Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1131192. 	[Title] On MCMC Sampling in Hierarchical Longitudinal Models  SUMMARY [Abstract] Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms have revolutionized Bayesian practice. In their simplest form (i.e., when parameters are updated one at a time) they are, however, often slow to converge when applied to high-dimensional statistical models. A remedy for this problem is to block the parameters into groups, which are then updated simultaneously using either a Gibbs or Metropolis-Hastings step. In this paper we construct several (partially and fully blocked) MCMC algorithms for minimizing the autocorrelation in MCMC samples arising from important classes of longitudinal data models. We exploit an identity used by Chib (1995) in the context of Bayes factor computation to show how the parameters in a general linear mixed model may be updated in a single block, improving convergence and producing essentially independent draws from the posterior of the parameters of interest. We also investigate the value of blocking in non-Gaussian mixed models, as well as in a class of binary response data longitudinal models. We illustrate the approaches in detail with three real-data examples. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #14090. 	[Title] Subregion-Adaptive Integration of Functions Having a Dominant Peak [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #16843. 	[Title] Sampling from Multimodal Distributions Using Tempered Transitions [Abstract] Technical Report No. 9421, Department of Statistics, University of Toronto Abstract. I present a new Markov chain sampling method appropriate for distributions with isolated modes. Like the recently-developed method of "simulated tempering", the "tempered transition" method uses a series of distributions that interpolate between the distribution of interest and a distribution for which sampling is easier. The new method has the advantage that it does not require approximate values for the normalizing constants of these distributions, which are needed for simulated tempering, and can be tedious to estimate. Simulated tempering performs a random walk along the series of distributions used. In contrast, the tempered transitions of the new method move systematically from the desired distribution, to the easily-sampled distribution, and back to the desired distribution. This systematic movement avoids the inefficiency of a random walk, an advantage that unfortunately is cancelled by an increase in the number of interpolating distributions required. Because of this, the sampling efficiency of the tempered transition method in simple problems is similar to that of simulated tempering. On more complex distributions, however, simulated tempering and tempered transitions may perform differently. Which is better depends on the ways in which the interpolating distributions are "deceptive". Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #16819. 	[Title] Markov Chain Monte Carlo Convergence Diagnostics: A Comparative Review [Abstract] A critical issue for users of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods in applications is how to determine when it is safe to stop sampling and use the samples to estimate characteristics of the distribution of interest. Research into methods of computing theoretical convergence bounds holds promise for the future but currently has yielded relatively little that is of practical use in applied work. Consequently, most MCMC users address the convergence problem by applying diagnostic tools to the output produced by running their samplers. After giving a brief overview of the area, we provide an expository review of thirteen convergence diagnostics, describing the theoretical basis and practical implementation of each. We then compare their performance in two simple models and conclude that all the methods can fail to detect the sorts of convergence failure they were designed to identify. We thus recommend a combination of strategies aimed at evaluating and accelerating MCMC sampler convergence, including applying diagnostic procedures to a small number of parallel chains, monitoring autocorrelations and cross-correlations, and modifying parameterizations or sampling algorithms appropriately. We emphasize, however, that it is not possible to say with certainty that a finite sample from an MCMC algorithm is representative of an underlying stationary distribution. Mary Kathryn Cowles is Assistant Professor of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115. Bradley P. Carlin is Associate Professor, Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Much of the work was done while the first author was a graduate student in the Divison of Biostatistics at the University of Minnesota and then Assistant Professor, Biostatistics Section, Department of Preventive and Societal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198. The work of both authors was supported in part by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases FIRST Award 1-R29-AI33466. The authors thank the developers of the diagnostics studied here for sharing their insights, experiences, and software, and Drs. Thomas Louis and Luke Tierney for helpful discussions and suggestions which greatly improved the manuscript. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #643069. 	[Title] Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice: A Roundtable Discussion [Abstract] Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods make possible the use of flexible Bayesian models that would otherwise be computationally infeasible. In recent years, a great variety of such applications have been described in the literature. Applied statisticians who are new to these methods may have several questions and concerns, however: How much effort and expertise are needed to design and use a Markov chain sampler? How much confidence can one have in the answers that MCMC produces? How does the use of MCMC affect the rest of the model-building process? At the Joint Statistical Meetings in August, 1996, a panel of experienced MCMC users discussed these and other issues, as well as various "tricks of the trade". This paper is an edited recreation of that discussion. Its purpose is to offer advice and guidance to novice users of MCMC and to not-so-novice users as well. Topics include building confidence in simulation results, methods for speeding convergence, assessing standard errors, identification of models for which good MCMC algorithms exist, and the current state of software development. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1131192 has the title `On MCMC Sampling in Hierarchical Longitudinal Models  SUMMARY  
` and the abstract `Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms have revolutionized Bayesian practice. In their simplest form (i.e., when parameters are updated one at a time) they are, however, often slow to converge when applied to high-dimensional statistical models. A remedy for this problem is to block the parameters into groups, which are then updated simultaneously using either a Gibbs or Metropolis-Hastings step. In this paper we construct several (partially and fully blocked) MCMC algorithms for minimizing the autocorrelation in MCMC samples arising from important classes of longitudinal data models. We exploit an identity used by Chib (1995) in the context of Bayes factor computation to show how the parameters in a general linear mixed model may be updated in a single block, improving convergence and producing essentially independent draws from the posterior of the parameters of interest. We also investigate the value of blocking in non-Gaussian mixed models, as well as in a class of binary response data longitudinal models. We illustrate the approaches in detail with three real-data examples. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1131192 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1131192 has the title `On MCMC Sampling in Hierarchical Longitudinal Models  SUMMARY  
` and the abstract `Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms have revolutionized Bayesian practice. In their simplest form (i.e., when parameters are updated one at a time) they are, however, often slow to converge when applied to high-dimensional statistical models. A remedy for this problem is to block the parameters into groups, which are then updated simultaneously using either a Gibbs or Metropolis-Hastings step. In this paper we construct several (partially and fully blocked) MCMC algorithms for minimizing the autocorrelation in MCMC samples arising from important classes of longitudinal data models. We exploit an identity used by Chib (1995) in the context of Bayes factor computation to show how the parameters in a general linear mixed model may be updated in a single block, improving convergence and producing essentially independent draws from the posterior of the parameters of interest. We also investigate the value of blocking in non-Gaussian mixed models, as well as in a class of binary response data longitudinal models. We illustrate the approaches in detail with three real-data examples. 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1131192 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Probabilistic_Methods