Archive for arXiv

rethinking the ESS

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 14, 2018 by xi'an

Following Victor Elvira‘s visit to Dauphine, one and a half year ago, where we discussed the many defects of ESS as a default measure of efficiency for importance sampling estimators, and then some more efforts (mostly from Victor!) to formalise these criticisms, Victor, Luca Martino and I wrote a paper on this notion, now arXived. (Victor most kindly attributes the origin of the paper to a 2010 ‘Og post on the topic!) The starting thread of the (re?)analysis of this tool introduced by Kong (1992) is that the ESS used in the literature is an approximation to the “true” ESS, generally unavailable. Approximation that is pretty crude and hence impacts the relevance of using it as the assessment tool for comparing importance sampling methods. In the paper, we re-derive (with the uttermost precision) the resulting approximation and list the many assumptions that [would] validate this approximation. The resulting drawbacks are many, from the absurd property of always being worse than direct sampling, to being independent from the target function and from the sample per se. Since only importance weights matter. This list of issues is not exactly brand new, but we think it is worth signaling given the fact that this approximation has been widely used in the last 25 years, due to its simplicity, as a practical rule of thumb [!] in a wide variety of importance sampling methods. In continuation of the directions drafted in Martino et al. (2017), we also indicate some alternative notions of importance efficiency. Note that this paper does not cover the use of ESS for MCMC algorithms, where it is somewhat more legit, if still too rudimentary to really catch convergence or lack thereof! [Note: I refrained from the post title resinking the ESS…]

coordinate sampler as a non-reversible Gibbs-like MCMC sampler

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , on September 12, 2018 by xi'an

In connection with the talk I gave last July in Rennes for MCqMC 2018, I posted yesterday a preprint on arXiv of the work that my [soon to defend!] Dauphine PhD student Changye Wu and I did on an alternative PDMP. In this novel avatar of the zig-zag sampler,  a  non-reversible, continuous-time MCMC sampler, that we called the Coordinate Sampler, based on a piecewise deterministic Markov process. In addition to establishing the theoretical validity of this new sampling algorithm, we show in the same line as Deligiannidis et al.  (2018) that the Markov chain it induces exhibits geometrical ergodicity for distributions which tails decay at least as fast as an exponential distribution and at most as fast as a Gaussian distribution. A few numerical examples (a 2D banana shaped distribution à la Haario et al., 1999, strongly correlated high-dimensional normals, a log-Gaussian Cox process) highlight that our coordinate sampler is more efficient than the zig-zag sampler, in terms of effective sample size.Actually, we had sent this paper before the summer as a NIPS [2018] submission, but it did not make it through [the 4900 submissions this year and] the final review process, being eventually rated above the acceptance bar but not that above!

troubling trends in machine learning

Posted in Books, pictures, Running, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 25, 2018 by xi'an

This morning, in Coventry, while having an n-th cup of tea after a very early morning run (light comes early at this time of the year!), I spotted an intriguing title in the arXivals of the day, by Zachary Lipton and Jacob Steinhard. Addressing the academic shortcomings of machine learning papers. While I first thought little of the attempt to address poor scholarship in the machine learning literature, I read it with growing interest and, although I am pessimistic at the chances of inverting the trend, considering the relentless pace and massive production of the community, I consider the exercise worth conducting, if only to launch a debate on the excesses found in the literature.

“…desirable characteristics:  (i) provide intuition to aid the reader’s understanding, but clearly distinguish it from stronger conclusions supported by evidence; (ii) describe empirical investigations that consider and rule out alternative hypotheses; (iii) make clear the relationship between theoretical analysis and intuitive or empirical claims; and (iv) use language to empower the reader, choosing terminology to avoid misleading or unproven connotations, collisions with other definitions, or conflation with other related but distinct concepts”

The points made by the authors are (p.1)

  1. Failure to distinguish between explanation and speculation
  2. Failure to identify the sources of empirical gains
  3. Mathiness
  4. Misuse of language

Again, I had misgiving about point 3., but this is not an anti-maths argument, rather about the recourse to vaguely connected or oversold mathematical results as a way to support a method.

