Archive for BIC

Lindley’s paradox as a loss of resolution

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , on November 9, 2016 by xi'an

“The principle of indifference states that in the absence of prior information, all mutually exclusive models should be assigned equal prior probability.”

lindleypColin LaMont and Paul Wiggins arxived a paper on Lindley’s paradox a few days ago. The above quote is the (standard) argument for picking (½,½) partition between the two hypotheses, which I object to if only because it does not stand for multiple embedded models. The main point in the paper is to argue about the loss of resolution induced by averaging against the prior, as illustrated by the picture above for the N(0,1) versus N(μ,1) toy problem. What they call resolution is the lowest possible mean estimate for which the null is rejected by the Bayes factor (assuming a rejection for Bayes factors larger than 1). While the detail is missing, I presume the different curves on the lower panel correspond to different choices of L when using U(-L,L) priors on μ… The “Bayesian rejoinder” to the Lindley-Bartlett paradox (p.4) is in tune with my interpretation, namely that as the prior mass under the alternative gets more and more spread out, there is less and less prior support for reasonable values of the parameter, hence a growing tendency to accept the null. This is an illustration of the long-lasting impact of the prior on the posterior probability of the model, because the data cannot impact the tails very much.

“If the true prior is known, Bayesian inference using the true prior is optimal.”

This sentence and the arguments following is meaningless in my opinion as knowing the “true” prior makes the Bayesian debate superfluous. If there was a unique, Nature provided, known prior π, it would loose its original meaning to become part of the (frequentist) model. The argument is actually mostly used in negative, namely that since it is not know we should not follow a Bayesian approach: this is, e.g., the main criticism in Inferential Models. But there is no such thing as a “true” prior! (Or a “true’ model, all things considered!) In the current paper, this pseudo-natural approach to priors is utilised to justify a return to the pseudo-Bayes factors of the 1990’s, when one part of the data is used to stabilise and proper-ise the (improper) prior, and a second part to run the test per se. This includes an interesting insight on the limiting cases of partitioning corresponding to AIC and BIC, respectively, that I had not seen before. With the surprising conclusion that “AIC is the derivative of BIC”!

a Bayesian criterion for singular models [discussion]

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 10, 2016 by xi'an

London Docks 12/02/09[Here is the discussion Judith Rousseau and I wrote about the paper by Mathias Drton and Martyn Plummer, a Bayesian criterion for singular models, which was discussed last week at the Royal Statistical Society. There is still time to send a written discussion! Note: This post was written using the latex2wp converter.]

It is a well-known fact that the BIC approximation of the marginal likelihood in a given irregular model {\mathcal M_k} fails or may fail. The BIC approximation has the form

\displaystyle BIC_k = \log p(\mathbf Y_n| \hat \pi_k, \mathcal M_k) - d_k \log n /2

where {d_k } corresponds on the number of parameters to be estimated in model {\mathcal M_k}. In irregular models the dimension {d_k} typically does not provide a good measure of complexity for model {\mathcal M_k}, at least in the sense that it does not lead to an approximation of

\displaystyle \log m(\mathbf Y_n |\mathcal M_k) = \log \left( \int_{\mathcal M_k} p(\mathbf Y_n| \pi_k, \mathcal M_k) dP(\pi_k|k )\right) \,.

A way to understand the behaviour of {\log m(\mathbf Y_n |\mathcal M_k) } is through the effective dimension

\displaystyle \tilde d_k = -\lim_n \frac{ \log P( \{ KL(p(\mathbf Y_n| \pi_0, \mathcal M_k) , p(\mathbf Y_n| \pi_k, \mathcal M_k) ) \leq 1/n | k ) }{ \log n}

when it exists, see for instance the discussions in Chambaz and Rousseau (2008) and Rousseau (2007). Watanabe (2009} provided a more precise formula, which is the starting point of the approach of Drton and Plummer:

