Performance of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and No-U-Turn Sampler for estimating genetic parameters and breeding values

Abstract

BackgroundHamiltonian Monte Carlo is one of the algorithms of the Markov chain Monte Carlo method that uses Hamiltonian dynamics to propose samples that follow a target distribution. The method can avoid the random walk behavior to achieve a more effective and consistent exploration of the probability space and sensitivity to correlated parameters, which are shortcomings that plague many Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. However, the performance of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo is highly sensitive to two hyperparameters. The No-U-Turn Sampler, an extension of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, was recently introduced to automate the tuning of these hyperparameters. Thus, this study compared the performances of Gibbs sampling, Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, and the No-U-Turn Sampler for estimating genetic parameters and breeding values as well as sampling qualities in both simulated and real pig data. For all datasets, we used a pedigree-based univariate linear mixed model.ResultsFor all datasets, the No-U-Turn Sampler and Gibbs sampling performed comparably regarding the estimation of heritabilities and accuracies of breeding values. Compared with Gibbs sampling, the estimates of effective sample sizes for simulated and pig data with the No-U-Turn Sampler were 3.2 to 22.6 and 3.5 to 5.9 times larger, respectively. Autocorrelations decreased more quickly with the No-U-Turn Sampler than with Gibbs sampling. When true heritability was low in the simulated data, the skewness of the marginal posterior distributions with the No-U-Turn Sampler was smaller than that with Gibbs sampling. The performance of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for sampling quality was inferior to that of No-U-Turn Sampler in the simulated data. Moreover, Hamiltonian Monte Carlo could not estimate genetic parameters because of difficulties with the hyperparameter settings with pig data.ConclusionsThe No-U-Turn Sampler is a promising sampling method for animal breeding because of its good sampling qualities: large effective sample sizes, low autocorrelations, and low skewness of marginal posterior distributions, particularly when heritability is low. Meanwhile, Hamiltonian Monte Carlo failed to converge with a simple univariate model for pig data. Thus, it might be difficult to use Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for usual complex models in animal breeding.

Topography drives microgeographic adaptations of closely related species in two tropical tree species complexes

“…A Bayesian method was used to infer parameters using stan language (Carpenter et al, 2017, code (Nishio & Arakawa, 2019).…”

Strategic Use of (Un)certainty Expressions

“…Samples were drawn from the posterior distributions of the model parameters using the NUTS sampler (Hoffman and Gelman, 2013). Four sampling chains were run, each collecting 4,000 iterations whereby the first 1,000 iterations were disregarded as part of the warm-up phase leading to 12,000 iterations available for analysis.…”

A Bayesian Model to Forecast the Time Series Kinetic Energy Data for a Power System

“…In this sampling process, the alternative sampling of u and θ is carried out, where θ is fixed initially and sampled for u such that the condition given in Equation (13) will be satisfied (i.e., 0 ≤ u ≤ π(θ) → p(u|θ)~uniform(0, π(θ)). After that, a horizontal slice region S is formed from the sample θ (S = (θ: u ≤ π(θ)) [34].…”

“…After slice sampling, the No-U-Turn sampler initiates with the uniformity as given in Equation ( 15); however, its efficiency is highly dependent on the probability of the acceptance. The step size will be small for a high acceptance probability that requires many leapfrog steps to generate the subset of candidate (θ|p) states [34].…”