Most interestingly (and living dangerously!), the authors select specific papers to illustrate their point, picking from well-established authors and from their own papers, rather than from junior authors. And also include counter-examples of papers going the(ir) right way. Among the recommendations for emerging from the morass of poor scholarship papers, they suggest favouring critical writing and retrospective surveys (provided authors can be found for these!). And mention open reviews before I can mention these myself. One would think that published anonymous reviews are a step in the right direction, I would actually say that this should be the norm (plus or minus anonymity) for all journals or successors of journals (PCis coming strongly to mind). But requiring more work from the referees implies rewards for said referees, as done in some biology and hydrology journals I refereed for (and PCIs of course).

accelerating MCMC

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 11, 2018 by xi'an

As forecasted a rather long while ago (!), I wrote a short and incomplete survey on some approaches to accelerating MCMC. With the massive help of Victor Elvira (Lille), Nick Tawn (Warwick) and Changye Wu (Dauphine). Survey which current version just got arXived and which has now been accepted by WIREs Computational Statistics. The typology (and even the range of methods) adopted here is certainly mostly arbitrary, with suggestions for different divisions made by a very involved and helpful reviewer. While we achieved a quick conclusion to the review process, suggestions and comments are most welcome! Even if we cannot include every possible suggestion, just like those already made on X validated. (WIREs stands for Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews and its dozen topics cover several fields, from computational stats to biology, to medicine, to engineering.)

ABCDay [arXivals]

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , on March 2, 2018 by xi'an

A bunch of ABC papers on arXiv yesterday, most of them linked to the incoming Handbook of ABC:

    1. Overview of Approximate Bayesian Computation S. A. Sisson, Y. Fan, M. A. Beaumont
    2. Kernel Recursive ABC: Point Estimation with Intractable Likelihood Takafumi Kajihara, Keisuke Yamazaki, Motonobu Kanagawa, Kenji Fukumizu
    3. High-dimensional ABC D. J. Nott, V. M.-H. Ong, Y. Fan, S. A. Sisson
    4. ABC Samplers Y. Fan, S. A. Sisson


divide & reconquer

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , on February 5, 2018 by xi'an

Qi Liu, Anindya Bhadra, and William Cleveland from Purdue have arXived a paper entitled Divide and Recombine for Large and Complex Data: Model Likelihood Functions using MCMC. Which is a variation on the earlier divide & … papers attempting at handling large datasets. The beginning is quite similar to these earlier papers in that the likelihood is split into sub-likelihoods, approximated from MCMC samples and recombined into an approximate full likelihood. As in for instance Scott et al. one approximation use for the subsample is to replace the likelihood with a Normal approximation, or a skew Normal generalisation, which remains  a limited choice for heavy tailed likelihoods. Producing a Normal and skew-Normal approximation for the whole [data] likelihood, respectively. If I understand correctly, these approximations are missing a normalising constant to bring them to scale with the true likelihood, which I do not completely understand as the likelihood only needs to be defined up to a [constant] constant for most purposes, including Bayesian ones. The  method of estimation of this constant proposed therein is called the contour probability algorithm and it consists in using a highest density region to compare a likelihood and its approximation. (Nothing to do with our adaptation of Gelfand and Dey (1994) based on HPDs, with Darren Wright. Nor with nested sampling.) Returning a form of qq-plot. This is rather exploratory, while hardly addressing the issue of the precision of such approximations and the resolution of conflicting proposals. And the comparison with all these other recent proposals for splitting likelihoods into manageable bits (proposals that are mentioned in the final section, including our recentering scheme with my student Changye Wu).

a paradox about likelihood ratios?

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , on January 15, 2018 by xi'an

Aware of my fascination for paradoxes (and heterodox publications), Ewan Cameron sent me the link to a recent arXival by Louis Lyons (Oxford) on different asymptotic distributions of the likelihood ratio. Which is full of approximations. The overall point of the note is hard to fathom… Unless it simply plans to illustrate Betteridge’s law of headlines, as suggested by Ewan.

For instance, the limiting distribution of the log-likelihood of an exponential sample at the true value of the parameter τ is not asymptotically Gaussian but almost surely infinite. While the log of the (Wilks) likelihood ratio at the true value of τ is truly (if asymptotically) a Χ² variable with one degree of freedom. That it is not a Gaussian is deemed a “paradox” by the author, explained by a cancellation of first order terms… Same thing again for the common Gaussian mean problem!