**A**fter a fairly long delay (since the first version was posted and submitted in December 2014), we eventually revised and resubmitted our paper with Kaniav Kamary [who has now graduated], Kerrie Mengersen, and Judith Rousseau on the final day of 2018. The main reason for this massive delay is mine’s, as I got fairly depressed by the general tone of the dozen of reviews we received after submitting the paper as a Read Paper in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Despite a rather opposite reaction from the community (an admittedly biased sample!) including two dozens of citations in other papers. (There seems to be a pattern in my submissions of Read Papers, witness our earlier and unsuccessful attempt with Christophe Andrieu in the early 2000’s with the paper on controlled MCMC, leading to 121 citations so far according to G scholar.) Anyway, thanks to my co-authors keeping up the fight!, we started working on a revision including stronger convergence results, managing to show that the approach leads to an optimal separation rate, contrary to the Bayes factor which has an extra √log(n) factor. This may sound paradoxical since, while the Bayes factor converges to 0 under the alternative model exponentially quickly, the convergence rate of the mixture weight α to 1 is of order 1/√n, but this does not mean that the separation rate of the procedure based on the mixture model is worse than that of the Bayes factor. On the contrary, while it is well known that the Bayes factor leads to a separation rate of order √log(n) in parametric models, we show that our approach can lead to a testing procedure with a better separation rate of order 1/√n. We also studied a non-parametric setting where the null is a specified family of distributions (e.g., Gaussians) and the alternative is a Dirichlet process mixture. Establishing that the posterior distribution concentrates around the null at the rate √log(n)/√n. We thus resubmitted the paper for publication, although not as a Read Paper, with hopefully more luck this time!

## Archive for Bayes factor

## mixture modelling for testing hypotheses

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags Bayes factor, Bayesian hypothesis testing, Christophe Andrieu, controlled MCMC, JRSSB, peer review, Read paper, revision, testing as mixture estimation, Ultimixt, University of Bristol on January 4, 2019 by xi'an## a glaring mistake

Posted in Statistics with tags Bayes factor, Bayesian hypothesis testing, Bayesian textbook, cross validated, Stack Exchange, The Bayesian Choice, typos on November 28, 2018 by xi'an**S**omeone posted this question about Bayes factors in my book on Saturday morning and I could not believe the glaring typo pointed out there had gone through the centuries without anyone noticing! There should be no index 0 or 1 on the θ’s in either integral (or indices all over). I presume I made this typo when cutting & pasting from the previous formula (which addressed the case of two point null hypotheses), but I am quite chagrined that I sabotaged the definition of the Bayes factor for generations of readers of the Bayesian Choice. Apologies!!!

## simulated summary statistics [in the sky]

Posted in Statistics with tags ABC, approximate likelihood, Bayes factor, computer-simulated model, cosmology, cosmostats, de-biasing, urbi et orbi on October 10, 2018 by xi'an**T**hinking it was related with ABC, although in the end it is not!, I recently read a baffling cosmology paper by Jeffrey and Abdalla. The data **d** there means an observed (summary) statistic, while the summary statistic is a transform of the parameter, μ(θ), which calibrates the distribution of the data. With nuisance parameters. More intriguing to me is the sentence that the correct likelihood of **d** is indexed by a simulated version of μ(θ), μ'(θ), rather than by μ(θ). Which seems to assume that the pseudo- or simulated data can be produced for the same value of the parameter as the observed data. The rest of the paper remains incomprehensible for I do not understand how the simulated versions are simulated.

“…the corrected likelihood is more than a factor of exp(30) more probable than the uncorrected. This is further validation of the corrected likelihood; the model (i.e. the corrected likelihood) shows a better goodness-of-fit.”

The authors further ressort to Bayes factors to compare corrected and uncorrected versions of the likelihoods, which leads (see quote) to picking the corrected version. But are they comparable as such, given that the corrected version involves simulations that are treated as supplementary data? As noted by the authors, the Bayes factor unsurprisingly goes to one as the number M of simulations grows to infinity, as supported by the graph below.

## are there a frequentist and a Bayesian likelihoods?

Posted in Statistics with tags Bayes factor, Bayes formula, cross validated, dominating measure, Harold Jeffreys, likelihood function, Metron, probability theory, R.A. Fisher, University of Amsterdam, wikipedia on June 7, 2018 by xi'an**A** question that came up on X validated and led me to spot rather poor entries in Wikipedia about both the likelihood function and Bayes’ Theorem. Where unnecessary and confusing distinctions are made between the frequentist and Bayesian versions of these notions. I have already discussed the later (Bayes’ theorem) a fair amount here. The discussion about the likelihood is quite bemusing, in that the likelihood function is the … function of the parameter equal to the density indexed by this parameter at the observed value.

