Sampling-importance-resampling

Draw a random sample of size ui.un from a Uniform 0,1) distribution. (Fifth column) Note If Ui Wi we will accept 6i into the final sample, otherwise we will reject The following steps enable us to do this. 

Then code negative values to 0, and positive values to 1 into an indicator variable Indi- (Seventh column) 

Finally, take all the 0 values that have indicator value Indi = 1 into our accepted sample. These are the values i where Ui Wi. In Minitab we use the Unstack command. These accepted values will be a random sample of size n from the posterior distribution g 9 yii- ,yn)- Generally the final sample size n will be less than the initial sample size N, except in the case where the initial candidate distribution is proportional to the unsealed target and all candidates will be accepted. To get as many candidates accepted as possible, the candidate density should have a shape as similar as possible to the target, yet still dominate it. 

Now take a random draw from the values where each value Oi has the 

Procedure for Drawing a Random Sample Using Sampling-Importance-Resampling 

---

Sampling-importance-resampling is sometimes called the Bayesian bootstrap since we are resampling. However, here we are resampling from the sample of parameters using the importance weights, not resampling from the data. 

Acception-rejection-sampling and sampling-importance-resampling will work for multiple parameters, but they become inefficient as the number of parameters increases. 

Assuming that the retention sample has undergone little deterioration, the criteria for rejection of a flavor is a difference in color and/or flavor between the newly produced flavor and the older retention sample. Flavor character and strength are most important. Slight color differences are often tolerated, depending on what the finished product will be. If the newly made flavor is different from the retention sample, the first step is to pull the second most recent retention sample and resample the newly made flavoring. It is always possible that this first retention sample was off for some reason or the sample of newly made flavor was not representative. If this does not seem to be the case, then the new flavor must be rejected. 

A practical way to calculate completeness is on an individual method basis. Individual method completeness is the number of valid measurements as a percentage of the total number of measurements in one analytical method. A single parameter analysis may be invalid for all samples, but it will not have much effect on the completeness calculation if merged with a large total analyte number. This one method may, however, be of critical importance for the project decisions. Calculating method analytical completeness enables us to determine whether any of the performed analytical methods fail to provide a sufficient quantity of valid data and, consequently, whether resampling and reanalysis may be needed. 

When collecting samples that are of critical importance or that cannot be resampled, always consider the collection of backup samples. 

Unqualified data and estimated values are considered valid and can be used for project decisions, whereas the data points, which were rejected due to serious deficiencies in representativeness, accuracy, or precision, cannot. In an attempt to obtain data of better quality, the chemist may ask the laboratory to reanalyze some of the samples or extracts, if they are still available and have not exceeded the holding time. Depending on the number of the rejected data points and their importance for project decision, the chemist may recommend resampling and reanalysis. 

As the sample size increases, the differences between the resampling methods decrease. As such, with small samples, it is important to be vigilant in the selection of a resampling method. This same phenomenon has been found in the literature (Molinaro et al., 2005). 

There are large differences regarding computational time between the resampling methods, frequently an important consideration. If computational time is an issue, 5- or 10-fold CV is optimal in that it runs relatively quickly and has comparable MSB, standard deviation, and bias to more computationally intensive methods. Especially for large sample sizes, the performance of 5-fold CV is similar to LOOCV (Breiman and Spector, 1992 Molinaro et al., 2005). 

---