\displaystyle \log m(\mathbf Y_n |\mathcal M_k) = \log p(\mathbf Y_n| \hat \pi_k, \mathcal M_k) - \lambda_k(\pi_0) \log n + [m_k(\pi_0) - 1] \log \log n + O_p(1)

where {\pi_0} is the true parameter. The authors propose a clever algorithm to approximate of the marginal likelihood. Given the popularity of the BIC criterion for model choice, obtaining a relevant penalized likelihood when the models are singular is an important issue and we congratulate the authors for it. Indeed a major advantage of the BIC formula is that it is an off-the-shelf crierion which is implemented in many softwares, thus can be used easily by non statisticians. In the context of singular models, a more refined approach needs to be considered and although the algorithm proposed by the authors remains quite simple, it requires that the functions { \lambda_k(\pi)} and {m_k(\pi)} need be known in advance, which so far limitates the number of problems that can be thus processed. In this regard their equation (3.2) is both puzzling and attractive. Attractive because it invokes nonparametric principles to estimate the underlying distribution; puzzling because why should we engage into deriving an approximation like (3.1) and call for Bayesian principles when (3.1) is at best an approximation. In this case why not just use a true marginal likelihood?

1. Why do we want to use a BIC type formula?

The BIC formula can be viewed from a purely frequentist perspective, as an example of penalised likelihood. The difficulty then stands into choosing the penalty and a common view on these approaches is to choose the smallest possible penalty that still leads to consistency of the model choice procedure, since it then enjoys better separation rates. In this case a {\log \log n} penalty is sufficient, as proved in Gassiat et al. (2013). Now whether or not this is a desirable property is entirely debatable, and one might advocate that for a given sample size, if the data fits the smallest model (almost) equally well, then this model should be chosen. But unless one is specifying what equally well means, it does not add much to the debate. This also explains the popularity of the BIC formula (in regular models), since it approximates the marginal likelihood and thus benefits from the Bayesian justification of the measure of fit of a model for a given data set, often qualified of being a Bayesian Ockham’s razor. But then why should we not compute instead the marginal likelihood? Typical answers to this question that are in favour of BIC-type formula include: (1) BIC is supposingly easier to compute and (2) BIC does not call for a specification of the prior on the parameters within each model. Given that the latter is a difficult task and that the prior can be highly influential in non-regular models, this may sound like a good argument. However, it is only apparently so, since the only justification of BIC is purely asymptotic, namely, in such a regime the difficulties linked to the choice of the prior disappear. This is even more the case for the sBIC criterion, since it is only valid if the parameter space is compact. Then the impact of the prior becomes less of an issue as non informative priors can typically be used. With all due respect, the solution proposed by the authors, namely to use the posterior mean or the posterior mode to allow for non compact parameter spaces, does not seem to make sense in this regard since they depend on the prior. The same comments apply to the author’s discussion on Prior’s matter for sBIC. Indeed variations of the sBIC could be obtained by penalizing for bigger models via the prior on the weights, for instance as in Mengersen and Rousseau (2011) or by, considering repulsive priors as in Petralia et al. (20120, but then it becomes more meaningful to (again) directly compute the marginal likelihood. Remains (as an argument in its favour) the relative computational ease of use of sBIC, when compared with the marginal likelihood. This simplification is however achieved at the expense of requiring a deeper knowledge on the behaviour of the models and it therefore looses the off-the-shelf appeal of the BIC formula and the range of applications of the method, at least so far. Although the dependence of the approximation of {\log m(\mathbf Y_n |\mathcal M_k)} on {\mathcal M_j }, $latex {j \leq k} is strange, this does not seem crucial, since marginal likelihoods in themselves bring little information and they are only meaningful when compared to other marginal likelihoods. It becomes much more of an issue in the context of a large number of models.

2. Should we care so much about penalized or marginal likelihoods ?

Marginal or penalized likelihoods are exploratory tools in a statistical analysis, as one is trying to define a reasonable model to fit the data. An unpleasant feature of these tools is that they provide numbers which in themselves do not have much meaning and can only be used in comparison with others and without any notion of uncertainty attached to them. A somewhat richer approach of exploratory analysis is to interrogate the posterior distributions by either varying the priors or by varying the loss functions. The former has been proposed in van Havre et l. (2016) in mixture models using the prior tempering algorithm. The latter has been used for instance by Yau and Holmes (2013) for segmentation based on Hidden Markov models. Introducing a decision-analytic perspective in the construction of information criteria sounds to us like a reasonable requirement, especially when accounting for the current surge in studies of such aspects.

