In the first issue of this year Biometrika, I spotted a paper with the above title, written by Wang, Kim, and Yang, and thought it was a particular case of ABC. However, when I read it on a rare metro ride to Dauphine, thanks to my hurting knee!, I got increasingly disappointed as the contents had nothing to do with ABC. The purpose of the paper was to derive a consistent and convergent posterior distribution based on a estimator of the parameter θ that is… consistent and convergent under informative sampling. Using for instance a Normal approximation to the sampling distribution of this estimator. Or to the sampling distribution of the pseudoscore function, S(θ) [which pseudonormality reminded me of Ron Gallant’s approximations and of my comments on them]. The paper then considers a generalisation to the case of estimating equations, U(θ), which may again enjoy a Normal asymptotic distribution. Involving an object that does not make direct Bayesian sense, namely the posterior of the parameter θ given U(θ)…. (The algorithm proposed to generate from this posterior (8) is also a mystery.) Since the approach requires consistent estimators to start with and aims at reproducing frequentist coverage properties, I am thus at a loss as to why this pseudoBayesian framework is adopted.
Archive for Bernsteinvon Mises theorem
approximate Bayesian inference under informative sampling
Posted in Books, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags ABC, approximate Bayesian inference, Bayesian semiparametrics, Bernsteinvon Mises theorem, Biometrika, estimating equations, generalised method of moments, RER B, Ron Gallant, sampling on March 30, 2018 by xi'anplenary talks at JSM 2017 in Baltimore
Posted in Statistics with tags Abraham Wald, Baltimore, Bernsteinvon Mises theorem, Emmanuel Candés, IMS, IMS Medallion, JSM 2017, Judith Rousseau, Mark Girolami, Maryland, probabilistic numerics on May 25, 2017 by xi'anweak convergence (…) in ABC
Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags ABC, Bernsteinvon Mises theorem, consistency, likelihoodfree methods, maximum likelihood estimation, pseudolikelihood, summary statistics on January 18, 2016 by xi'anSamuel Soubeyrand and Eric HaonLasportes recently published a paper in Statistics and Probability Letters that has some common features with the ABC consistency paper we wrote a few months ago with David Frazier and Gael Martin. And to the recent Li and Fearnhead paper on the asymptotic normality of the ABC distribution. Their approach is however based on a Bernsteinvon Mises [CLT] theorem for the MLE or a pseudoMLE. They assume that the density of this estimator is asymptotically equivalent to a Normal density, in which case the true posterior conditional on the estimator is also asymptotically equivalent to a Normal density centred at the (p)MLE. Which also makes the ABC distribution normal when both the sample size grows to infinity and the tolerance decreases to zero. Which is not completely unexpected. However, in complex settings, establishing the asymptotic normality of the (p)MLE may prove a formidable or even impossible task.
OBayes15 [day #1]
Posted in Books, pictures, Running, Statistics, Travel, University life, Wines with tags Bayesian lasso, Bernsteinvon Mises theorem, objective Bayes, robustness, Susie Bayarri, Valencia conferences, Valencia meeting on June 3, 2015 by xi'anSo here we are back together to talk about objective Bayes methods, and in the City of Valencià as well.! A move back to a city where the 1998 O’Bayes took place. In contrast with my introductory tutorial, the morning tutorials by Luis Pericchi and Judith Rousseau were investigating fairly technical and advanced, Judith looking at the tools used in the frequentist (Bernsteinvon Mises) analysis of priors, with forays in empirical Bayes, giving insights into a wide range of recent papers in the field. And Luis covering works on Bayesian robustness in the sense of resisting to overinfluential observations. Following works of him and of Tony O’Hagan and coauthors. Which means characterising tails of prior versus sampling distribution to allow for the posterior reverting to the prior in case of overinfluential datapoints. Funny enough, after a great opening by Carmen and Ed remembering Susie, Chris Holmes also covered Bayesian robust analysis. More in the sense of incompletely or mis specified models. (On the side, rekindling one comment by Susie and the need to embed robust Bayesian analysis within decision theory.) Which was also much Chris’ point, in line with the recent Watson and Holmes’ paper. Dan Simpson in his usual kicktheanthillrealhardandsetfiretoit discussion pointed out the possible discrepancy between objective and robust Bayesian analysis. (With lines like “modern statistics has proven disruptive to objective Bayes”.) Which is not that obvious because the robust approach simply reincorporates the decision theory within the objective framework. (Dan also concluded with the comic strip below, whose message can be interpreted in many ways…! Or not.)
The second talk of the afternoon was given by Veronika Ročková on a novel type of spikeandslab prior to handle sparse regression, bringing an alternative to the standard Lasso. The prior is a mixture of two Laplace priors whose scales are constrained in connection with the actual number of nonzero coefficients. I had not heard of this approach before (although Veronika and Ed have an earlier paper on a spikeandslab prior to handle multicolinearity that Veronika presented in Boston last year) and I was quite impressed by the combination of minimax properties and practical determination of the scales. As well as by the performances of this spikeandslab Lasso. I am looking forward the incoming paper!