“What we can find from a sample is the likelihood of any particular value of r, if we define the likelihood as a quantity proportional to the probability that, from a population having the particular value of r, a sample having the observed value of r, should be obtained.”R.A. Fisher,On the “probable error’’ of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample.Metron1, 1921, p.24

By mentioning an informal side to likelihood (rather than to likelihood function), and then stating that the likelihood is not a probability in the frequentist version but a probability in the Bayesian version, the W page makes a complete and unnecessary mess. Whoever is ready to rewrite this introduction is more than welcome! (Which reminded me of an earlier question also on X validated asking why a common reference measure was needed to define a likelihood function.)

This also led me to read a recent paper by Alexander Etz, whom I met at E.J. Wagenmakers‘ lab in Amsterdam a few years ago. Following Fisher, as Jeffreys complained about

“..likelihood, a convenient term introduced by Professor R.A. Fisher, though in his usage it is sometimes multiplied by a constant factor. This is the probability of the observations given the original information and the hypothesis under discussion.”H. Jeffreys,Theory of Probability, 1939, p.28

Alexander defines the likelihood up to a constant, which causes extra-confusion, for free!, as there is no foundational reason to introduce this degree of freedom rather than imposing an exact equality with the density of the data (albeit with an arbitrary choice of dominating measure, never neglect the dominating measure!). The paper also repeats the message that the likelihood is not a probability (density, *missing in the paper*). And provides intuitions about maximum likelihood, likelihood ratio and Wald tests. But does not venture into a separate definition of the likelihood, being satisfied with the fundamental notion to be plugged into the magical formula

posterior∝prior×likelihood

## Practicals of Uncertainty [book review]

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags applied Bayesian analysis, Bayes factor, Bayesian foundations, book review, CHANCE, Jay Kadane, principles of uncertainty, subjective versus objective Bayes on December 22, 2017 by xi'an**O**n my way to the O’Bayes 2017 conference in Austin, I [paradoxically!] went through Jay Kadane’s Pragmatics of Uncertainty, which had been published earlier this year by CRC Press. The book is to be seen as a practical illustration of the Principles of Uncertainty Jay wrote in 2011 (and I reviewed for CHANCE). The avowed purpose is to allow the reader to check through Jay’s applied work whether or not he had “made good” on setting out clearly the motivations for his subjective Bayesian modelling. (While I presume the use of the same P of U in both books is mostly a coincidence, I started wondering how a third P of U volume could be called. *Perils of Uncertainty*? *Peddlers of Uncertainty*? The game is afoot!)

The structure of the book is a collection of fifteen case studies undertaken by Jay over the past 30 years, covering paleontology, survey sampling, legal expertises, physics, climate, and even medieval Norwegian history. Each chapter starts with a short introduction that often explains how he came by the problem (most often as an interesting PhD student consulting project at CMU), what were the difficulties in the analysis, and what became of his co-authors. As noted by the author, the main bulk of each chapter is the reprint (in a unified style) of the paper and most of these papers are actually and freely available on-line. The chapter always concludes with an epilogue (or post-mortem) that re-considers (very briefly) what had been done and what could have been done and whether or not the Bayesian perspective was useful for the problem (unsurprisingly so for the majority of the chapters!). There are also reading suggestions in the other P of U and a few exercises.

“The purpose of the book is philosophical, to address, with specific examples, the question of whether Bayesian statistics is ready for prime time. Can it be used in a variety of applied settings to address real applied problems?”

The book thus comes as a logical complement of the Principles, to demonstrate how Jay himself did apply his Bayesian principles to specific cases and how one can set the construction of a prior, of a loss function or of a statistical model in identifiable parts that can then be criticised or reanalysed. I find browsing through this series of fourteen different problems fascinating and exhilarating, while I admire the dedication of Jay to every case he presents in the book. I also feel that this comes as a perfect complement to the earlier P of U, in that it makes refering to a complete application of a given principle most straightforward, the problem being entirely described, analysed, and in most cases solved within a given chapter. A few chapters have discussions, being published in the Valencia meeting proceedings or another journal with discussions.

While all papers have been reset in the book style, I wish the graphs had been edited as well as they do not always look pretty. Although this would have implied a massive effort, it would have also been great had each chapter and problem been re-analysed or at least discussed by another fellow (?!) Bayesian in order to illustrate the impact of individual modelling sensibilities. This may however be a future project for a graduate class. Assuming all datasets are available, which is unclear from the text.

