Daniel Sanz-Alonso arXived a note yesterday where he analyses importance sampling from the point of view of empirical distributions. With the difficulty that unnormalised importance sampling estimators are not associated with an empirical distribution since the sum of the weights is not one. For several f-divergences, he obtains upper bounds on those divergences between the empirical cdf and a uniform version, D(w,u), which translate into lower bounds on the importance sample size. I however do not see why this divergence between a weighted sampled and the uniformly weighted version is relevant for the divergence between the target and the proposal, nor how the resulting Monte Carlo estimator is impacted by this bound. A side remark [in the paper] is that those results apply to infinite variance Monte Carlo estimators, as in the recent paper of Chatterjee and Diaconis I discussed earlier, which also discussed the necessary sample size.
Archive for arXiv
Just mentioning that a second version of our paper has been arXived and submitted to JMLR, the main input being the inclusion of a reference to the abcrf package. And just repeating our best selling arguments that (i) forests do not require a preliminary selection of the summary statistics, since an arbitrary number of summaries can be used as input for the random forest, even when including a large number of useless white noise variables; (b) there is no longer a tolerance level involved in the process, since the many trees in the random forest define a natural if rudimentary distance that corresponds to being or not being in the same leaf as the observed vector of summary statistics η(y); (c) the size of the reference table simulated from the prior (predictive) distribution does not need to be as large as for in usual ABC settings and hence this approach leads to significant gains in computing time since the production of the reference table usually is the costly part! To the point that deriving a different forest for each univariate transform of interest is truly a minor drag in the overall computing cost of the approach.
- MCMC with Strings and Branes: The Suburban Algorithm (Extended Version) by Jonathan J. Heckman, Jeffrey G. Bernstein, Ben Vigoda
- Methods for Bayesian Variable Selection with Binary Response Data using the EM Algorithm by Patrick McDermott, John Snyder, Rebecca Willison
- Computing the variance of a conditional expectation via non-nested Monte Carlo by Takashi Goda
- Metropolis-Hastings algorithms with autoregressive proposals, and a few examples by Richard A. Norton, Colin Fox
- Multilevel Particle Filters: Normalizing Constant Estimation by Ajay Jasra, Kengo Kamatani, Prince Prepah Osei, Yan Zhou
- Sobol’ indices for problems defined in non-rectangular domains by S. Kucherenko, O.V. Klymenko, N. Shah
Before leaving Helsinki, we arXived [from the Air France lounge!] the paper Jean-Michel presented on Monday at ABCruise in Helsinki. This paper summarises the experiments Louis conducted over the past months to assess the great performances of a random forest regression approach to ABC parameter inference. Thus validating in this experimental sense the use of this new approach to conducting ABC for Bayesian inference by random forests. (And not ABC model choice as in the Bioinformatics paper with Pierre Pudlo and others.)
I think the major incentives in exploiting the (still mysterious) tool of random forests [against more traditional ABC approaches like Fearnhead and Prangle (2012) on summary selection] are that (i) forests do not require a preliminary selection of the summary statistics, since an arbitrary number of summaries can be used as input for the random forest, even when including a large number of useless white noise variables; (b) there is no longer a tolerance level involved in the process, since the many trees in the random forest define a natural if rudimentary distance that corresponds to being or not being in the same leaf as the observed vector of summary statistics η(y); (c) the size of the reference table simulated from the prior (predictive) distribution does not need to be as large as for in usual ABC settings and hence this approach leads to significant gains in computing time since the production of the reference table usually is the costly part! To the point that deriving a different forest for each univariate transform of interest is truly a minor drag in the overall computing cost of the approach.
An intriguing point we uncovered through Louis’ experiments is that an unusual version of the variance estimator is preferable to the standard estimator: we indeed exposed better estimation performances when using a weighted version of the out-of-bag residuals (which are computed as the differences between the simulated value of the parameter transforms and their expectation obtained by removing the random trees involving this simulated value). Another intriguing feature [to me] is that the regression weights as proposed by Meinshausen (2006) are obtained as an average of the inverse of the number of terms in the leaf of interest. When estimating the posterior expectation of a transform h(θ) given the observed η(y), this summary statistic η(y) ends up in a given leaf for each tree in the forest and all that matters for computing the weight is the number of points from the reference table ending up in this very leaf. I do find this difficult to explain when confronting the case when many simulated points are in the leaf against the case when a single simulated point makes the leaf. This single point ends up being much more influential that all the points in the other situation… While being an outlier of sorts against the prior simulation. But now that I think more about it (after an expensive Lapin Kulta beer in the Helsinki airport while waiting for a change of tire on our airplane!), it somewhat makes sense that rare simulations that agree with the data should be weighted much more than values that stem from the prior simulations and hence do not translate much of an information brought by the observation. (If this sounds murky, blame the beer.) What I found great about this new approach is that it produces a non-parametric evaluation of the cdf of the quantity of interest h(θ) at no calibration cost or hardly any. (An R package is in the making, to be added to the existing R functions of abcrf we developed for the ABC model choice paper.)