The day ended most nicely in the botanical gardens of the University of Valencià, with an outdoor reception surrounded by palm trees and parakeet cries…
Bayesian nonparametrics
Posted in Statistics with tags asymptotics, Bayesian Analysis, Bayesian nonparametrics, Bernsteinvon Mises theorem, consistency, Dirichlet mixture priors, Dirichlet process, flexibility, inconsistent priors, nonparametric prior, prior modelling, robustness on April 8, 2013 by xi'anHere is a short discussion I wrote yesterday with Judith Rousseau of a paper by Peter Müller and Riten Mitra to appear in Bayesian Analysis.
“We congratulate the authors for this very pleasant overview of the type of problems that are currently tackled by Bayesian nonparametric inference and for demonstrating how prolific this field has become. We do share the authors viewpoint that many Bayesian nonparametric models allow for more flexible modelling than parametric models and thus capture finer details of the data. BNP can be a good alternative to complex parametric models in the sense that the computations are not necessarily more difficult in Bayesian nonparametric models. However we would like to mitigate the enthusiasm of the authors since, although we believe that Bayesian nonparametric has proved extremely useful and interesting, we think they oversell the “nonparametric side of the Force”! Our main point is that by definition, Bayesian nonparametric is based on prior probabilities that live on infinite dimensional spaces and thus are never completely swamped by the data. It is therefore crucial to understand which (or why!) aspects of the model are strongly influenced by the prior and how.
As an illustration, when looking at Example 1 with the censored zeroth cell, our reaction is that this is a problem with no proper solution, because it is lacking too much information. In other words, unless some parametric structure of the model is known, in which case the zeroth cell is related with the other cells, we see no way to infer about the size of this cell. The outcome produced by the authors is therefore unconvincing to us in that it seems to only reflect upon the prior modelling (α,G^{*}) and not upon the information contained in the data. Now, this prior modelling may be to some extent justified based on side information about the medical phenomenon under study, however its impact on the resulting inference is palatable.
Recently (and even less recently) a few theoretical results have pointed out this very issue. E.g., Diaconis and Freedman (1986) showed that some priors could surprisingly lead to inconsistent posteriors, even though it was later shown that many priors lead to consistent posteriors and often even to optimal asymptotic frequentist estimators, see for instance van der Vaart and van Zanten (2009) and Kruijer et al. (2010). The worry about Bayesian nonparametrics truly appeared when considering (1) asymptotic frequentist properties of semiparametric procedures; and (2) interpretation of inferential aspects of Bayesian nonparametric procedures. It was shown in various instances that some nonparametric priors which behaved very nicely for the estimation of the whole parameter could have disturbingly suboptimal behaviour for some specific functionals of interest, see for instance Arbel et al. (2013) and Rivoirard and Rousseau (2012). We do not claim here that asymptotics is the answer to everything however bad asymptotic behaviour shows that something wrong is going on and this helps understanding the impact of the prior. These disturbing bad results are an illustration that in these infinite dimensional models the impact of the prior modelling is difficult to evaluate and that although the prior looks very flexible it can in fact be highly informative and/or restrictive for some aspects of the parameter. It would thus be wrong to conclude that every aspect of the parameter is wellrecovered because some are. It has been a wellknown fact for Bayesian parametric models, leading to extensive research on reference and other types of objective priors. It is even more crucial in the nonparametric world. No (nonparametric) prior can be suited for every inferential aspect and it is important to understand which aspects of the parameter are wellrecovered and which ones are not.
We also concur with the authors that Dirichlet mixture priors provide natural clustering mechanisms, but one may question the “natural” label as the resulting clustering is quite unstructured, growing in the number of clusters as the number of observations increases and not incorporating any prior constraint on the “definition” of a cluster, except the one implicit and wellhidden behind the nonparametric prior. In short, it is delicate to assess what is eventually estimated by this clustering methods.
These remarks are not to be taken criticisms of the overall Bayesian nonparametric approach, just the contrary. We simply emphasize (or recall) that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that we need to post the price to pay for potential customers. In these models, this is far from easy and just as far from being completed.”
References

