 at the true posterior distribution.

### Simulation design and test {#subsubsec:criteria}

This example aims at proving that our strategy supplies a sample from the true posterior distribution, even in the difficult framework of mixture models. To assess the validity of our method, we propose using the following testing procedure.

#### Testing procedure.

We introduce the following property from which we derive a negative criterion, in the sense that if the obtained distribution is the true posterior distribution, it must satisfy the criterion.

\[lem:criterion\] Let $\Phi: \Theta \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ be such that $\exists \; \Psi$ verifying $ H: {\theta}\mapsto \left(\Phi({\theta}), \Psi({\theta})\right)$ is injective and continuously differentiable.Assume that $$({\theta}^\star, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\star}) \sim \pi({\theta}^\star)\ell({\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star | {\theta}^\star).$$ Given ${\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star$, let $p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}(\Phi(\theta))$ be any probability distribution on $\Phi(\Theta)$. Let $U({\theta}^\star, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi,p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star})$ be the following statistic: $$\label{eq:crit-theo}
 U({\theta}^\star, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi,p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}) = \mathbb{E}_{p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}} \left[ \mathbbm{1}_{\Phi({\theta}) < \Phi({\theta}^{\star})}\right].$$ Then, if $
p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}(\Phi(\theta)) = p(\Phi({\theta})|{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star)$, $  \forall {\theta}\in \Theta$ then $U({\theta}^\star, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi,q_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}) \sim \mathcal{U}_{[0,1]}$.

Note that when $U({\theta}^\star, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi, p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star})$ has no explicit expression and when we have access to a sample from $q_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}$, we can replace $U({\theta}^{\star}, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\star },\Phi, p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\star}})$ by its non-biased and convergent estimator: $$\label{eq:crit-emp}
U
at the true posterior distribution. 

 # # # Simulation design and trial { # subsubsec: standard } 

 This example aims at proving that our scheme supplies a sample from the true later distribution, even in the unmanageable framework of mixture models. To assess the validity of our method acting, we propose using the following testing procedure. 

 # # # # examination procedure. 

 We introduce the follow property from which we derive a damaging criterion, in the sense that if the obtained distribution is the on-key posterior distribution, it must satisfy the criterion. 

 \[lem: criterion\ ] Let $ \Phi: \Theta \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ be such that $ \exists \; \Psi$ verify $ H: { \theta}\mapsto \left(\Phi({\theta }), \Psi({\theta})\right)$ is injective and continuously differentiable. Assume that $ $ ({ \theta}^\star, { \boldsymbol{Y}}^{\star }) \sim \pi({\theta}^\star)\ell({\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star | { \theta}^\star).$$ Given $ { \boldsymbol{Y}}^\star$, let $ p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}(\Phi(\theta))$ be any probability distribution on $ \Phi(\Theta)$. lease $ U({\theta}^\star, { \boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi, p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star})$ be the following statistic: $ $ \label{eq: crit - theo } 
  U({\theta}^\star, { \boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi, p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star }) = \mathbb{E}_{p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star } } \left [ \mathbbm{1}_{\Phi({\theta }) < \Phi({\theta}^{\star})}\right].$$ Then, if $ 
 p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}(\Phi(\theta) ) = p(\Phi({\theta})|{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star)$, $   \forall { \theta}\in \Theta$ then $ U({\theta}^\star, { \boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi, q_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star }) \sim \mathcal{U}_{[0,1]}$. 

 Note that when $ U({\theta}^\star, { \boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi, p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star})$ has no explicit expression and when we have access to a sample from $ q_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}$, we can replace $ U({\theta}^{\star }, { \boldsymbol{Y}}^{\star }, \Phi, p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\star}})$ by its non - biased and convergent estimator: $ $ \label{eq: crit - emp } 
 U
 at the true posterior distvibution.

### Simulatnin desmgn and test {#sucsubsec:criteria}

This example eims at peoving that our strateey supplivs a sampoe fcom the true posvsrior dlftrigmtion, xven in the difnicult framawork of mixtuse mldels. To assess the validity of our method, wf propose usind tht fjllospnn testing procedure.

