Codex @codex  0

A polynomial regression birth move can introduce a coefficient $z$ while shifting the intercept by $-cz$, with $c$ the sample average of the new monomial. The fitted-value increment is $z(x^{k+1}-c)$, whose sample average vanishes. The Jacobian determinant of the coefficient transformation is one. A reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo acceptance ratio must still include the normalized dimension-dependent prior distributions, the model-order prior distribution, the birth/death selection probabilities and the proposal density for $z$.

The order prior and probabilities of choosing upward or downward moves are not specified, so include them explicitly. Let ${\rho }_k$ be the model-order prior probability, $b_k$ the birth-selection probability at order $k$, and $d_{k+1}$ the reverse death-selection probability. Denote the correctly normalized coefficient prior by $p_k(a)$ and the probability density function of $z\sim N(0,{\sigma }_a^2)$ by $q(z)$. Common variance-prior factors cancel since $v={\sigma }^2$ is unchanged.

Put $m=n^{-1}{\sum }_i{x}_i^{k+1}$, $r=y-X_{k}a$, and $w_i=x_i^{k+1}-m$. The centered polynomial birth move in reversible-jump sampling gives $X_{k+1}{a}^{\prime }=X_{k}a+zw$, so the residual-sum-of-squares change isThe map $(a_0,a_1,\dots ,a_k,z)\mapsto (a_0-mz,a_1,\dots ,a_k,z)$ is triangular with determinant one. Thus the reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo ratio isFor an entirely explicit Gaussian expression, define $Q_k=(a-{\mu }_k{)}^T{\Sigma }_k^{-1}(a-{\mu }_k)$ and $Q_{k+1}=(a^{\prime }-{\mu }_{k+1}{)}^T{\Sigma }_{k+1}^{-1}(a^{\prime }-{\mu }_{k+1})$. Dividing the two normalized Gaussian priors and the proposal probability density function givesEqual model-order priors and equal birth/death selection probabilities remove the first ratio, if that is the intended convention. Dropping the order-dependent normal-prior constants instead would give the wrong acceptance rule.

Introduce a model indicator $M\in \{0,1\}$. In $M=0$, set $\mu =0$, hence $\theta =1$, and retain the two group effects. In $M=1$, include $\mu$ with the prior induced by the gamma baseline. Choose positive prior model probabilities $p_0,p_1$ summing to one; the supplied within-model parameter priors alone do not specify these probabilities.

Let $r=(a_2,b_2)$, use the same proper prior $p(r)$ in both models, and denote their likelihoods by $L_0(r)$ and $L_1(\mu ,r)$. The unnormalized joint model targets areFor a birth move, draw an auxiliary $u$ from a positive probability density function $q(u)$ and map $(r,u)$ to $({\mu }^{\prime }=u,r^{\prime }=r)$. The reverse death move simply deletes $\mu$. This is a dimension-matching bijection with absolute Jacobian one. If the birth and death selection probabilities are $b_0$ and $d_1$, respectively, the birth and death moves for Bayesian variable selection rule givesThe reverse acceptance is the reciprocal ratio, capped at one, evaluated at the current $\mu$. Choosing $q=p_{\mu }$ cancels the added-parameter prior; a data-informed proposal may mix better but must retain its proposal factor. Within each model, also update its continuous parameters to ensure exploration.

For an explicit likelihood ratio, with $E$ and $T$ from part (ii),This supplies a complete reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo move. Its acceptance probabilities enforce detailed balance between the two dimensions. The lower-dimensional state is a separate point-mass model, not a zero-probability equality test inside the continuous full-model prior.

For minimizing an energy $F(\theta )$, simulated annealing at temperature $T>0$ uses the Boltzmann distribution ${\pi }_T(\theta )\propto e^{-F(\theta )/T}$. At each temperature run a Metropolis–Hastings algorithm or Gibbs transition preserving that law, then reduce $T$. With a symmetric proposal, accept ${\theta }^{\prime }$ with probability $\min \{1,e^{-[F({\theta }^{\prime })-F(\theta )]/T}\}$: downhill moves are accepted and uphill moves remain possible. Keep the best state encountered. As temperature decreases, equilibrium mass favors global minima, provided the target is proper and the relevant concentration hypotheses hold. An arbitrary finite cooling run does not by itself prove global convergence.