Arbel, J., Gayraud, G., and Rousseau, J. (2013). Bayesian adaptive optimal estimation using a sieve prior. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, to appear.

Diaconis, P. and Freedman, D. (1986). On the consistency of Bayes estimates. Ann. Statist., 14:126.

Kruijer, W., Rousseau, J., and van der Vaart, A. (2010). Adaptive Bayesian density estimation with locationscale mixtures. Electron. J. Stat., 4:12251257.

Rivoirard, V. and Rousseau, J. (2012). On the Bernstein Von Mises theorem for linear functionals of the density. Ann. Statist., 40:14891523.

van der Vaart, A. and van Zanten, J. H. (2009). Adaptive Bayesian estimation using a Gaussian random field with inverse Gamma bandwidth. Ann. Statist., 37:26552675.
recent arXiv postings
Posted in Statistics, University life with tags arXiv, Bernsteinvon Mises theorem, generalised linear models, nested sampling, particle filter, particle MCMC on October 17, 2011 by xi'anThree interesting recent arXiv postings and not enough time to read them all and in the ‘Og bind them! (Of course, comments from readers welcome!)
 Consistency and efficiency of Bayesian estimators in generalised linear inverse problems by Natalia Bochkina and Peter Green
Formulating a statistical inverse problem as one of inference in a Bayesian model has great appeal, notably for what this brings in terms of coherence, the interpretability of regularisation penalties, the integration of all uncertainties, and the principled way in which the setup can be elaborated to encompass broader features of the context, such as measurement error, indirect observation, etc. The Bayesian formulation comes close to the way that most scientists intuitively regard the inferential task, and in principle allows the free use of subject knowledge in probabilistic model building. However, in some problems where the solution is not unique, for example in illposed inverse problems, it is important to understand the relationship between the chosen Bayesian model and the resulting solution. Taking emission tomography as a canonical example for study, we present results about consistency of the posterior distribution of the reconstruction, and a general method to study convergence of posterior distributions. To study efficiency of Bayesian inference for illposed linear inverse problems with constraint, we prove a version of the Bernsteinvon Mises theorem for nonregular Bayesian models.
(Certainly unlikely to please the member of the audience in Zürich who questioned my Bayesian credentials for considering “true” models and consistency….)
 Efficient Particle Markov Chain Monte Carlo – Bayesian inference with a couple of particles by Fredrik Lindsten andThomas Schön
Recently, Andrieu, Doucet and Holenstein (2010) introduced a general framework for using particle filters (PFs) to construct proposal kernels for Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. This framework, termed Particle Markov chain Monte Carlo (PMCMC), was shown to provide powerful methods for joint Bayesian state and parameter inference in nonlinear/nonGaussian statespace models. However, the mixing of the resulting MCMC kernels can be quite sensitive, both to the number of particles used in the underlying PF and to the number of observations in the data. In this paper we suggest alternatives to the three PMCMC methods introduced in Andrieu et al. (2010), which are much more robust to a low number of particles as well as a large number of observations. We consider some challenging inference problems and show in a simulation study that, for problems where existing PMCMC methods require around 1000 particles, the proposed methods provide satisfactory results with as few as 5 particles.
(I have not read the paper enough indepth to be critical, however “hard” figures like 5, or 10³, are always suspicious in that they cannot carry to the general case…)
 BAMBI: blind accelerated multimodal Bayesian inference by Philip Graff, Farhan Feroz, Michael P. Hobson, and Anthony Lasenby
In this paper we present an algorithm for rapid Bayesian analysis that combines the benefits of nested sampling and artificial neural networks. The blind accelerated multimodal Bayesian inference (BAMBI) algorithm implements the MultiNest package for nested sampling as well as the training of an artificial neural network (NN) to learn the likelihood function. In the case of computationally expensive likelihoods, this allows the substitution of a much more rapid approximation in order to increase significantly the speed of the analysis. We begin by demonstrating, with a few toy examples, the ability of a NN to learn complicated likelihood surfaces. BAMBI’s ability to decrease running time for Bayesian inference is then demonstrated in the context of estimating cosmological parameters from WMAP and other observations. We show that valuable speed increases are achieved in addition to obtaining NNs trained on the likelihood functions for the different model and data combinations. These NNs can then be used for an even faster followup analysis using the same likelihood and different priors. This is a fully general algorithm that can be applied, without any preprocessing, to other problems with computationally expensive likelihood functions.
(This is primarily an astronomy paper that uses a sample produced by the nested sampling algorithm MultiNest to build a neural network instead of the model likelihood. The algorithm thus requires the likelihood to be available at some stage.)