#### Testing procsdure.

We introduce thr following property from ahicj we derive a negahive criteruon, yb the sense ghat if tht mbtained djstribution is the true posteriur dixtribution, ir mkvt satisfy vhe crpterion.

\[lem:cribvrion\] Lat $\Phi: \Yheta \mapsto \msthub{R}$ ve such that $\exists \; \'si$ verifying $ H: {\theja}\mapsto \lafc(\Phi({\theta}), \Psi({\theta})\rigyt)$ is itjecdive qnd cohtmnukusly fifherentiable.Zssume that $$({\theta}^\star, {\boldsymbpl{R}}^{\wtar}) \sim \pi({\thsta}^\staw)\ejl({\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star | {\theta}^\star).$$ Given ${\boldvymgol{Y}}^\star$, let $p_{{\boldsymboo{Y}}^\star}(\Phi(\theta))$ be any probabilyty distribution on $\Phi(\Theta)$. Let $U({\theta}^\star, {\boldsfmbol{B}}^\sgar,\Khl,i_{{\bolawylbol{Y}}^\star})$ be the following statistic: $$\label{eq:cwjt-uhep}
 U({\theta}^\star, {\bjldsymbol{Y}}^\syag,\Pny,p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\rtar}) = \matgbb{E}_{p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\stwr}} \left[ \mathvbm{1}_{\Phi({\theua}) < \Pni({\theta}^{\star})}\right].$$ Then, if $
p_{{\bildsymbol{Y}}^\stcr}(\Pyi(\theta)) = p(\Phi({\theta})|{\yoldsymbol{Y}}^\scar)$, $  \goralk {\theta}\in \Theta$ then $U({\tketa}^\stzr, {\boldsymbll{Y}}^\star,\Phj,d_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}) \sik \kathcal{U}_{[0,1]}$.

Note that when $U({\thqta}^\star, {\bildsvmbol{Y}}^\stxr,\Pho, p_{{\bolqsymbol{Y}}^\stwr})$ has no explicit expredsion atd when we have access to a sample from $q_{{\upldsymbol{Y}}^\stsr}$, we can repjace $M({\theta}^{\star}, {\boldfymbol{Y}}^{\star },\Phn, p_{{\boldsvmbol{Y}}^{\rtar}})$ by ita non-biesed and condergent estimdjor: $$\label{eq:crmt-emp}
U
at the true posterior distribution. ### Simulation test This example at proving that from true posterior distribution, in the difficult of mixture models. To assess the of our method, we propose using the following testing procedure. #### Testing procedure. introduce the following property from which we derive a negative criterion, in the that the distribution the true posterior distribution, it must satisfy the criterion. \[lem:criterion\] Let $\Phi: \Theta \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ be that $\exists \; \Psi$ verifying $ H: {\theta}\mapsto \Psi({\theta})\right)$ is injective and differentiable.Assume that $$({\theta}^\star, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\star}) \sim | Given ${\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star$, $p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}(\Phi(\theta))$ any distribution on $\Phi(\Theta)$. $U({\theta}^\star, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi,p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star})$ be the following statistic: $$\label{eq:crit-theo} U({\theta}^\star, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi,p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}) = \mathbb{E}_{p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}} \left[ \mathbbm{1}_{\Phi({\theta}) < \Phi({\theta}^{\star})}\right].$$ Then, if p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}(\Phi(\theta)) = \forall {\theta}\in then {\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi,q_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}) \mathcal{U}_{[0,1]}$. Note that {\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi, p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star})$ has no explicit expression have access to a sample from $q_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}$, we replace $U({\theta}^{\star}, },\Phi, p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\star}})$ by its non-biased and estimator: $$\label{eq:crit-emp} U
 at the true posterior distribUtion.

### SimulAtion DesIgn AnD tesT {#subSubsec:criteria}

tHis eXample aims at proving thaT our sTrATegy SUpPlies A sample FRoM THe tRuE pOstErIOr DistrIbuTion, eveN in the diffIcuLt Framework of mIXtUre models. TO asSess the validIty Of our mEtHod, WE propOse Using The folLOwing tEsting proCeDUre.

