Inverse gamma distribution & simulated annealing problem

tbishop
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've hit a problem trying to sample an inverse gamma distribution, 'scaled' using a temperature variable, T. If my distribution is defined as (where the normalising constant k=(b^a)/Gamma(a) ):
IG(x|a,b) = k * x^(-a-1) * exp(-b/x)
then the scaled version is
(IG(x|a,b))^(1/T) = k^(1/T) * x^(-(-a+1)/T) * exp(-b/(Tx)).
which I want to sample as part of a simulated annealing procedure.

If I am not mistaken, this is also proportional to a new IG distribution, IG(x|a',b')
where a'+1 = (a+1)/T and b'=b/T. Hence a' = (a+1-T)/T.
The problem is however, that a' and b' should be strictly > 0 for the distribution to be valid. Thus for temperatures T>a+1, a' becomes negative and the samples can't be drawn.
(However I can still evaluate the IG pdf for a'<0... so I'm not sure
why the condition is strictly necessary? Is it just a physical
interpretation?)

I can do the sampling for X~IG(a',b') by transformation of a Gamma variate
G(x|a,b)=k * x^(a-1) exp(-bx)
by drawing Y~G(a',b') and letting X=1/Y.

Now the strange thing is if I apply the same temperature scaling to the Gamma distribution, I get the new transformation to a Gamma distribution with
a' = (a-1+T)/T
which will always be positive for all T>=1 if a>0. As whether I'm working with x or 1/x (and therefore working with the IG or Gamma) should be purely a matter of convenience, and not depend on which definition I start from, there is something at odds here...

I've probably missed something obvious but I can't think what it is. Any suggestions appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am somewhat unclear as to why you'd like to scale the pdf in the way you described. The usual approach is to scale the random variable itself, say Y = sX for a scaling constant s > 0; and if X ~ Gamma(a, b) then Y ~ Gamma(a, sb).

In the usual meaning of "scaling," parameter a is not affected because it is not a scaling parameter -- parameter b is.
 
I am somewhat unclear as to why you'd like to scale the pdf in the way you described. The usual approach is to scale the random variable itself, say Y = sX for a scaling constant s > 0; and if X ~ Gamma(a, b) then Y ~ Gamma(a, sb).

In the usual meaning of "scaling," parameter a is not affected because it is not a scaling parameter -- parameter b is.

I'm not referring to this normal type of "scaling", I'm referring to raising the whole distribution to a power 1/T which effectively "broadens" the distribution. In the case of a Gaussian, the effect is indeed simply to increase the variance. The reason I want to do this is to increase convergence rates in MCMC, by searching the space faster using http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SimulatedAnnealing.html" )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...

Similar threads

Back
Top