Oskar Sandberg wrote: > (Sorry for calling you Roger. :-) ) No worries. :-)
> I'm not sure it makes much sense to use one MH chain inside another, > though. We are already doing one "accept if r < min(1, ... )" step, so > an option is to multiply the above accept probability (deg(x)/deg(y)) > into that one when choosing whether or not accept the change. My only concern with doing it that way would be efficiency: if unmetropolized walks tend to end at high-degree nodes, will we end up needing to send a large number of swap requests to get one accepted? Cheers, Michael
