mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Theoretical Comparison of No-U-Turn Sampler Variants: Necessary and Sufficient Convergence Conditions and Mixing Time Analysis under Gaussian Targets

arXiv 2603.18640 ↗First posted 19 Mar 2026stat.ML cs.LG math.PRcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The No-U-Turn Sampler (NUTS) is the computational workhorse of modern Bayesian software libraries, yet its qualitative and quantitative convergence guarantees were established only recently. A significant gap remains in the theoretical comparison of its two main variants: NUTS-mul and NUTS-BPS, which use multinomial sampling and biased progressive sampling, respectively, for index selection. In this paper, we address this gap in three contributions. First, we derive the first necessary conditions for geometric ergodicity for both variants. Second, we establish the first sufficient conditions for geometric ergodicity and ergodicity for NUTS-mul. Third, we obtain the first mixing time result for NUTS-BPS on a standard Gaussian distribution. Our results show that NUTS-mul and NUTS-BPS exhibit nearly identical qualitative behavior, with geometric ergodicity depending on the tail properties of the target distribution. However, they differ quantitatively in their convergence rates. More precisely, when initialized in the typical set of the canonical Gaussian measure, the mixing times of both NUTS-mul and NUTS-BPS scale as O(d1/4) up to logarithmic factors, where d denotes the dimension. Nevertheless, the associated constants are strictly smaller for NUTS-BPS.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Mar 2026.

Builds on

17 of 46 references.

References · 17

  1. 2018Pyro: Deep Universal Probabilistic Programmingcited by 380
  2. 2017A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlocited by 209
  3. 2019Fast mixing of Metropolized Hamiltonian Monte Carlo: Benefits of multi-step gradientscited by 51
  4. 2018Coupling and Convergence for Hamiltonian Monte Carlocited by 36
  5. 2017Geometric integrators and the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo methodcited by 25
  6. 2019The Barker proposal: combining robustness and efficiency in gradient-based MCMCcited by 20
  7. 2016On the Geometric Ergodicity of Hamiltonian Monte Carlocited by 19
  8. 2021Lower Bounds on Metropolized Sampling Methods for Well-Conditioned Distributionscited by 19
  9. 2021Mixing Time Guarantees for Unadjusted Hamiltonian Monte Carlocited by 18
  10. 2025A Review on Riemannian Metric Learning: Closer to You than You Imaginecited by 13
  11. 2024GIST: Gibbs self-tuning for locally adaptive Hamiltonian Monte Carlocited by 9
  12. 2022Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for efficient Gaussian sampling: long and random stepscited by 8
5 more
  1. 2024Incorporating Local Step-Size Adaptivity into the No-U-Turn Sampler using Gibbs Self Tuningcited by 7
  2. 2024Mixing of the No-U-Turn Sampler and the Geometry of Gaussian Concentrationcited by 5
  3. 2023On the convergence of dynamic implementations of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and No U-Turn Samplerscited by 4
  4. 2025The Within-Orbit Adaptive Leapfrog No-U-Turn Samplercited by 2
  5. 2025On Accelerated Mixing of the No-U-turn Samplercited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.