## logic (not logistic!) regression

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 12, 2020 by xi'an

A Bayesian Analysis paper by Aliaksandr Hubin, Geir Storvik, and Florian Frommlet on Bayesian logic regression was open for discussion. Here are some hasty notes I made during our group discussion in Paris Dauphine (and later turned into a discussion submitted to Bayesian Analysis):

“Originally logic regression was introduced together with likelihood based model selection, where simulated annealing served as a strategy to obtain one “best” model.”

Indeed, logic regression is not to be confused with logistic regression! Rejection of a true model in Bayesian model choice leads to Bayesian model choice and… apparently to Bayesian logic regression. The central object of interest is a generalised linear model based on a vector of binary covariates and using some if not all possible logical combinations (trees) of said covariates (leaves). The GLM is further using rather standard indicators to signify whether or not some trees are included in the regression (and hence the model). The prior modelling on the model indices sounds rather simple (simplistic?!) in that it is only function of the number of active trees, leading to an automated penalisation of larger trees and not accounting for a possible specificity of some covariates. For instance when dealing with imbalanced covariates (much more 1 than 0, say).

A first question is thus how much of a novel model this is when compared with say an analysis of variance since all covariates are dummy variables. Culling the number of trees away from the exponential of exponential number of possible covariates remains obscure but, without it, the model is nothing but variable selection in GLMs, except for “enjoying” a massive number of variables. Note that there could be a connection with variable length Markov chain models but it is not exploited there.

“…using Jeffrey’s prior for model selection has been widely criticized for not being consistent once the true model coincides with the null model.”

A second point that strongly puzzles me in the paper is its loose handling of improper priors. It is well-known that improper priors are at worst fishy in model choice settings and at best avoided altogether, to wit the Lindley-Jeffreys paradox and friends. Not only does the paper adopts the notion of a same, improper, prior on the GLM scale parameter, which is a position adopted in some of the Bayesian literature, but it also seems to be using an improper prior on each set of parameters (further undifferentiated between models). Because the priors operate on different (sub)sets of parameters, I think this jeopardises the later discourse on the posterior probabilities of the different models since they are not meaningful from a probabilistic viewpoint, with no joint distribution as a reference, neither marginal density. In some cases, p(y|M) may become infinite. Referring to a “simple Jeffrey’s” prior in this setting is therefore anything but simple as Jeffreys (1939) himself shied away from using improper priors on the parameter of interest. I find it surprising that this fundamental and well-known difficulty with improper priors in hypothesis testing is not even alluded to in the paper. Its core setting thus seems to be flawed. Now, the numerical comparison between Jeffrey’s [sic] prior and a regular g-prior exhibits close proximity and I thus wonder at the reason. Could it be that the culling and selection processes end up having the same number of variables and thus eliminate the impact of the prior? Or is it due to the recourse to a Laplace approximation of the marginal likelihood that completely escapes the lack of definition of the said marginal? Computing the normalising constant and repeating this computation while the algorithm is running ignores the central issue.

“…hereby, all states, including all possible models of maximum sized, will eventually be visited.”

Further, I found some confusion between principles and numerics. And as usual bemoan the acronym inflation with the appearance of a GMJMCMC! Where G stands for genetic (algorithm), MJ for mode jumping, and MCMC for…, well no surprise there! I was not aware of the mode jumping algorithm of Hubin and Storvik (2018), so cannot comment on the very starting point of the paper. A fundamental issue with Markov chains on discrete spaces is that the notion of neighbourhood becomes quite fishy and is highly dependent on the nature of the covariates. And the Markovian aspects are unclear because of the self-avoiding aspect of the algorithm. The novel algorithm is intricate and as such seems to require a superlative amount of calibration. Are all modes truly visited, really? (What are memetic algorithms?!)

## comparison of Bayesian predictive methods for model selection

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 9, 2015 by xi'an

“Dupuis and Robert (2003) proposed choosing the simplest model with enough explanatory power, for example 90%, but did not discuss the effect of this threshold for the predictive performance of the selected models. We note that, in general, the relative explanatory power is an unreliable indicator of the predictive performance of the submodel,”

Juho Piironen and Aki Vehtari arXived a survey on Bayesian model selection methods that is a sequel to the extensive survey of Vehtari and Ojanen (2012). Because most of the methods described in this survey stem from Kullback-Leibler proximity calculations, it includes some description of our posterior projection method with Costas Goutis and Jérôme Dupuis. We indeed did not consider prediction in our papers and even failed to include consistency result, as I was pointed out by my discussant in a model choice meeting in Cagliari, in … 1999! Still, I remain fond of the notion of defining a prior on the embedding model and of deducing priors on the parameters of the submodels by Kullback-Leibler projections. It obviously relies on the notion that the embedding model is “true” and that the submodels are only approximations. In the simulation experiments included in this survey, the projection method “performs best in terms of the predictive ability” (p.15) and “is much less vulnerable to the selection induced bias” (p.16).

