't unique.
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm not an expert, but the phrase 'the stationary distribution' suggests uniqueness to me, but my intuition suggests there could be cases where it isn't unique. For example p(x,y)=0 unless |x-y|<1/2 and 1<|x-y|<2, in which case p(x,y)=1.
Isn't "proven" an adjective, with the more accepted past participle of "prove" being "proved"? Quantling (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2007
I made the change to "proved". Quantling (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, Gibbs sampling is stochastic and produces a different result every time, vs. EM or variational approx. mathods. But the latter techniques generally use a random init, which make the result overall MORE sensitive to init that Gibbs sampling run for long enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.195.171.99 (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there.
Maybe I'm not completely familiar with Gibbs sampling, but I'm motivated to ask a inline reference supporting this:
"In its basic version, Gibbs sampling is a special case of the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm. However, in its extended versions (see below), it can be considered a general framework for sampling from a large set of variables by sampling each variable (or in some cases, each group of variables) in turn, and can incorporate the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm (or similar methods such as slice sampling) to implement one or more of the sampling steps."
I though Gibbs sampling was a particular case of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. It was just a particular proposal function which slides on particular directions. No mather how extend it can be, it keeps being a Metropolis–Hastings algorithm. Tis should be said on the initial overview of the article.
Besides, I'm forced to say that this article either lacks inline references or it is original research. Much of what is said does not have any inline references supporting it.
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.