1
$\begingroup$

Latin Hypercube Sampling, by concept, should be able to yield convergence of an estimate of output at a lower number of samples than random sampling. With the model I am working on, I'm continuously seeing convergence happen at a smaller sample size for random sampling than LHS. I was wondering if there would be any possible explanation for this observation. Thank you.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

This behaviour is technically possible but very unusual. I would check your code very carefully to make sure there are no errors in your implementation of the sampling, or perhaps do some more reps to get a fuller understanding of the situation.

Proposition 10.4 in this book chapter, and the discussion below the proposition, might be relevant. The proposition states that, if $f$ is a real-valued function on $[0,1]^d$, $\mu=\int f(x) \,dx$, $\sigma^2=\int (f(x)-\mu)^2\, dx<\infty$, then the variance of the associated LHS estimator $\hat{\mu}_{LHS}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n f(X_i)$ satisfies $\text{Var}(\hat{\mu}_{LHS})\leq \frac{\sigma^2}{n-1}$. This means that LHS cannot be worse than IID sampling with a sample size of one less (in terms of the variance of the estimator). LHS will tend to do less well for functions $f$ that are far from being additive (in a sense defined in section 10.3 of the book chapter).

There's also a theorem in the paper A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code by McKay, Beckman and Conover (Technometrics 21:239-245) which states that, if $f$ is monotonic in each of its arguments, then $\text{Var}(\hat{\mu}_{LHS})\leq \frac{\sigma^2}{n}$ i.e. LHS is never worse than IID sampling.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your detailed response and the reference. I was wondering if you would know a good way to test for additivity of the function when we don't have a priori information about the relationship between the output and the input parameters. LHS is commonly used in multivariate uncertainty & sensitivty analyses, for which we begin without much information about output qualities like additivity. $\endgroup$ – ss_19 May 19 at 2:02
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not aware of an easy way to measure the extent to which a function is additive, though see stats.stackexchange.com/questions/84029/…. In practice, for a function that is not easy to evaluate and has no closed form expression, it is common to use LHS as a default sampling method. Prop 10.4 above says that we're not losing anything by doing this and we potentially have much to gain - but exactly how much is hard to quantify. $\endgroup$ – S. Catterall Reinstate Monica May 19 at 10:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.