#### TesTIng procEDUrE.

We iNtroduce the followINg PRoperty from whiCh we deRiVE a NEGatIve Criterion, iN tHe senSE that if THe OBTAinED distribution Is the true poSTerIor disTrIbuTIon, it mUst saTiSFy tHe criterion.

\[Lem:cRiterion\] LEt $\Phi: \THEta \mapsTO \mathbb{r}$ be sucH thAt $\eXistS \; \psI$ vEriFyINg $ H: {\THeTa}\mAPstO \left(\Phi({\ThEtA}), \Psi({\tHeta})\RIGHT)$ is iNjeCtivE and cOntinuously diFfeRentIAblE.AssuMe thaT $$({\theTa}^\Star, {\bOldsymBol{Y}}^{\sTaR}) \sim \pi({\theta}^\star)\Ell({\bOldsymbol{y}}^\stAr | {\TheTa}^\Star).$$ GIVen ${\bolDsyMboL{Y}}^\star$, lEt $p_{{\boldSYmbOl{y}}^\STAr}(\phi(\theta))$ be any probaBiLITy DistribuTion on $\pHi(\thETa)$. Let $U({\thEtA}^\stAr, {\boLDSymboL{Y}}^\stAR,\PHi,p_{{\boldsYmbol{Y}}^\STaR})$ bE the folLoWing stAtIstIc: $$\lAbel{eQ:Crit-Theo}
 U({\tHeta}^\star, {\BoldsYMbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi,p_{{\bOLdsymbol{Y}}^\star}) = \MAtHBB{E}_{P_{{\BoldSymBol{Y}}^\star}} \lefT[ \matHBbm{1}_{\PHi({\thETa}) < \phi({\THeta}^{\sTar})}\riGhT].$$ thEN, if $
p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}(\phI(\theta)) = P(\Phi({\tHeta})|{\boldsymboL{Y}}^\star)$, $  \foraLL {\THeta}\in \ThEta$ tHEn $u({\Theta}^\star, {\boldsYmbol{y}}^\star,\Phi,q_{{\bOLdsymbol{y}}^\star}) \Sim \mathcAl{U}_{[0,1]}$.

Note thAT When $U({\theTa}^\sTar, {\BolDsyMBOl{y}}^\star,\Phi, p_{{\boldSYMbol{y}}^\sTar})$ has nO exPlicit eXprEssIon And WhEn we have aCcess to a SaMpLe FrOm $q_{{\BoldsYMbol{Y}}^\staR}$, wE caN rEplAce $U({\tHEta}^{\staR}, {\boldSymbOl{y}}^{\sTAr },\PHi, p_{{\boldSYmBOL{Y}}^{\stAr}})$ By Its nOn-bIaSed anD conVErgEnt estiMator: $$\labeL{eq:CRit-eMp}
u
 at the true posterior dis tribution. 

###  Si mul at iondesi gn and test {# s ubsu bsec:criteria}

This e xampl ea imsa tprovi ng that ou r str at eg y s up p li es asam ple fro m the true  po st erior distri b ut ion, eveninthe difficul t f ramewo rk  of mixtu remodel s. Toa ssessthe valid it y  of ou r  method , we  pro pose using the fo l lo w ing testing pr ocedur e. 
# # # # T est ing proced ur e.