“We think however that Bayes factors are overemphasized. In the very special case in which there are only two possible “states of the world”, Bayes factors are sufficient. However in the typical case in which there are many possible states of the world, Bayes factors are sufficient only when the decision-maker’s loss has only two values.” (p. 278)

The above is in Jay’s reply to a comment from John Skilling regretting the absence of marginal likelihoods in the chapter. Reply to which I completely subscribe.

*[Usual warning: this review should find its way into CHANCE book reviews at some point, with a fairly similar content.]*

## the Hyvärinen score is back

Posted in pictures, Statistics, Travel with tags Bayes factor, Bayesian model comparison, Bayesian model selection, consistency, Harvard University, Hyvärinen score, Lévy diffusion process, logarithmic score, Padova, penalisation, prior predictive, sequential Monte Carlo, SMC, SMC² on November 21, 2017 by xi'an**S**téphane Shao, Pierre Jacob and co-authors from Harvard have just posted on arXiv a new paper on Bayesian model comparison using the Hyvärinen score

which thus uses the Laplacian as a natural and normalisation-free penalisation for the score test. (Score that I first met in Padova, a few weeks before moving from X to IX.) Which brings a decision-theoretic alternative to the Bayes factor and which delivers a coherent answer when using improper priors. Thus a very appealing proposal in my (biased) opinion! The paper is mostly computational in that it proposes SMC and SMC² solutions to handle the estimation of the Hyvärinen score for models with tractable likelihoods and tractable completed likelihoods, respectively. (Reminding me that Pierre worked on SMC² algorithms quite early during his Ph.D. thesis.)

A most interesting remark in the paper is to recall that the Hyvärinen score associated with a generic model on a series must be the prequential (predictive) version

rather than the version on the joint marginal density of the whole series. (Followed by a remark within the remark that the logarithm scoring rule does not make for this distinction. And I had to write down the cascading representation

to convince myself that this unnatural decomposition, where the posterior on θ varies on each terms, is true!) For consistency reasons.

This prequential decomposition is however a plus in terms of computation when resorting to sequential Monte Carlo. Since each time step produces an evaluation of the associated marginal. In the case of state space models, another decomposition of the authors, based on measurement densities and partial conditional expectations of the latent states allows for another (SMC²) approximation. The paper also establishes that for non-nested models, the Hyvärinen score as a model selection tool asymptotically selects the closest model to the data generating process. For the divergence induced by the score. Even for state-space models, under some technical assumptions. From this asymptotic perspective, the paper exhibits an example where the Bayes factor and the Hyvärinen factor disagree, even asymptotically in the number of observations, about which mis-specified model to select. And last but not least the authors propose and assess a discrete alternative relying on finite differences instead of derivatives. Which remains a proper scoring rule.

I am quite excited by this work (call me biased!) and I hope it can induce following works as a viable alternative to Bayes factors, if only for being more robust to the [unspecified] impact of the prior tails. As in the above picture where some realisations of the SMC² output and of the sequential decision process see the wrong model being almost acceptable for quite a long while…

## WBIC, practically

Posted in Statistics with tags Bayes factor, Bayesian model selection, evidence, harmonic mean estimator, MCMC, nested sampling, Pima Indians, power posterior, thermodynamic integration, WBIC on October 20, 2017 by xi'an

“Thus far, WBIC has received no more than a cursory mention by Gelman et al. (2013)”

**I** had missed this 2015 paper by Nial Friel and co-authors on a practical investigation of Watanabe’s WBIC. Where WBIC stands for widely applicable Bayesian information criterion. The thermodynamic integration approach explored by Nial and some co-authors for the approximation of the evidence, thermodynamic integration that produces the log-evidence as an integral between temperatures t=0 and t=1 of a powered evidence, is eminently suited for WBIC, as the widely applicable Bayesian information criterion is associated with the specific temperature t⁰ that makes the power posterior equidistant, Kullback-Leibler-wise, from the prior and posterior distributions. And the expectation of the log-likelihood under this very power posterior equal to the (genuine) evidence. In fact, WBIC is often associated with the sub-optimal temperature 1/log(n), where n is the (effective?) sample size. (By comparison, if my minimalist description is unclear!, thermodynamic integration requires a whole range of temperatures and associated MCMC runs.) In an ideal Gaussian setting, WBIC improves considerably over thermodynamic integration, the larger the sample the better. In more realistic settings, though, including a simple regression and a logistic [Pima Indians!] model comparison, thermodynamic integration may do better for a given computational cost although the paper is unclear about these costs. The paper also runs a comparison with harmonic mean and nested sampling approximations. Since the integral of interest involves a power of the likelihood, I wonder if a safe version of the harmonic mean resolution can be derived from simulations of the genuine posterior. Provided the exact temperature t⁰ is known…