[Posted as arXiv:1610.02503]

non-local priors for mixtures

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 15, 2016 by xi'an

[For some unknown reason, this commentary on the paper by Jairo Fúquene, Mark Steel, David Rossell —all colleagues at Warwick— on choosing mixture components by non-local priors remained untouched in my draft box…]

Choosing the number of components in a mixture of (e.g., Gaussian) distributions is a hard problem. It may actually be an altogether impossible problem, even when abstaining from moral judgements on mixtures. I do realise that the components can eventually be identified as the number of observations grows to infinity, as demonstrated foFaith, Barossa Valley wine: strange name for a Shiraz (as it cannot be a mass wine!, but nice flavoursr instance by Judith Rousseau and Kerrie Mengersen (2011). But for a finite and given number of observations, how much can we trust any conclusion about the number of components?! It seems to me that the criticism about the vacuity of point null hypotheses, namely the logical absurdity of trying to differentiate θ=0 from any other value of θ, applies to the estimation or test on the number of components of a mixture. Doubly so, one might argue, since a very small or a very close component is undistinguishable from a non-existing one. For instance, Definition 2 is correct from a mathematical viewpoint, but it does not spell out the multiple contiguities between k and k’ component mixtures.

The paper starts with a comprehensive coverage of l’état de l’art… When using a Bayes factor to compare a k-component and an h-component mixture, the behaviour of the factor is quite different depending on which model is correct. Essentially overfitted mixtures take much longer to detect than underfitted ones, which makes intuitive sense. And BIC should be corrected for overfitted mixtures by a canonical dimension λ between the true and the (larger) assumed number of parameters  into

2 log m(y) = 2 log p(y|θ) – λ log O(n) + O(log log n)

I would argue that this purely invalidates BIG in mixture settings since the canonical dimension λ is unavailable (and DIC does not provide a useful substitute as we illustrated a decade ago…) The criticism about Rousseau and Mengersen (2011) over-fitted mixture that their approach shrinks less than a model averaging over several numbers of components relates to minimaxity and hence sounds both overly technical and reverting to some frequentist approach to testing. Replacing testing with estimating sounds like the right idea.  And I am also unconvinced that a faster rate of convergence of the posterior probability or of the Bayes factor is a relevant factor when conducting

As for non local priors, the notion seems to rely on a specific topology for the parameter space since a k-component mixture can approach a k’-component mixture (when k'<k) in a continuum of ways (even for a given parameterisation). This topology seems to be summarised by the penalty (distance?) d(θ) in the paper. Is there an intrinsic version of d(θ), given the weird parameter space? Like one derived from the Kullback-Leibler distance between the models? The choice of how zero is approached clearly has an impact on how easily the “null” is detected, the more because of the somewhat discontinuous nature of the parameter space. Incidentally, I find it curious that only the distance between means is penalised… The prior also assumes independence between component parameters and component weights, which I think is suboptimal in dealing with mixtures, maybe suboptimal in a poetic sense!, as we discussed in our reparameterisation paper. I am not sure either than the speed the distance converges to zero (in Theorem 1) helps me to understand whether the mixture has too many components for the data’s own good when I can run a calibration experiment under both assumptions.

While I appreciate the derivation of a closed form non-local prior, I wonder at the importance of the result. Is it because this leads to an easier derivation of the posterior probability? I do not see the connection in Section 3, except maybe that the importance weight indeed involves this normalising constant when considering several k’s in parallel. Is there any convergence issue in the importance sampling solution of (3.1) and (3.3) since the simulations are run under the local posterior? While I appreciate the availability of an EM version for deriving the MAP, a fact I became aware of only recently, is it truly bringing an improvement when compared with picking the MCMC simulation with the highest completed posterior?

The section on prior elicitation is obviously of central interest to me! It however seems to be restricted to the derivation of the scale factor g, in the distance, and of the parameter q in the Dirichlet prior on the weights. While the other parameters suffer from being allocated the conjugate-like priors. I would obviously enjoy seeing how this approach proceeds with our non-informative prior(s). In this regard, the illustration section is nice, but one always wonders at the representative nature of the examples and the possible interpretations of real datasets. For instance, when considering that the Old Faithful is more of an HMM than a mixture.

