Safe Handling of QMC Points

A Quasi-Monte Carlo construction of $n$ points in $d$ dimensions may look like IID points, but they must be used with a bit more care. Because QMC can give errors that are $o(1/n)$ as $n\to\infty$, changing or ignoring even one point can change the estimate by an amount much larger than the error would have been and worsen the convergence rate. As a result, certain practices that fit quite naturally and intuitively with MC points are very detrimental to QMC performance. Operations like burn-in, thinning and even using a round number sample size, like a power of ten, can degrade QMC  effectiveness or even make it converge to the wrong answer. The safe way to use QMC points is to take all $n$ points produced, after applying a randomization to avoid singularities and to support uncertainty quantification.


This note arose from a discussion of quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC) and randomized quasi-Monte Carlo (RQMC) software during and following the plenary tutorial at MCQMC 2020 by Fred Hickernell. Common ways of handling IID points can fail to work for (R)QMC points. A longer discussion of this point is at

QMC sampling methods provide a set of $n$ points in $[0,1]^d$ that we can use instead of a sample of $\mathcal{U}[0,1]^d$ points. We can apply transformations to them to simulate non-uniform distributions and domains other than the unit cube. Then the resulting points can be used to estimate an expectation or just to explore the input to a function.

If the points are $\boldsymbol{x}_1,\dots,\boldsymbol{x}_n\in[0,1]^d$ we may estimate $\mu=\int_{[0,1]^d}f(\boldsymbol{x})\rm d\boldsymbol{x}$ by $$\hat\mu =\frac1n\sum_{i=1}^nf(\boldsymbol{x}_i),$$ just as we would have done with $\boldsymbol{x}_i\overset{\text{iid}}{\sim}\mathcal{U}[0,1]^d$. The function $f(\cdot)$ subsumes transformations as well as the integrand of interest in the transformed space.

Plain QMC points are deterministic. Randomizing them in one of several possible ways, makes them individually uniformly distributed while preserving the low discrepancy structure that makes them valuable for integration. The resulting RQMC methods allow uncertainty quantification via replication.  If it is important to be accurate then it must also be important to know that you were accurate and to show that you were accurate. A plain $t$-test based confidence interval,  or better yet, a bootstrap $t$-confidence interval for $\mu$ then lets one estimate accuracy. Bootstrap-$t$ works very well even with a modest number of replicates. We might want a modest number $R$ of replicates because the root mean squared error (RMSE) decreases proportionally to $1/\sqrt{R}$ as the number of replicates increases but often faster than $1/\sqrt{n}$ as the number of sample points increases.  The work involved is proportional to $nR$.

A second reason to randomize is that QMC points are really designed for Riemann integrable functions. Those are necessarily bounded.  If $\hat\mu\to\mu$ whenever the star discrepancy of $\boldsymbol{x}_1,\dots,\boldsymbol{x}_n$ converges to zero, then it must hold that $f$ is Riemann integrable. That is, if $f$ is not Riemann integrable, as for instance it would be if it were unbounded, then there are sequences of inputs with vanishing star discrepancy for which $\hat\mu-\mu$ does not converge to zero.  It is safer to randomize.  Nested uniform scrambles ensure that $\hat\mu\to\mu$ with probability one under the weak condition that $f\in L^{1+\epsilon}[0,1]^d$  for some $\epsilon>0$. That is, $\int_{[0,1]^d}|f(\boldsymbol{x})|^{1+\epsilon}\rm d\boldsymbol{x}<\infty$, and $f$ is measurable.

Because (R)QMC points look so similar to plain IID points, many users and software implementations handle (R)QMC points in inefficient or even unsafe ways that would be no problem for IID points.

Sample sizes

(R)QMC points are usually constructed as a finite sequence of points for a specific sample size $n$ such as $n=2^m$ or $n=p$ for a large prime number $p$. If one uses only a round number such as $1000$ of them, then the result will ordinarily be much less effective than using them all and can possibly even fail to sample a portion of $[0,1]^d$. Those $1000$ points might easily be less effecttive than using a smaller sequence of $512$ points. As for antibiotics, one should use the whole sequence.