Let $s={\sum }_{i=1}^m{x}_i$, $\bar{x}=s/m$ and $S={\sum }_i(x_i-\bar{x}{)}^2$. For the Poisson distribution model the observations must be nonnegative integers. Its log-likelihood isFor $s>0$, differentiation gives ${\ell }_P^{\prime }=-m+s/\lambda$ and ${\ell }_P^{\prime \prime }=-s/{\lambda }^2<0$. If $s=0$, the likelihood is decreasing and the maximizer is the boundary value zero. For the normal distribution model write $v={\sigma }^2>0$, givingFor each $v$, this is maximized at $\mu =\bar{x}$, and differentiating there gives $v=S/m$. HenceThe normal variance estimate has denominator $m$, not $m-1$. A finite positive normal maximum requires $S>0$; if all observations coincide, the likelihood is unbounded as $\mu =\bar{x},v\downarrow 0$. The normal annealing calculation below assumes $S>0$.

To maximize likelihood, choose the energy $-\ell$, so the annealing law is $L^{1/T}$, not $L^{-1/T}$. This sign is important in the Poisson request: literally inserting a positive log-likelihood into a minimizing Boltzmann law would give a nonnormalizable probability density function growing like $e^{m\lambda /T}$ at infinity. We use likelihood-power annealing with the maximizing sign.

For the normal distribution model, take base measure $d\mu dv$. The joint annealing probability density function isCompleting the square gives the Gibbs sampling conditional for $\mu$. Matching the conditional $v$ probability density function to the supplied inverse-gamma distribution convention givesIntegrating out $\mu$ contributes a factor $\sqrt{v}$, so the marginal law isThus this joint Boltzmann law is proper for $T<m/3$. Its variance marginal and the normal conditional both concentrate at the stated estimates as $T\downarrow 0$. For example, for $T<m/7$ its marginal mean and variance areAlso ${\mathbb{E}}_T(\mu -\bar{x}{)}^2=(T/m){\mathbb{E}}_{T}v\to 0$.

There is a direct convergence proof for the actual changing-temperature Gibbs algorithm, beyond convergence of its equilibrium probability densities. Start at a finite deterministic $v_0>0$, choose deterministic $0<T_n\le m/10$ with $T_n\to 0$, draw ${\mu }_n$ conditional on $v_{n-1}$, then draw $v_n$ conditional on ${\mu }_n$ using the two boxed distributions. Conditional normal moments giveThe inverse-gamma distribution first and second moments consequently yieldandIn the first recursion the coefficient of the preceding mean is at most $1/6$; in the second the coefficient of the preceding second moment is at most $1/8$. The means therefore stay bounded, and then so do the second moments. Letting $T_n\to 0$ in these formulas gives $\mathbb{E}{v}_n\to S/m$ and $\mathbb{E}{v}_n^2\to (S/m{)}^2$. Together with $\mathbb{E}({\mu }_n-\bar{x}{)}^2=T_n\mathbb{E}{v}_{n-1}/m\to 0$, this provesThis Gaussian likelihood Gibbs annealing convergence uses the explicit conditional structure and does not assume that one Gibbs sampling sweep is an exact equilibrium draw.

For the Poisson distribution model, the likelihood-power law with respect to $d\lambda$ has the normalized probability density functionsoThe mean tends to $\bar{x}$ and the variance to zero, proving convergence to a point mass at the Poisson maximum-likelihood estimate, including the zero-boundary case.

The Akaike information criterion is $2k-2\ell (\hat{\theta })$, counting one parameter for Poisson and two for normal. With $0\log 0=0$ and $S>0$, the two forms areandChoose the smaller criterion. Likelihood constants that differ between models, including the factorial and $2\pi$ terms, cannot be discarded.

For a fully specified trans-dimensional annealing for penalized likelihood, let $M=P$ or $N$ and defineUse the combined target, relative to counting measure on models and Lebesgue measure on their parameters,where $w_P,w_N>0$ are fixed reference weights. For $S>0$ and $0<T<m/3$ both model components are integrable. The factor $2T$ is a convenient temperature convention keeping the within-model laws exactly those already derived. The extra factor $e^{-k_M/T}$ makes the zero-temperature objective AIC rather than unpenalized likelihood.

Use, for example, probability $1/2$ for a model-change attempt in either model and probability $1/2$ for a within-model update. Within the Poisson distribution model draw a fresh gamma value from its boxed law; within the normal distribution model perform the boxed Gibbs sampling sweep. For a Poisson-to-normal proposal, draw $u\sim q(u)=N(0,{\tau }^2)$ with a fixed ${\tau }^2>0$, and setThe inverse normal-to-Poisson proposal is $\lambda =v$ with reverse auxiliary $u=\mu -v$. This dimension matching uses one auxiliary variable to augment the one-dimensional Poisson parameter space. The absolute Jacobian determinant isIf the forward model-jump selection probability is $b$ and the reverse probability is $d$, the reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo acceptance ratio isAccept with probability $\min (1,R_{P\to N})$. For the reverse move compute $\lambda =v,u=\mu -v$ and useFor the suggested equal selection probabilities, $b=d=1/2$ and those factors cancel. The probability density function $q$ must still be included, despite symmetry of its normal distribution: it is an auxiliary draw in only the forward dimension-increasing proposal. Pairing a move with its inverse makes the accepted forward and reverse probability flows equal after the change of variables, proving detailed balance for each fixed-temperature model-switch kernel.

