## more of the same!

**D**aniel Seita, Haoyu Chen, and John Canny arXived last week a paper entitled “Fast parallel SAME Gibbs sampling on general discrete Bayesian networks“. The distributions of the observables are defined by full conditional probability tables on the nodes of a graphical model. The distributions on the latent or missing nodes of the network are multinomial, with Dirichlet priors. To derive the MAP in such models, although this goal is not explicitly stated in the paper till the second page, the authors refer to the recent paper by Zhao et al. (2015), discussed on the ‘Og just as recently, which applies our SAME methodology. Since the paper is mostly computational (and submitted to ICLR 2016, which takes place juuust before AISTATS 2016), I do not have much to comment about it. Except to notice that the authors mention our paper as “Technical report, Statistics and Computing, 2002”. I am not sure the editor of Statistics and Computing will appreciate! The proper reference is in Statistics and Computing, **12**:77-84, 2002.

“We argue that SAME is beneficial for Gibbs sampling because it helps to reduce excess variance.”

Still, I am a wee bit surprised at both the above statement and at the comparison with a JAGS implementation. Because SAME augments the number of latent vectors as the number of iterations increases, so should be slower by a mere curse of dimension,, slower than a regular Gibbs with a single latent vector. And because I do not get either the connection with JAGS: SAME could be programmed in JAGS, couldn’t it? If the authors means a regular Gibbs sampler with no latent vector augmentation, the comparison makes little sense as one algorithm aims at the MAP (with a modest five replicas), while the other encompasses the complete posterior distribution. But this sounds unlikely when considering that the larger the number *m* of replicas the better their alternative to JAGS. It would thus be interesting to understand what the authors mean by JAGS in this setup!

February 18, 2016 at 3:52 am

Thanks for commenting on the paper. I am sorry about the reference; I will correct it in future printings.

We used JAGS as a benchmark and were able to implement SAME in JAGS.

Incidentally, the paper did not get accepted, so I plan to substantially revise it later this semester (probably around March/April). I knew there were a lot of issues that had to be addressed anyway.