mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Statistically efficient thinning of a Markov chain sampler

arXiv 1510.07727 ↗First posted 27 Oct 2015stat.CO cs.LG stat.MLcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

It is common to subsample Markov chain output to reduce the storage burden. Geyer (1992) shows that discarding k-1 out of every k observations will not improve statistical efficiency, as quantified through variance in a given computational budget. That observation is often taken to mean that thinning MCMC output cannot improve statistical efficiency. Here we suppose that it costs one unit of time to advance a Markov chain and then θ>0 units of time to compute a sampled quantity of interest. For a thinned process, that cost θ is incurred less often, so it can be advanced through more stages. Here we provide examples to show that thinning will improve statistical efficiency if θ is large and the sample autocorrelations decay slowly enough. If the lag ℓ≥1 autocorrelations of a scalar measurement satisfy ρℓ≥ρℓ+1≥0, then there is always a θ<∞ at which thinning becomes more efficient for averages of that scalar. Many sample autocorrelation functions resemble first order AR(1) processes with ρℓ =ρ|ℓ| for some -1<ρ<1. For an AR(1) process it is possible to compute the most efficient subsampling frequency k. The optimal k grows rapidly as ρ increases towards 1. The resulting efficiency gain depends primarily on θ, not ρ. Taking k=1 (no thinning) is optimal when ρ≤0. For ρ>0 it is optimal if and only if θ ≤ (1-ρ)2/(2ρ). This efficiency gain never exceeds 1+θ. This paper also gives efficiency bounds for autocorrelations bounded between those of two AR(1) processes.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 27 Oct 2015.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 0; 2023: 0; 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

8 papers.