risk-adverse Bayes estimators

An interesting paper came out on arXiv in early December, written by Michael Brand from Monash. It is about risk-adverse Bayes estimators, which are defined as avoiding the use of loss functions (although why avoiding loss functions is not made very clear in the paper). Close to MAP estimates, they bypass the dependence of said MAPs on parameterisation by maximising instead π(θ|x)/√I(θ), which is invariant by reparameterisation if not by a change of dominating measure. This form of MAP estimate is called the Wallace-Freeman (1987) estimator [of which I never heard].

The formal definition of a risk-adverse estimator is still based on a loss function in order to produce a proper version of the probability to be “wrong” in a continuous environment. The difference between estimator and true value θ, as expressed by the loss, is enlarged by a scale factor k pushed to infinity. Meaning that differences not in the immediate neighbourhood of zero are not relevant. In the case of a countable parameter space, this is essentially producing the MAP estimator. In the continuous case, for “well-defined” and “well-behaved” loss functions and estimators and density, including an invariance to parameterisation as in my own intrinsic losses of old!, which the author calls likelihood-based loss function,  mentioning f-divergences, the resulting estimator(s) is a Wallace-Freeman estimator (of which there may be several). I did not get very deep into the study of the convergence proof, which seems to borrow more from real analysis à la Rudin than from functional analysis or measure theory, but keep returning to the apparent dependence of the notion on the dominating measure, which bothers me.

freedom to discriminate???

“Gay students and teachers could be rejected by religious schools under changes to anti-discrimination laws being recommended by a federal review into religious freedom.” The Guardian, 9 Oct. 2018

The quote is not speaking of one of the 72 countries in the World where homosexuality is considered a crime (with 13 states applying the death penalty), but of Australia, ranked 8th on the Economist 2017 Democracy Index, where religious freedom arguments are legally recognised as a right to discriminate against homosexual students and staff. (As an aside, Australia still has a blasphemy law.)

“While the panel accepted the right of religious school to discriminate against students on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, it could see no justification for a school to discriminate on the basis of race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status.” The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 Oct. 2018

I find it flabbergasting that such newspeak inversions (also found in the French “Manif pour tous” slogans turning égalité into a discrimination argument against homosexual weddings and adoptions) can find their way into a legislative text. And more generally that religions can still continue to promote gender discrimination with no consequences.

down-under ABC paper accepted in JCGS!

Great news!, the ABC paper we had originally started in 2012 in Melbourne with Gael Martin and Brendan MacCabe, before joining forces with David Frazier and Worapree Maneesoothorn, in expanding its scope to using auxiliary likelihoods to run ABC in state-space models, just got accepted in the Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics. A reason to celebrate with a Mornington Peninsula Pinot Gris wine next time I visit Monash!

statisticians at the Academy

Today, two statisticians (and good friends of mine) from Australia, Noel Cressie and Kerrie Mengersen, got elected at the Australian Academy of Sciences. Congratulations to them!

science tidbits

Several interesting entries in Le Monde Science & Médecine of this week (24 Jan 2018):

1. This incredible report in the Journal of Ethnobiology of fire-spreading raptors, Black Kite, Whistling Kite, and Brown Falcon, who carry burning material to start fires further away and thus expose rodents and insects. This behaviour was already reported in some Aboriginal myths, as now backed up by independent observations.
2. A report by Etienne Ghys of the opening of a new CNRS unit in mathematics in… London! The Abraham de Moivre Laboratory is one of the 36 mixed units located outside France to facilitate exchanges and collaborations. In the current case, in collaboration with Imperial. And as a mild antidote to Brexit and its consequences on exchanges between the UK and the EU. (When discussing Martin Hairer’s conference, Etienne forgot to mention his previous affiliation with Warwick.)
3. A good-will-bad-stats article on the impact of increasing the number of urban bicycle trips to reduce the number of deaths. With the estimation that if 25% of the daily trips over 167 European (and British!) cities were done by bike, 10,000 deaths per year could be avoided! I have not read the original study, but I wonder at the true impact of this increase. If 25% of the commutes are made by bike, the remaining 75% are not and hence use polluting means of transportation. This means more citizens travelling by bike are exposed to the exhausts and fumes of cars, buses, trucks, &tc. Which should see an increase in respiratory diseases, including deaths, rather than a decrease. Unless this measure is associated with banning all exhaust emissions from cities, which does not sound a very likely outcome, even in Paris.
4. An incoming happening at Cité internationale des Arts in Paris, on Feb 2-3, entitled “we are not the number we believe we are” (in French), based on the universe(s) of Ursula Le Guin who most sadly passed away the day the journal came out.
5. A diffusion of urban riots in the suburbs of Paris in 2005 that closely follows epidemiological models of flu epidemics, using “a single sociological variable characterizing neighbourhood deprivation”. (Estimation of the SIR model is apparently done by maximum likelihood and model comparison by AIC, given the ODE nature of the models, ABC would have been quite appropriate for a Bayesian modelling!)

ABC forecasts

My friends and co-authors David Frazier, Gael Martin, Brendan McCabe, and Worapree Maneesoonthorn arXived a paper on ABC forecasting at the turn of the year. ABC prediction is a natural extension of ABC inference in that, provided the full conditional of a future observation given past data and parameters is available but the posterior is not, ABC simulations of the parameters induce an approximation of the predictive. The paper thus considers the impact of this extension on the precision of the predictions. And argues that it is possible that this approximation is preferable to running MCMC in some settings. A first interesting result is that using ABC and hence conditioning on an insufficient summary statistic has no asymptotic impact on the resulting prediction, provided Bayesian concentration of the corresponding posterior takes place as in our convergence paper under revision.

“…conditioning inference about θ on η(y) rather than y makes no difference to the probabilistic statements made about [future observations]”

The above result holds both in terms of convergence in total variation and for proper scoring rules. Even though there is always a loss in accuracy in using ABC. Now, one may think this is a direct consequence of our (and others) earlier convergence results, but numerical experiments on standard time series show the distinct feature that, while the [MCMC] posterior and ABC posterior distributions on the parameters clearly differ, the predictives are more or less identical! With a potential speed gain in using ABC, although comparing parallel ABC versus non-parallel MCMC is rather delicate. For instance, a preliminary parallel ABC could be run as a burnin’ step for parallel MCMC, since all chains would then be roughly in the stationary regime. Another interesting outcome of these experiments is a case when the summary statistics produces a non-consistent ABC posterior, but still leads to a very similar predictive, as shown on this graph.This unexpected accuracy in prediction may further be exploited in state space models, towards producing particle algorithms that are greatly accelerated. Of course, an easy objection to this acceleration is that the impact of the approximation is unknown and un-assessed. However, such an acceleration leaves room for multiple implementations, possibly with different sets of summaries, to check for consistency over replicates.

highway to Hell [so long, Malcom!]