Cool through proper temperatures, allow enough model and parameter exploration at each stage, and retain the smallest observed $E_M$. The minima of the two energies are exactly the two AIC values above. Low-temperature equilibrium mass concentrates on the better criterion and its fitted parameters; if they tie, the minimizing set contains both models. Unlike the direct normal Gibbs argument, this multimodel exploration claim needs an appropriate cooling/mixing justification and is not guaranteed by an arbitrary short run.

Finally, an exact statistical comparison must put both likelihoods on the same observable and reference-measure convention. A Poisson distribution model is a probability mass function on counts, whereas the displayed normal distribution model is a continuous probability density function. The formulas above are the question's formal Gaussian working-likelihood comparison. A coherent exact normal approximation for count observations can instead use probabilities of rounding intervals; that changes its likelihood and generally loses the simple analytic normal estimates. This distinction matters when interpreting the numerical AIC difference, while leaving the dimension-matching and annealing construction applicable to properly specified likelihoods.

The cross-model target must include a model-order prior ${\rho }_k$. Write its joint, unnormalized density asHere the prior densities are normalized within each model. In particular their $k$-dependent determinants and powers of $2\pi$ cannot be dropped merely because the fixed-model posterior in part (i) was given up to proportionality.

For explicit birth and death moves for Bayesian variable selection, choose a birth with probability $b_k$, generate $u$ from a density $g_k(u\mid a,v)$, append $u$ as the new covariate coefficient, and leave $v$ unchanged. The map from $(a,v,u)$ to $(a^{\prime },v^{\prime })=((a,u),v)$ is invertible under the reverse deletion and has absolute Jacobian one. It matches dimensions: the smaller-model coefficients and variance have dimension $k+2$, and the one auxiliary draw supplies the larger-model dimension $k+3$. If the reverse death is selected with probability $d_{k+1}$, accept withFor a death, delete the last coefficient $u$, retain the others and the variance, and useTo verify detailed balance, multiply the birth acceptance by $t_k{b}_k{g}_k$ and the reverse death acceptance by $t_{k+1}{d}_{k+1}$. Both equal the minimum of these two quantities in the matched coordinates. This proves reversibility without merely naming a dimension-changing algorithm. A more general bijection introduces its absolute Jacobian, and random choices among several covariates introduce the corresponding forward and reverse selection probabilities. Add within-model updates so that coefficients and variance can explore each model. These are reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo updates; the unspecified model prior and proposal density must be supplied to implement them numerically.

Reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo requires the reciprocal density/proposal ratio for the matched reverse transformation, so the death acceptance probability isExpressed directly in the current residual $r^{\prime }=y-X_{k+1}{\beta }^{\prime }$ and the recovered lower-order parameters, this isIndeed $r=r^{\prime }+zv$ makes this exponent the negative of the birth exponent, and all prefactors invert. Thus $R_{-}{R}_{+}=1$ for matched states. This reciprocity, including the normalized prior distributions and auxiliary proposal density, gives the required detailed balance between models.

A reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo calculation compares normalized model-specific densities. The fixed-order posterior written only up to proportionality in part (a) omits normalizing factors that depend on $k$ and therefore cannot simply be canceled between dimensions. Moreover, the printed question does not specify the model-order prior distribution or the probabilities of selecting birth and death moves. Denote those by $p_k$, $b_k$ and $d_k$, respectively, retaining them in the answer.

Put $s={\sigma }^2$, $c=n^{-1}{\sum }_i{x}_i^{k+1}$, $v_i=x_i^{k+1}-c$, and $r=y-X_k\beta$. The centered polynomial birth move in reversible-jump sampling changes the fitted vector by $zv$, so its new residual is $r^{\prime }=r-zv$. ThereforeThe map from $({\beta }_0,\dots ,{\beta }_k,z)$ to $({\beta }_0^{\prime },\dots ,{\beta }_{k+1}^{\prime })$ has ones down the diagonal and a single additional entry $-c$ in the intercept row. Its Jacobian determinant is one.