ABC by subset simulation

Posted in Books, Statistics, Travel with tags , , , , , , , , , on August 25, 2016 by xi'an

Last week, Vakilzadeh, Beck and Abrahamsson arXived a paper entitled “Using Approximate Bayesian Computation by Subset Simulation for Efficient Posterior Assessment of Dynamic State-Space Model Classes”. It follows an earlier paper by Beck and co-authors on ABC by subset simulation, paper that I did not read. The model of interest is a hidden Markov model with continuous components and covariates (input), e.g. a stochastic volatility model. There is however a catch in the definition of the model, namely that the observable part of the HMM includes an extra measurement error term linked with the tolerance level of the ABC algorithm. Error term that is dependent across time, the vector of errors being within a ball of radius ε. This reminds me of noisy ABC, obviously (and as acknowledged by the authors), but also of some ABC developments of Ajay Jasra and co-authors. Indeed, as in those papers, Vakilzadeh et al. use the raw data sequence to compute their tolerance neighbourhoods, which obviously bypasses the selection of a summary statistic [vector] but also may drown signal under noise for long enough series.

“In this study, we show that formulating a dynamical system as a general hierarchical state-space model enables us to independently estimate the model evidence for each model class.”

Subset simulation is a nested technique that produces a sequence of nested balls (and related tolerances) such that the conditional probability to be in the next ball given the previous one remains large enough. Requiring a new round of simulation each time. This is somewhat reminding me of nested sampling, even though the two methods differ. For subset simulation, estimating the level probabilities means that there also exists a converging (and even unbiased!) estimator for the evidence associated with different tolerance levels. Which is not a particularly natural object unless one wants to turn it into a tolerance selection principle, which would be quite a novel perspective. But not one adopted in the paper, seemingly. Given that the application section truly compares models I must have missed something there. (Blame the long flight from San Francisco to Sydney!) Interestingly, the different models as in Table 4 relate to different tolerance levels, which may be an hindrance for the overall validation of the method.

I find the subsequent part on getting rid of uncertain prediction error model parameters of lesser [personal] interest as it essentially replaces the marginal posterior on the parameters of interest by a BIC approximation, with the unsurprising conclusion that “the prior distribution of the nuisance parameter cancels out”.

model selection and multiple testing

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 23, 2015 by xi'an


Ritabrata Dutta, Malgorzata Bogdan and Jayanta Ghosh recently arXived a survey paper on model selection and multiple testing. Which provides a good opportunity to reflect upon traditional Bayesian approaches to model choice. And potential alternatives. On my way back from Madrid, where I got a bit distracted when flying over the South-West French coast, from Biarritz to Bordeaux. Spotting the lake of Hourtain, where I spent my military training month, 29 years ago!

“On the basis of comparison of AIC and BIC, we suggest tentatively that model selection rules should be used for the purpose for which they were introduced. If they are used for other problems, a fresh justification is desirable. In one case, justification may take the form of a consistency theorem, in the other some sort of oracle inequality. Both may be hard to prove. Then one should have substantial numerical assessment over many different examples.”

The authors quickly replace the Bayes factor with BIC, because it is typically consistent. In the comparison between AIC and BIC they mention the connundrum of defining a prior on a nested model from the prior on the nesting model, a problem that has not been properly solved in my opinion. The above quote with its call to a large simulation study reminded me of the paper by Arnold & Loeppky about running such studies through ecdfs. That I did not see as solving the issue. The authors also discuss DIC and Lasso, without making much of a connection between those, or with the above. And then reach the parametric empirical Bayes approach to model selection exemplified by Ed George’s and Don Foster’s 2000 paper. Which achieves asymptotic optimality for posterior prediction loss (p.9). And which unifies a wide range of model selection approaches.

