Chris Oates, Theodore Papamarkou, and Mark Girolami (all from the University of Warwick) just arXived a paper on a new form of thermodynamic integration for computing marginal likelihoods. (I had actually discussed this paper with the authors on a few occasions when visiting Warwick.) The other name of thermodynamic integration is path sampling (Gelman and Meng, 1998). In the current paper, the path goes from the prior to the posterior by a sequence of intermediary distributions using a power of the likelihood. While the path sampling technique is quite efficient a method, the authors propose to improve it through the recourse to control variates, in order to decrease the variance. The control variate is taken from Mira et al. (2013), namely a one-dimensional temperature-dependent transform of the score function. (Strictly speaking, this is an asymptotic control variate in that the mean is only asymptotically zero.) This control variate is then incorporated within the expectation inside the path sampling integral. Its arbitrary elements are then calibrated against the variance of the path sampling integral. Except for the temperature ladder where the authors use a standard geometric rate, as the approach does not account for Monte Carlo and quadrature errors. (The degree of the polynomials used in the control variates is also arbitrarily set.) Interestingly, the paper mixes a lot of recent advances, from the zero variance notion of Mira et al. (2013) to the manifold Metropolis-adjusted Langevin algorithm of Girolami and Calderhead (2011), uses as a base method pMCMC (Jasra et al., 2007). The examples processed in the paper are regression (where the controlled version truly has a zero variance!) and logistic regression (with the benchmarked Pima Indian dataset), with a counter-example of a PDE interestingly proposed in the discussion section. I quite agree with the authors that the method is difficult to envision in complex enough models. I also did not see mentions therein of the extra time involved in using this control variate idea.
Archive for arXiv
There might be two typos in the final second moment formula and its derivation (assuming no silly symmetric mistakes in my validation code): the first ν ought to be -ν, and there should be a corresponding scaling factor also for the boundary μ in Pμ,ν-2 since it arises from a change of variable. Btw in the text reference to Fig. 2 |X| wasn’t updated to X+. I hope that this is of some use.
and I checked that indeed I had forgotten the scale factor ν/(ν-2) in the t distribution with ν-2 degrees of freedom as well as the sign… So I modified the note and rearXived it. Sorry about this lack of attention to the derivation!
Julien Stoehr, Pierre Pudlo, and Lionel Cucala (I3M, Montpellier) arXived yesterday a paper entitled “Geometric summary statistics for ABC model choice between hidden Gibbs random fields“. Julien had presented this work at the MCMski 4 poster session. The move to a hidden Markov random field means that our original approach with Aude Grelaud does not apply: there is no dimension-reduction sufficient statistics in that case… The authors introduce a small collection of (four!) focussed statistics to discriminate between Potts models. They further define a novel misclassification rate, conditional on the observed value and derived from the ABC reference table. It is the predictive error rate
integrating in both the model index m and the corresponding random variable Y (and the hidden intermediary parameter) given the observation. Or rather the transform of the observation by the summary statistic S. In a simulation experiment, the paper shows that the predictive error rate decreases quite a lot by including 2 or 4 geometric summary statistics on top of the no-longer-sufficient concordance statistics. (I did not find how the distance is constructed and how it adapts to a larger number of summary statistics.)
“[the ABC posterior probability of index m] uses the data twice: a first one to calibrate the set of summary statistics, and a second one to compute the ABC posterior.” (p.8)
It took me a while to understand the above quote. If we consider ABC model choice as we did in our original paper, it only and correctly uses the data once. However, if we select the vector of summary statistics based on an empirical performance indicator resulting from the data then indeed the procedure does use the data twice! Is there a generic way or trick to compensate for that, apart from cross-validation?
While waiting for Jean-Michel to leave a thesis defence committee he was part of, I read this recently arXived survey by Novak and Rudolf, Computation of expectations by Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. The first part hinted at a sort of Bernoulli factory problem: when computing the expectation of f against the uniform distribution on G,
For x ∈ G we can compute f (x) and G is given by a membership oracle, i.e. we are able to check whether any x is in G or not.
However, the remainder of the paper does not get (in) that direction but recalls instead convergence results for MCMC schemes under various norms. Like spectral gap and Cheeger’s inequalities. So useful for a quick reminder, e.g. to my Monte Carlo Statistical Methods class Master students, but altogether well-known. The paper contains some precise bounds on the mean square error of the Monte Carlo approximation to the integral. For instance, for the hit-and-run algorithm, the uniform bound (for functions f bounded by 1) is
where d is the dimension of the space and r a scale of the volume of G. For the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, with (independent) uniform proposal on G, the bound becomes
where C is an upper bound on the target density (no longer the uniform). [I rephrased Theorem 2 by replacing vol(G) with the containing hyper-ball to connect both results, αd being the proportionality constant.] The paper also covers the case of the random walk Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, with the deceptively simple bound
but this is in the special case when G is the ball of radius d. The paper concludes with a list of open problems.
Jeong Eun (Kate) Lee and I completed this paper, “Importance sampling schemes for evidence approximation in mixture models“, now posted on arXiv. (With the customary one-day lag for posting, making me bemoan the days of yore when arXiv would give a definitive arXiv number at the time of submission.) Kate came twice to Paris in the past years to work with me on this evaluation of Chib’s original marginal likelihood estimate (also called the candidate formula by Julian Besag). And on the improvement proposed by Berkhof, van Mechelen, and Gelman (2003), based on averaging over all permutations, idea that we rediscovered in an earlier paper with Jean-Michel Marin. (And that Andrew seemed to have completely forgotten. Despite being the very first one to publish [in English] a paper on a Gibbs sampler for mixtures.) Given that this averaging can get quite costly, we propose a preliminary step to reduce the number of relevant permutations to be considered in the averaging, removing far-away modes that do not contribute to the Rao-Blackwell estimate and called dual importance sampling. We also considered modelling the posterior as a product of k-component mixtures on the components, following a vague idea I had in the back of my mind for many years, but it did not help. In the above boxplot comparison of estimators, the marginal likelihood estimators are
- Chib’s method using T = 5000 samples with a permutation correction by multiplying by k!.
- Chib’s method (1), using T = 5000 samples which are randomly permuted.
- Importance sampling estimate (7), using the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of the latents as centre.
- Dual importance sampling using q in (8).
- Dual importance sampling using an approximate in (14).
- Bridge sampling (3). Here, label switching is imposed in hyperparameters.