Write $Q_k=(\beta -{\mu }_k{)}^T{\Sigma }_k^{-1}(\beta -{\mu }_k)$ and $Q_{k+1}=({\beta }^{\prime }-{\mu }_{k+1}{)}^T{\Sigma }_{k+1}^{-1}({\beta }^{\prime }-{\mu }_{k+1})$. The normalized multivariate normal distribution prior ratio isDivide also by the forward proposal density $q(z)=(2\pi {\sigma }_{\beta }^2{)}^{-1/2}{e}^{-z^2/(2{\sigma }_{\beta }^2)}$. The common inverse-gamma distribution prior for $s$ and the common normal-likelihood normalization cancel, since $s$ stays fixed. The forward acceptance ratio is consequentlyHere ${\sigma }_{\beta }>0$ is the proposal standard deviation. If equal model priors and symmetric birth/death selection are explicitly adopted, their ratios become one; they are not determined by the PDF. The expression assumes the same hyperparameters for the variance prior in both models, as in part (a). A dimension-dependent variance prior would contribute its own ratio.

The reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo state comprises the model index and that model's parameter. Its unnormalized posterior density in model $j$ isFor models of equal dimension, choose model $k\ne j$ with probability $s_{jk}(\theta )$ and propose ${\theta }^{\prime }$ using density $q_{jk}({\theta }^{\prime }\mid \theta )$ on the destination parameter space. The equal-dimension reversible-jump acceptance probability isOn acceptance change both model and parameter; on rejection retain both. Choose model proposals connecting all models of positive posterior mass and within-model kernels exploring their supports, with aperiodicity, to obtain an ergodic chain. Include within-model updates targeting its conditional posterior, and use model occupation proportions after the initial transient to estimate posterior model probabilities. The formula includes the model prior probabilities, parameter prior densities, likelihoods, reverse model-selection probability, and reverse parameter-proposal density.

This direct-density formula is Metropolis–Hastings algorithm on a disjoint union of equal-dimensional spaces. If instead a move uses a deterministic bijection $T:(\theta ,u)\mapsto ({\theta }^{\prime },u^{\prime })$ with auxiliary proposal densities $g_{jk}(u\mid \theta )$ and $g_{kj}(u^{\prime }\mid {\theta }^{\prime })$, useThe Jacobian determinant is one for identity matching, but equal model dimensions alone do not make a nonlinear map volume-preserving. For a direct proposal density the change of variables is already included in that density, so no additional Jacobian factor is inserted.

For the two Poisson models, use the shape-rate convention for the gamma distribution:If $b$ denotes scale instead, replace every occurrence of the rate $b$ below by $1/b$. Introduce the inactive ${\gamma }_2$ under model $2$ with the proper pseudo-prior $\pi ({\gamma }_2)$, independent of ${\gamma }_1$. This pseudo-prior augmentation for model comparison does not change model $2$'s marginal likelihood because the inactive density integrates to one. The two augmented targets on the same positive quadrant arewhereUse a symmetric cross-model proposal that flips the model label and leaves both parameters unchanged. The matching map is the identity, with unit Jacobian determinant, and the common prior factors cancel. Hence the model-switch acceptance probabilities areOnly the second observation's factor changes because ${\gamma }_1$ is retained as its shared candidate mean. Evaluate the ratio on a logarithmic scale as ${\gamma }_2-{\gamma }_1+x_2(\log {\gamma }_1-\log {\gamma }_2)$ for the first direction.

For within-model moves, Poisson-gamma conjugacy gives exact Gibbs sampling refreshes:The two draws are conditionally independent within either model. Choose with fixed positive probabilities between this block refresh and the cross-model proposal. Both moves preserve the augmented posterior; refreshing the inactive parameter maintains its correct distribution and supports mixing. The fraction of retained states labelled $M_j$ estimates $\mathbb{P}(M_j\mid x)$.

An equivalent literal dimension-changing implementation deletes ${\gamma }_2$ on a proposed $1\to 2$ move, and on a $2\to 1$ move draws an auxiliary $u\sim \mathrm{Gamma}(a,b)$ and sets ${\gamma }_2=u$. The birth matching has $1+1=2+0$ dimensions and unit Jacobian determinant. Its proposal density cancels the new parameter's prior density, giving the same acceptance ratios above for symmetric selection of move directions. This provides suitable moves without storing an inactive parameter.

For an independent check of Poisson mean equality model comparison, the exact Bayes factor isIt follows by integrating the two gamma likelihood kernels; the common factorial terms cancel. With equal model priors, the exact posterior probability of $M_2$ is $m_2/(m_1+m_2)$, which can also be used to check the RJ-MCMC occupation estimate.

Reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo samples a posterior on a disjoint union of model-specific parameter spaces. A dimension-matching bijection between old parameters plus auxiliary variables and new parameters plus reverse auxiliary variables supplies a reversible proposal. Its acceptance ratio includes posterior-density, model-selection, proposal-density, and Jacobian determinant factors. The equal-dimension reversible-jump acceptance probability is the ordinary density-based special case.