A second part of the survey considers the large p setting, where BIC is not a good approximation to the Bayes factor (when testing whether or not all mean entries are zero). And recalls that there are priors ensuring consistency for the Bayes factor in this very [restrictive] case. Then, in Section 4, the authors move to what they call “cross-validatory Bayes factors”, also known as partial Bayes factors and pseudo-Bayes factors, where the data is split to (a) make the improper prior proper and (b) run the comparison or test on the remaining data. They also show the surprising result that, provided the fraction of the data used to proper-ise the prior does not converge to one, the X validated Bayes factor remains consistent [for the special case above]. The last part of the paper concentrates on multiple testing but is more tentative and conjecturing about convergence results, centring on the differences between full Bayes and empirical Bayes. Then the plane landed in Paris and I stopped my reading, not feeling differently about the topic than when the plane started from Madrid.

thick disc formation scenario of the Milky Way evaluated by ABC

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , on July 9, 2014 by xi'an

“The facts that the thick-disc episode lasted for several billion years, that a contraction is observed during the collapse phase, and that the main thick disc has a constant scale height with no flare argue against the formation of the thick disc through radial migration. The most probable scenario for the thick disc is that it formed while the Galaxy was gravitationally collapsing from well-mixed gas-rich giant clumps that were sustained by high turbulence, which prevented a thin disc from forming for a time, as proposed previously.”

Following discussions with astronomers from Besancon on the use of ABC methods to approximate posteriors, I was associated with their paper on assessing a formation scenario of the Milky Way, which was accepted a few weeks ago in Astronomy & Astrophysics. The central problem (was there a thin-then-thick disk?) somewhat escapes me, but this collaboration started when some of the astronomers leading the study contacted me about convergence issues with their MCMC algorithms and I realised they were using ABC-MCMC without any idea that it was in fact called ABC-MCMC and had been studied previously in another corner of the literature… The scale in the kernel was chosen to achieve an average acceptance rate of 5%-10%. Model are then compared by the combination of a log-likelihood approximation resulting from the ABC modelling and of a BIC ranking of the models.  (Incidentally, I was impressed at the number of papers published in Astronomy & Astrophysics. The monthly issue contains dozens of papers!)

dimension reduction in ABC [a review’s review]

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on February 27, 2012 by xi'an

What is very apparent from this study is that there is no single `best’ method of dimension reduction for ABC.

Michael Blum, Matt Nunes, Dennis Prangle and Scott Sisson just posted on arXiv a rather long review of dimension reduction methods in ABC, along with a comparison on three specific models. Given that the choice of the vector of summary statistics is presumably the most important single step in an ABC algorithm and as selecting too large a vector is bound to fall victim of the dimension curse, this is a fairly relevant review! Therein, the authors compare regression adjustments à la Beaumont et al.  (2002), subset selection methods, as in Joyce and Marjoram (2008), and projection techniques, as in Fearnhead and Prangle (2012). They add to this impressive battery of methods the potential use of AIC and BIC. (Last year after ABC in London I reported here on the use of the alternative DIC by Francois and Laval, but the paper is not in the bibliography, I wonder why.) An argument (page 22) for using AIC/BIC is that either provides indirect information about the approximation of p(θ|y) by p(θ|s); this does not seem obvious to me.

The paper also suggests a further regularisation of Beaumont et al.  (2002) by ridge regression, although L1 penalty à la Lasso would be more appropriate in my opinion for removing extraneous summary statistics. (I must acknowledge never being a big fan of ridge regression, esp. in the ad hoc version à la Hoerl and Kennard, i.e. in a non-decision theoretic approach where the hyperparameter λ is derived from the data by X-validation, since it then sounds like a poor man’s Bayes/Stein estimate, just like BIC is a first order approximation to regular Bayes factors… Why pay for the copy when you can afford the original?!) Unsurprisingly, ridge regression does better than plain regression in the comparison experiment when there are many almost collinear summary statistics, but an alternative conclusion could be that regression analysis is not that appropriate with  many summary statistics. Indeed, summary statistics are not quantities of interest but data summarising tools towards a better approximation of the posterior at a given computational cost… (I do not get the final comment, page 36, about the relevance of summary statistics for MCMC or SMC algorithms: the criterion should be the best approximation of p(θ|y) which does not depend on the type of algorithm.)

I find it quite exciting to see the development of a new range of ABC papers like this review dedicated to a better derivation of summary statistics in ABC, each with different perspectives and desideratas, as it will help us to understand where ABC works and where it fails, and how we could get beyond ABC…