Reading the other parts of the survey, I also came to the perspective that model averaging makes much more sense than model choice in predictive terms. Sounds obvious stated that way but it took me a while to come to this conclusion. Now, with our mixture representation, model averaging also comes as a natural consequence of the modelling, a point presumably not stressed enough in the current version of the paper. On the other hand, the MAP model now strikes me as artificial and linked to a very rudimentary loss function. A loss that does not account for the final purpose(s) of the model. And does not connect to the “all models are wrong” theorem.

## Sequentially Constrained Monte Carlo

Posted in Books, Mountains, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , on November 7, 2014 by xi'an This newly arXived paper by S. Golchi and D. Campbell from Vancouver (hence the above picture) considers the (quite) interesting problem of simulating from a target distribution defined by a constraint. This is a question that have bothered me for a long while as I could not come up with a satisfactory solution all those years… Namely, when considering a hard constraint on a density, how can we find a sequence of targets that end up with the restricted density? This is of course connected with the zero measure case posted a few months ago. For instance, how do we efficiently simulate a sample from a Student’s t distribution with a fixed sample mean and a fixed sample variance?

“The key component of SMC is the filtering sequence of distributions through which the particles evolve towards the target distribution.” (p.3)

This is indeed the main issue! The paper considers using a sequence of intermediate targets hardening progressively the constraint(s), along with an SMC sampler, but this recommendation remains rather vague and hence I am at loss as to how to make it work when the exact constraint implies a change of measure. The first example is monotone regression where y has mean f(x) and f is monotone. (Everything is unidimensional here.) The sequence is then defined by adding a multiplicative term that is a function of ∂f/∂x, for instance

Φ(τ∂f/∂x),

with τ growing to infinity to make the constraint moving from soft to hard. An interesting introduction, even though the hard constraint does not imply a change of parameter space or of measure. The second example is about estimating the parameters of an ODE, with the constraint being the ODE being satisfied exactly. Again, not exactly what I was looking for. But with an exotic application to deaths from the 1666 Black (Death) plague.

And then the third example is about ABC and the choice of summary statistics! The sequence of constraints is designed to keep observed and simulated summary statistics close enough when the dimension of those summaries increases, which means they are considered simultaneously rather than jointly. (In the sense of Ratmann et al., 2009. That is, with a multidimensional distance.) The model used for the application of the SMC is the dynamic model of Wood (2010, Nature). The outcome of this specific implementation is not that clear compared with alternatives… And again sadly does not deal with the/my zero measure issue.

## Catching up faster by switching sooner

Posted in R, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , on October 26, 2011 by xi'an

Here is our discussion (with Nicolas Chopin) of the Read Paper of last Wednesday by T. van Erven, P. Grünwald and S. de Rooij (Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam), entitled Catching up faster by switching sooner: a predictive approach to adaptive estimation with an application to the Akaike information criterion–Bayesian information criterion dilemma. It is still available for written discussions, to be published in Series B. Even though the topic is quite tangential to our interests, the fact that the authors evolve in a Bayesian environment called for the following (my main contribution being in pointing out that the procedure is not Bayesian by failing to incorporate the switch in the predictive (6), hence using the same data for all models under competition…): Figure 1 – Bayes factors of Model 2 vs.~Model 1 (gray line) and Model 3 vs.~Model 1 (dark line), plotted against the number of observations, i.e. of iterations, when comparing three stochastic volatility models; see Chopin et al. (2011) for full details.

This paper is an interesting attempt at a particularly important problem. We nonetheless believe more classical tools should be used instead if models are truly relevant in the inference led by the authors: Figure 1, reproduced from Chopin et al. (2011), plots [against time] the Bayes factors of Models 2 and 3 vs. Model 1, where all models are state-space models of increasing complexity, fitted to some real data. In this context, one often observes that more complex models need more time to “ascertain themselves”. On the other hand, even BMA based prediction is a very challenging computational problem (the only generic solution currently being the SMC² algorithm of the aforementioned paper), and we believe that the current proposed predictive strategy will remain too computationally expensive for practical use for nonlinear state-space models.

For other classes of models, since the provable methods put forward by this paper are based on “frozen strategies”, which are hard to defend from a modelling perspective, and since the more reasonable “basic switch” strategy seems to perform as well numerically, we would be curious to see how the proposed methods compare to predictive distributions obtained from genuine Bayesian models. A true change point model for instance would generate a coherent prediction strategy, which is not equivalent to the basic switch strategy. (Indeed, for one thing, the proposal made by the authors utilises the whole past to compute the switching probabilities, rather than allocating the proper portion of the data to the relevant model. In this sense, the proposal is “using the data [at least] twice” in a pseudo-Bayesian setting, similar to Aitkin’s, 1991.) More generally, the authors seem to focus on situations where the true generative process is a non-parametric class, and the completed models is an infinite sequence of richer and richer—but also of more and more complex—parametric models, which is a very sensible set-up in practice. Then, we wonder whether or not it would make more sense to set the prior distribution over the switch parameter s in such a way that (a) switches only occurs from one model to another model with greater complexity and (b) the number of switches is infinite.

For ABC readers, note the future Read Paper meeting on December 14 by Paul Fearnhead and Dennis Prangle.