Sampling latent states for high-dimensional non-linear state space models with the embedded HMM methodPosted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags ABC, arXiv, ensemble Monte Carlo, forward-backward formula, geometric ergodicity, hidden Markov models, HMM, Radford Neal, University of Toronto on March 17, 2016 by xi'an
Previously, I posted a comment on a paper by Alex Shestopaloff and Radford Neal, after my visit to Toronto two years ago, using a particular version of ensemble Monte Carlo. A new paper by the same authors was recently arXived, as an refinement of the embedded HMM paper of Neal (2003), in that the authors propose a new and more efficient way to generate from the (artificial) embedded hidden Markov sampler that is central to their technique of propagating a set of pool states. The method exploits both forward and backward representations of HMMs in an alternating manner. And propagates the pool states from one observation time to the next. The paper also exploits latent Gaussian structures to make autoregressive proposals, as well as flip proposals from x to -x [which seem to only make sense when 0 is a central value for the target, i.e. when the observables y only depend on |x|]. All those modifications bring the proposal quite close to (backward) particle Gibbs, the difference being in using Metropolis rather than importance steps. And in an improvement brought by the embedded HMM approach, even though it is always delicate to generalise those comparisons when some amount of calibration is required by both algorithms under comparison. (Especially delicate when it is rather remote from my area of expertise!) Anyway, I am still intrigued [in a positive way] by the embedded HMM idea as it remains mysterious that a finite length HMM simulation can improve the convergence performances that much. And wonder at a potential connection with an earlier paper of Anthony Lee and Krys Latuszynski using a random number of auxiliary variables. Presumably a wrong impression from a superficial memory…
Joram Soch managed to get a short note arXived about the Normal cdf Φ by exhibiting an analytical version, nothing less!!! By which he means a power series representation of that cdf. This is an analytical [if known] function in the complex calculus sense but I wonder at the point of the (re)derivation. (I do realise that something’s wrong on the Internet is not breaking news!)
Somewhat tangentially, this reminds me of a paper I read recently where the Geometric Geo(p) distribution was represented as the sum of two independent variates, namely a Binomial B(p/(1+p)) variate and a Geometric 2G(p²) variate. A formula that can be iterated for arbitrarily long, meaning that a Geometric variate is an infinite sum of [powers of two] weighted Bernoulli variates. I like this representation very much (although it may well have been know for quite a while). However I fail to see how to take advantage of it for simulation purposes. Unless the number of terms in the sum can be determined first. And even then it would be less efficient than simulating a single Geometric…
Sourav Chatterjee and Persi Diaconis arXived yesterday an exciting paper where they study the proper sample size in an importance sampling setting with no variance. That’s right, with no variance. They give as a starting toy example the use of an Exp(1) proposal for an Exp(1/2) target, where the importance ratio exp(x/2)/2 has no ξ order moment (for ξ≥2). So the infinity in the variance is somehow borderline in this example, which may explain why the estimator could be considered to “work”. However, I disagree with the statement “that a sample size a few thousand suffices” for the estimator of the mean to be close to the true value, that is, 2. For instance, the picture I drew above is the superposition of 250 sequences of importance sampling estimators across 10⁵ iterations: several sequences show huge jumps, even for a large number of iterations, which are characteristic of infinite variance estimates. Thus, while the expected distance to the true value can be closely evaluated via the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the target and the proposal (which by the way is infinite when using a Normal as proposal and a Cauchy as target), there are realisations of the simulation path that can remain far from the true value and this for an arbitrary number of simulations. (I even wonder if, for a given simulation path, waiting long enough should
not lead to those unbounded jumps.) The first result is frequentist, while the second is conditional, i.e., can occur for the single path we have just simulated… As I taught in class this very morning, I thus remain wary about using an infinite variance estimator. (And not only in connection with the harmonic mean quagmire. As shown below by the more extreme case of simulating an Exp(1) proposal for an Exp(1/10) target, where the mean is completely outside the range of estimates.) Wary, then, even though I find the enclosed result about the existence of a cut-off sample size associated with this L¹ measure quite astounding. Continue reading