Question on Importance Sampling (Monte Carlo method)

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasraa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method Sampling
AI Thread Summary
In importance sampling, when estimating a distribution p using samples from another distribution q, the standard method involves computing unnormalized weights based on the ratio p(s_i)/q(s_i) for each sample. If prior samples are weighted with different normalized weights u_i, it raises the question of whether the unnormalized weights can be adjusted to p(s_i)u_i/q(s_i). This adjustment may not be justified, as changing weights requires ensuring that the empirical distribution remains a good approximation of the cumulative distribution function (CDF). The discussion emphasizes that any modification to the weights must maintain the integrity of the Monte Carlo simulation's approximation capabilities. Ultimately, if a valid adjustment is found, the new importance sampling formula can be derived from the change of measure principle.
kasraa
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Suppose I have N iid samples from a distribution q, and I want to estimate another distributin, p, using those samples (Importance Sampling).

By "standard importance sampling", I mean the case where samples (prior samples. i.e. samples from q) have equal weights (w_i = 1/N).

In the case of "standard importance sampling", I should perform these steps:

1) compute (unnormalized) weights for those sample according to p(s_i)/q(s_i) (s_{i} is the i'th sample from q)
2) normalize those weights
3) then an estimate of p would be this:
\hat{p} = \sum_{i=1}^N w_{i} \delta(i)

(w_i are normalized weights computed at step 2. delta(i) is the Dirac delta function at s_i)


Now consider the case where samples (prior samples, i.e. samples from q) are weighted (differnt weights, and normalized. for example u_i).

Is it enough (justified) to change the (unnormalized) weights (computed at step 1) to p(s_i)u_{i}/q(s_i)?
(multiplying prior weights and "standard importance sampling" weights together?)


Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kasraa said:
... Is it enough (justified) to change the (unnormalized) weights (computed at step 1) to p(s_i)u_{i}/q(s_i)?
(multiplying prior weights and "standard importance sampling" weights together?)

Possibly not, because any Monte Carlo simulation (including importance sampling) is essentially based on approximating the (cumulative) distribution by the empirical distribution, i.e.

P(x) = Prob[X\le x] = E_P[I[X\le x]] \approx \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N I[X_i\le x]

where I is the Boolean indicator function and the X_i are taken from distribution P. To change the weights from (1/N) to other numbers you'd need to change the sampling method to ensure that the "weighted" empirical distribution remains a good approximation to the CDF.

However if you do find a way to overcome that, the new importance sampling formula would easily follow from the change of measure formula, with

P(x) = E_P[I[X\le x]] = E_Q\left[I[X\le x]\frac{dP}{dQ}\right] = E_Q\left[I[X\le x]\frac{p(X)}{q(X)}\right] \approx \sum_{i=1}^N w_i I[X_i\le x]\frac{p(X_i)}{q(X_i)}

where the X_i are samples such that

\sum_{i=1}^N w_i I[X_i\le x]

closely approximates Q(x).
 
Thanks.
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top