Skipping or burn-in

For IID points, we do as well with $\boldsymbol{x}_{B+1},\dots,\boldsymbol{x}_{B+n}$ for any $B\ge0$.  Taking $B>0$ is a kind of burn-in that actually has an advantage in Markov chain Monte Carlo, where the points may only approach their desired distribution. For RQMC points, skipping even one observation can make the rate of convergence worse.  In the case of scrambled nets, taking $B=1$ can turn the RMSE from approximately $O(n^{-3/2})$ to approximately $O(n^{-1})$.

The reason that people often skip the first point is that this first point is often equal to $(0,0,\dots,0)$. Such a point is then problematic when $f$ maps $[0,1]^d$ onto $\mathbb{R}^d$, as it would when using a transformation to induce a Gaussian distribution before evaluating the quantity of interest.  The point at the origin can map to an infinite point or even result in `not a number’.

If one uses RQMC then that first point ends up with the $\mathcal{U}[0,1]^d$ distribution, as do all the others.  That avoids the problem of singularities at least mathematically.  One might still hit a singularity in a floating point representation if one is extremely unfortunate. That possibility is also there with QMC,  and plain QMC does not have the same assurance of avoiding singularities that RQMC has.


In MCMC one often takes every $k$’th point for reasons of storage or computational efficiency. In IID sampling taking every $k$’th point would be statistically equivalent to taking an equal number of consecutive points. If we use $\boldsymbol{x}_{ki}$ for integer $k>1$ and $i=1,\dots,n$ in (R)QMC the result can be disastrously bad. For instance the van der Corput sequence in $[0,1]$ alternates between values in $[0,1/2)$ and values in $[1/2,1)$. Taking every second point would ignore half of the domain! The first component of a Sobol’ sequence is ordinarily the van der Corput sequence.

Thinning (R)QMC points can be extremely dangerous. It should not be done without some very careful mathematical explanation of why it might be ok in some special setting.

van der Corput sequences

These are for $d=1$, so $x_i\in[0,1]$. Any consecutive $2^m$ points of the van der Corput sequence are a digital net and hence have some good discrepancy properties.  The same holds for generalizations of van der Corput to bases $b>2$.  There any $b^m$ consecutive points are a digital net. So van der Corput points are an exception. If we use burn-in, we still get a digital net and thus still get low discrepancy. We should take care of the chosen sample size, preferring $n$ to be a power of $b$. If the powers of $b$ are too far apart for our purposes then an integer multiple of a power of $b$ is next best.  That only makes a difference when $b>2$.

We should not thin van der Corput sequences.

Halton sequences

Halton sequences are somewhat robust to burn-in and using round numbers. Each of the $d$ component variables of a Halton sequence is a van der Corput sequence in a different base. Usually the first $d$ prime numbers are used.

For modestly large $d$ the special values of $n$ are so large and so far apart that we can consider that there simply are no specially good sample sizes.  Think of making $n$ divisible by a power of the product of the first $d$ prime numbers. Even the first such value may be too large to use. When no feasible sample sizes are very good, then maybe there is no particular harm from using a power of ten.

Halton sequences start at the origin, which is problematic as described above. We can easily skip that point in Halton sequences because there are no especially good ranges. It may even be advantageous to use a very large burn-in for the Halton sequence because the initial points for large $d$ have unpleasant striping artifacts.

It is however safer to randomize the Halton sequence. Scrambling the Halton sequence counters those striping artifacts more surely than a burn-in would. It also moves the point at the origin to a uniformly distributed random point.  This is another instance where RQMC is safer and more effective than plain QMC.

Art B. Owen
Website | + posts

Art Owen is a statistician with an interest in quasi-Monte Carlo sampling.

Published by Art B. Owen

Art Owen is a statistician with an interest in quasi-Monte Carlo sampling.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: