repulsive sampling

After a long absence from the monthly Séminaire Parisien de Statistique I attended one today at IHP, including a talk by Diala Hawat on repelled point processes for numerical integration by Hawat et al. The goal is to get (and prove) a universal variance improvement for numerical integration by applying a form of determinantal processes to initial simulations, as eg iid (Poisson process) sampling (without accounting for the O(N²) cost in moving these points). The repelled points are obtain by a single (why single?) move based on a force function (as shown in the slide below), inspired by a Coulomb potential (in the sense that said move appears as one gradient step along the potential). Which reminded me of the pinball sampler, even though the inverse norm was just there to create infinite repulsion near each point. A surprising feature of this repelling step is that it even modifies a (QMC) Sobol process with also an (empirical) improvement in the variance. I wonder if one could construct an MCMC algorithm that would target a joint distribution, maybe via a copula representation, maybe via an equivalent version of HMC.

As an aside, the Bakhvalov results on the existence of a worst case integrand for any deterministic or random sequence (see top slide) made me wonder what the shape of this worst case function is, esp. for a QMC sequence (eg, Sobol). And whether or not they are of any relevance as a counterfactor to the optimal importance functions.

combining normalizing flows and QMC

My PhD student Charly Andral [presented at the mostly Monte Carlo seminar and] arXived a new preprint yesterday, on training a normalizing flow network as an importance sampler (as in Gabrié et al.) or an independent Metropolis proposal, and exploiting its invertibility to call quasi-Monte Carlo low discrepancy sequences to boost its efficiency. (Training the flow is not covered by the paper.) This extends the recent study of He et al. (which was presented at MCM 2023 in Paris) to the normalising flow setting. In the current experiments, the randomized QMC samples are computed using the SciPy package (Roy et al. 2023), where the Sobol’ sequence is based on Joe and Kuo (2008) and on Matouˇsek (1998) for the scrambling, and where the Halton sequence is based on Owen (2017). (No pure QMC was harmed in the process!) The flows are constructed using the package FlowMC. As expected the QMC version brings a significant improvement in the quality of the Monte Carlo approximations, for equivalent computing times, with however a rapid decrease in the efficiency as the dimension of the targetted distribution increases. On the other hand, the architecture of the flow demonstrates little relevance. And the type of  RQMC sequence makes a difference, the advantage apparently going to a scrambled Sobol’ sequence.

mostly MC[nuary]

probabilistic numerics [book review]

Probabilistic numerics: Computation as machine learning is a 2022 book by Philipp Henning, Michael Osborne, and Hans Kersting that was sent to me by CUP (upon my request and almost free of charge, as I had to pay custom charges, thanks to Brexit!). With the important message of bringing statistical tools to numerics. I remember Persi Diaconis calling for (such) actions in the 1980’s (and even reading a paper of his on the topic along with George Casella in Ithaca while waiting for his car to get serviced!).

From a purely aesthetic view point, the book reads well, offers a beautiful cover and sells for a quite reasonable price for an academic book. Plus it is associated with a website containing draft version of the book. Code, links to courses, research, conferences are also available there. Just a side remark that it enjoys very wide margins that may have encouraged an inflation of footnotes (but also exercises). Except when formulas get in the way (as e.g. on p.40).

The figure below is an excerpt from the introduction that sets the scene of probabilistic numerics involving algorithms as agents, gathering data and making decisions, with an obvious analogy with standard Bayesian decision theory. Modelling uncertainty missing from the picture (if not from the book, as explained later by the authors as an argument against attaching the label Bayesian to the field). Also referring to Henri Poincaré for the origination of the prior vs posterior uncertainty about a mathematical quantity. Followed by early works from the Russian school of probability, somewhat ignored until the machine-learning revolution and a 2012 NIPS workshop organised by the authors. (I participated to a follow-up workshop at NIPS 2015.)

In this nicely written section, I have an objection to the authors’ argument that a frequentist, as opposed to a Bayesian, “has the loss function in mind from the outset” (p.9), since the loss function is logically inseparable from the prior and considered from the onset. I also like very much the conclusion to that introduction, namely that the main messages (from the book) are that (verbatim)

• classical methods are probabilist (p.10)
• numerical methods are autonomous agents (p.11)
• numerics should not be random (if not a rejection of the concept of Monte Carlo methods, p.1, but probabilistic numerics being opposed to stochastic numerics, p.67)
• numerics must report calibrated uncertainty (p.12)
• imprecise computation is to be embraced (p.12)
• probabilistic numerics consolidates numerical computation and statistical inference (p.13)
• probabilistic numerical algorithms are already adding value (p.13)
• pipelines of computation demand harmonisation

“Is it still reasonable to labour under computational constraints conceived in the 1940s?” (p.113)

“rather than being equally good for any number of dimensions, Monte Carlo is perhaps better thought of as being equally bad” (p.110)

Chapter I is a 40p infodump (!) on mathematical concepts needed for the following parts. Chapter II is about integration, opposing again PN and Monte Carlo (with strange remark that MCMC does not achieve √N convergence rate, p.72). In the sense that the later is frequentist in that it does not use a prior [unless considering a limiting improper version as in Section 12.2, an intriguing concept in this setup as I wonder whether or not improper priors can at all be contemplated] on the object of interest and hence that the stochasticity does not reflect uncertainty but rather the impact of the simulated sample. Advocating Bayesian quadrature (with some weird convergence graphs exhibiting a high variability with the number of iterations that apparently is not discussed) and bringing in the fascinating perspective of model choice in that framework (leading to compute a posterior probability for each model!). Being evidently biased towards Monte Carlo, I find the opposition in Chapter 12 unnecessarily antagonistic, while presenting Monte Carlo methods as a form of minimax solution, the more because quasi-Monte Carlo methods are hardly discussed (or dismissed). As illustrated by the following picture (p.115) and the above quotes. (And I won’t even go into the absurdity of §12.3 trashing pseudo-random generators as “painfully dumb”.)

Chapter III is a sort of dual of Chapter II for linear algebra numerics, primarily solving linear equations by Gaussian solvers, which introduces new concepts like Krylov sequences, although it sounds quite specific (for an outsider like me). Chapters IV and V deal with the more ambitious prospect of optimisation. Reconsidering classics and expanding into Bayesian optimisation, using Gaussian process priors and defining specific loss functions. Bringing in a strong link with machine learning tools and goals. [citation typo on p.277]. Chapter VII addresses the resolution of ODEs by a Bayesian state space model representation and (again!) Gaussian processes. Reaching to mentioning inverse problems and offering a short finale on prospective steps for interested readers.

[Disclaimer about potential self-plagiarism: this post or an edited version will eventually appear in my Books Review section in CHANCE.]

Welcome to MCM 2025