IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/mcmeap/v26y2020i1p1-16n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why simple quadrature is just as good as Monte Carlo

Author

Listed:
  • Vanslette Kevin

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA)

  • Al Alsheikh Abdullatif

    (King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)

  • Youcef-Toumi Kamal

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA)

Abstract

We motive and calculate Newton–Cotes quadrature integration variance and compare it directly with Monte Carlo (MC) integration variance. We find an equivalence between deterministic quadrature sampling and random MC sampling by noting that MC random sampling is statistically indistinguishable from a method that uses deterministic sampling on a randomly shuffled (permuted) function. We use this statistical equivalence to regularize the form of permissible Bayesian quadrature integration priors such that they are guaranteed to be objectively comparable with MC. This leads to the proof that simple quadrature methods have expected variances that are less than or equal to their corresponding theoretical MC integration variances. Separately, using Bayesian probability theory, we find that the theoretical standard deviations of the unbiased errors of simple Newton–Cotes composite quadrature integrations improve over their worst case errors by an extra dimension independent factor ∝N-12{\propto N^{-\frac{1}{2}}}. This dimension independent factor is validated in our simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanslette Kevin & Al Alsheikh Abdullatif & Youcef-Toumi Kamal, 2020. "Why simple quadrature is just as good as Monte Carlo," Monte Carlo Methods and Applications, De Gruyter, vol. 26(1), pages 1-16, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:mcmeap:v:26:y:2020:i:1:p:1-16:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/mcma-2020-2055
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/mcma-2020-2055
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/mcma-2020-2055?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carpenter, Bob & Gelman, Andrew & Hoffman, Matthew D. & Lee, Daniel & Goodrich, Ben & Betancourt, Michael & Brubaker, Marcus & Guo, Jiqiang & Li, Peter & Riddell, Allen, 2017. "Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 76(i01).
    2. W. R. Gilks & P. Wild, 1992. "Adaptive Rejection Sampling for Gibbs Sampling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 41(2), pages 337-348, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francis,David C. & Kubinec ,Robert, 2022. "Beyond Political Connections : A Measurement Model Approach to Estimating Firm-levelPolitical Influence in 41 Economies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10119, The World Bank.
    2. Pang, W. K. & Yang, Z. H. & Hou, S. H. & Leung, P. K., 2002. "Non-uniform random variate generation by the vertical strip method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(3), pages 595-609, November.
    3. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Yongping Bao & Ludwig Danwitz & Fabian Dvorak & Sebastian Fehrler & Lars Hornuf & Hsuan Yu Lin & Bettina von Helversen, 2022. "Similarity and Consistency in Algorithm-Guided Exploration," CESifo Working Paper Series 10188, CESifo.
    5. Torsten Heinrich & Jangho Yang & Shuanping Dai, 2020. "Growth, development, and structural change at the firm-level: The example of the PR China," Papers 2012.14503, arXiv.org.
    6. van Kesteren Erik-Jan & Bergkamp Tom, 2023. "Bayesian analysis of Formula One race results: disentangling driver skill and constructor advantage," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 19(4), pages 273-293, December.
    7. Xin Xu & Yang Lu & Yupeng Zhou & Zhiguo Fu & Yanjie Fu & Minghao Yin, 2021. "An Information-Explainable Random Walk Based Unsupervised Network Representation Learning Framework on Node Classification Tasks," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(15), pages 1-14, July.
    8. Samantha Leorato & Maura Mezzetti, 2015. "Spatial Panel Data Model with error dependence: a Bayesian Separable Covariance Approach," CEIS Research Paper 338, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 09 Apr 2015.
    9. Xiaoyue Xi & Simon E. F. Spencer & Matthew Hall & M. Kate Grabowski & Joseph Kagaayi & Oliver Ratmann & Rakai Health Sciences Program and PANGEA‐HIV, 2022. "Inferring the sources of HIV infection in Africa from deep‐sequence data with semi‐parametric Bayesian Poisson flow models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(3), pages 517-540, June.
    10. Kuschnig, Nikolas, 2021. "Bayesian Spatial Econometrics and the Need for Software," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 318, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    11. Deniz Aksoy & David Carlson, 2022. "Electoral support and militants’ targeting strategies," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(2), pages 229-241, March.
    12. Richard Hunt & Shelton Peiris & Neville Weber, 2022. "Estimation methods for stationary Gegenbauer processes," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 63(6), pages 1707-1741, December.
    13. Z. Rezaei Ghahroodi & M. Ganjali, 2013. "A Bayesian approach for analysing longitudinal nominal outcomes using random coefficients transitional generalized logit model: an application to the labour force survey data," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(7), pages 1425-1445, July.
    14. D. Fouskakis & G. Petrakos & I. Rotous, 2020. "A Bayesian longitudinal model for quantifying students’ preferences regarding teaching quality indicators," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 78(2), pages 255-270, August.
    15. Joseph B. Bak-Coleman & Ian Kennedy & Morgan Wack & Andrew Beers & Joseph S. Schafer & Emma S. Spiro & Kate Starbird & Jevin D. West, 2022. "Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 1372-1380, October.
    16. Jonas Moss & Riccardo De Bin, 2023. "Modelling publication bias and p‐hacking," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 319-331, March.
    17. Gael M. Martin & David T. Frazier & Christian P. Robert, 2020. "Computing Bayes: Bayesian Computation from 1763 to the 21st Century," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 14/20, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    18. David M. Phillippo & Sofia Dias & A. E. Ades & Mark Belger & Alan Brnabic & Alexander Schacht & Daniel Saure & Zbigniew Kadziola & Nicky J. Welton, 2020. "Multilevel network meta‐regression for population‐adjusted treatment comparisons," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(3), pages 1189-1210, June.
    19. Antonello Loddo & Shawn Ni & Dongchu Sun, 2011. "Selection of Multivariate Stochastic Volatility Models via Bayesian Stochastic Search," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 342-355, July.
    20. Chen, Ming-Hui & Ibrahim, Joseph G. & Sinha, Debajyoti, 2004. "A new joint model for longitudinal and survival data with a cure fraction," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 18-34, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:mcmeap:v:26:y:2020:i:1:p:1-16:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.