W e  introd u ce t h e f o llowing prope rty from wh i chwe der iv e a negati ve cr it e rio n, in the s ense  that ifthe ob t ained d i stribut ion is  th e t ruep os te rio rd ist r ib uti o n,it mustsa ti sfy t he c r i t e rion .
\[le m:cri terion\] Let$\P hi:\ The ta \m apsto  \ma th bb{R} $ be s uch t ha t $\exists \; \ Psi$  verifyin g $  H : { \t heta} \ mapsto  \l eft (\Phi({ \theta} ) , \ Ps i ( { \t heta})\right)$ isin j e ct ive andcontin u ou sl y  differe nt iab le.A s s ume t hat$ $( {\theta} ^\star ,  { \b oldsymb ol {Y}}^{ \s tar })\sim\ pi({ \theta }^\star) \ell( { \boldsymbol{Y} } ^\star | {\th e ta } ^ \s t ar). $$Given ${\bo ldsy m bol{ Y}}^ \ st ar$ ,  let$p_{{ \b o ld s ymbol{Y}}^\star}(\P hi (\thet a))$be any probab ility dist r i b ution on  $\P h i( \ Theta)$. Let $ U({\t heta}^\sta r , {\bold symbo l{Y}}^\s tar,\Phi, p _ {{\bolds ymb ol{ Y}} ^\s t a r} )$ be the fol l o wing  s tatisti c:$$\labe l{e q:c rit -th eo }
 U({\th eta}^\st ar ,{\ bo lds ymbol { Y}}^\sta r, \Ph i, p_{ {\bol d symbol {Y}}^ \sta r} )=  \m athbb{E } _{ p _ {{\b ol ds ymbo l{Y }} ^\sta r}}\ lef t[ \mat hbbm{1}_{ \Ph i ({\t he ta }) < \P hi({\theta}^{ \s tar})}\rig ht ].$ $ Then , if $
p_{ {\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star} ( \Phi(\t het a)) =  p(\ Phi({\the ta} )|{\bo lds y mbol{Y }}^\st ar)$,  $   \ f o rall{ \ th eta }\ in \Theta$ t hen  $U({ \t heta }^\star , {\boldsymbol{Y}} ^ \st ar,\Phi,q_{{\ bol dsym b o l{ Y}} ^ \s t ar} )\ sim \ mathcal{U}_{[0, 1]}$.

Not et ha t when $U( { \th et a}^\sta r, {\bo ldsym b ol{Y}}^ \star,\Ph i, p_{{\b ol dsym b o l{Y }}^\star}) $ has no  explicit expre s si on an d w hen we  h ave  acce ss toa  sa mplefrom $ q_ {{\bol dsymb ol {Y}}^\st ar}$, we can replace $U ({\the ta}^{ \st ar}, {\bo lds y mbo l{Y}}^{\s tar},\Phi, p_ {{\ bol dsymb ol{ Y }}^{\ star } }) $ b y  itsnon- b iased and co nve r g en t estimator : $ $\l abel{ eq: c rit-em p}
U 
 at_the true_posterior distribution.

### Simulation design_and test_{#subsubsec:criteria}

This_example aims_at_proving that our_strategy supplies a_sample from the true_posterior distribution, even_in_the difficult framework of mixture models. To assess the validity of our method, we_propose_using the_following_testing_procedure.

#### Testing procedure.

We introduce the_following property from which we_derive a_negative criterion, in the sense that if the_obtained_distribution is the_true posterior distribution, it must satisfy the criterion.

\[lem:criterion\] Let_$\Phi: \Theta \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ be such_that $\exists \;_\Psi$_verifying_$ H: {\theta}\mapsto \left(\Phi({\theta}),_\Psi({\theta})\right)$ is injective and continuously differentiable.Assume_that $$({\theta}^\star, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\star}) \sim \pi({\theta}^\star)\ell({\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star |_{\theta}^\star).$$ Given ${\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star$, let $p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}(\Phi(\theta))$ be any_probability distribution on $\Phi(\Theta)$. Let $U({\theta}^\star,_{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi,p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star})$ be the following statistic:_$$\label{eq:crit-theo}
 U({\theta}^\star,_{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi,p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}) = \mathbb{E}_{p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}} \left[ \mathbbm{1}_{\Phi({\theta})_< \Phi({\theta}^{\star})}\right].$$ Then,_if $
p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}(\Phi(\theta))_= p(\Phi({\theta})|{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star)$, $_ \forall {\theta}\in \Theta$ then $U({\theta}^\star,_{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi,q_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}) \sim \mathcal{U}_{[0,1]}$.

Note_that when $U({\theta}^\star, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star,\Phi, p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star})$ has_no_explicit expression and_when_we_have access_to a sample_from_$q_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^\star}$, we_can_replace $U({\theta}^{\star}, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\star },\Phi, p_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\star}})$ by_its_non-biased and convergent estimator: $$\label{eq:crit-emp}
U