Archive for component of a mixture

warp-U bridge sampling

Posted in Books, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 12, 2016 by xi'an

[I wrote this set of comments right after MCqMC 2016 on a preliminary version of the paper so mileage may vary in terms of the adequation to the current version!]

In warp-U bridge sampling, newly arXived and first presented at MCqMC 16, Xiao-Li Meng continues (in collaboration with Lahzi Wang) his exploration of bridge sampling techniques towards improving the estimation of normalising constants and ratios thereof. The bridge sampling estimator of Meng and Wong (1996) is an harmonic mean importance sampler that requires iterations as it depends on the ratio of interest. Given that the normalising constant of a density does not depend on the chosen parameterisation in the sense that the Jacobian transform preserves this constant, a degree of freedom is in the choice of the parameterisation. This is the idea behind warp transformations. The initial version of Meng and Schilling (2002) used location-scale transforms, while the warp-U solution goes for a multiple location-scale transform that can be seen as based on a location-scale mixture representation of the target. With K components. This approach can also be seen as a sort of artificial reversible jump algorithm when one model is fully known. A strategy Nicolas and I also proposed in our nested sampling Biometrika paper.

Once such a mixture approximation is obtained. each and every component of the mixture can be turned into the standard version of the location-scale family by the appropriate location-scale transform. Since the component index k is unknown for a given X, they call this transform a random transform, which I find somewhat more confusing that helpful. The conditional distribution of the index given the observable x is well-known for mixtures and it is used here to weight the component-wise location-scale transforms of the original distribution p into something that looks rather similar to the standard version of the location-scale family. If no mode has been forgotten by the mixture. The simulations from the original p are then rescaled by one of those transforms, which index k is picked according to the conditional distribution. As explained later to me by XL, the random[ness] in the picture is due to the inclusion of a random ± sign. Still, in the notation introduced in (13), I do not get how the distribution Þ [sorry for using different symbols, I cannot render a tilde on a p] is defined since both ψ and W are random. Is it the marginal? In which case it would read as a weighted average of rescaled versions of p. I have the same problem with Theorem 1 in that I do not understand how one equates Þ with the joint distribution.

Equation (21) is much more illuminating (I find) than the previous explanation in that it exposes the fact that the principle is one of aiming at a new distribution for both the target and the importance function, with hopes that the fit will get better. It could have been better to avoid the notion of random transform, then, but this is mostly a matter of conveying the notion.

On more specifics points (or minutiae), the unboundedness of the likelihood is rarely if ever a problem when using EM. An alternative to the multiple start EM proposal would then be to get sequential and estimate the mixture in a sequential manner, only adding a component when it seems worth it. See eg Chopin and Pelgrin (2004) and Chopin (2007). This could also help with the bias mentioned therein since only a (tiny?) fraction of the data would be used. And the number of components K has an impact on the accuracy of the approximation, as in not missing a mode, and on the computing time. However my suggestion would be to avoid estimating K as this must be immensely costly.

Section 6 obviously relates to my folded Markov interests. If I understand correctly, the paper argues that the transformed density Þ does not need to be computed when considering the folding-move-unfolding step as a single step rather than three steps. I fear the description between equations (30) and (31) is missing the move step over the transformed space. Also on a personal basis I still do not see how to add this approach to our folding methodology, even though the different transforms act as as many replicas of the original Markov chain.

at CIRM [#3]

Posted in Kids, Mountains, pictures, Running, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 4, 2016 by xi'an

Simon Barthelmé gave his mini-course on EP, with loads of details on the implementation of the method. Focussing on the EP-ABC and MCMC-EP versions today. Leaving open the difficulty of assessing to which limit EP is converging. But mentioning the potential for asynchronous EP (on which I would like to hear more). Ironically using several times a logistic regression example, if not on the Pima Indians benchmark! He also talked about approximate EP solutions that relate to consensus MCMC. With a connection to Mark Beaumont’s talk at NIPS [at the time as mine!] on the comparison with ABC. While we saw several talks on EP during this week, I am still agnostic about the potential of the approach. It certainly produces a fast proxy to the true posterior and hence can be exploited ad nauseam in inference methods based on pseudo-models like indirect inference. In conjunction with other quick and dirty approximations when available. As in ABC, it would be most useful to know how far from the (ideal) posterior distribution does the approximation stands. Machine learning approaches presumably allow for an evaluation of the predictive performances, but less so for the modelling accuracy, even with new sampling steps. [But I know nothing, I know!]

Dennis Prangle presented some on-going research on high dimension [data] ABC. Raising the question of what is the true meaning of dimension in ABC algorithms. Or of sample size. Because the inference relies on the event d(s(y),s(y’))≤ξ or on the likelihood l(θ|x). Both one-dimensional. Mentioning Iain Murray’s talk at NIPS [that I also missed]. Re-expressing as well the perspective that ABC can be seen as a missing or estimated normalising constant problem as in Bornn et al. (2015) I discussed earlier. The central idea is to use SMC to simulate a particle cloud evolving as the target tolerance ξ decreases. Which supposes a latent variable structure lurking in the background.

Judith Rousseau gave her talk on non-parametric mixtures and the possibility to learn parametrically about the component weights. Starting with a rather “magic” result by Allman et al. (2009) that three repeated observations per individual, all terms in a mixture are identifiable. Maybe related to that simpler fact that mixtures of Bernoullis are not identifiable while mixtures of Binomial are identifiable, even when n=2. As “shown” in this plot made for X validated. Actually truly related because Allman et al. (2009) prove identifiability through a finite dimensional model. (I am surprised I missed this most interesting paper!) With the side condition that a mixture of p components made of r Bernoulli products is identifiable when p ≥ 2[log² r] +1, when log² is base 2-logarithm. And [x] the upper rounding. I also find most relevant this distinction between the weights and the remainder of the mixture as weights behave quite differently, hardly parameters in a sense.

Particle Gibbs for conjugate mixture posteriors

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , on September 8, 2015 by xi'an

Alexandre Bouchard-Coté, Arnaud Doucet, and Andrew Roth have arXived a paper “Particle Gibbs Split-Merge Sampling for Bayesian Inference in Mixture Models” that proposes an efficient algorithm to explore the posterior distribution of a mixture, when interpreted as a clustering model. (To clarify the previous sentence, this is a regular plain vanilla mixture model for which they explore the latent variable representation.)

I like very much the paper because it relates to an earlier paper of mine with George Casella and Marty Wells, paper we wrote right after a memorable JSM in Baltimore (during what may have been my last visit to Cornell University as George left for Florida the following year). The starting point of this approach to mixture estimation is that the (true) parameters of a mixture can be (exactly) integrated out when using conjugate priors and a completion step. Namely, the marginal posterior distribution of the latent variables given the data is available in closed form. The latent variables being the component allocations for the observations. The joint posterior is then a product of the prior on the parameters times the prior on the latents times a product of simple (e.g., Gaussian) terms. This equivalently means the marginal likelihoods conditional on the allocations are available in closed form. Looking directly at those marginal likelihoods, a prior distribution on the allocations can be introduced (e.g., the Pitman-Yor process or the finite Dirichlet prior) and, together, they define a closed form target. Albeit complex. As often on a finite state space. In our paper with George and Marty, we proposed using importance sampling to explore the set, using for instance marginal distributions for the allocations, which are uniform in the case of exchangeable priors, but this is not very efficient, as exhibited by our experiments where very few partitions would get most of the weight.

Even a Gibbs sampler on subsets of those indicators restricted to two components cannot be managed directly. The paper thus examines a specially designed particle Gibbs solution that implements a split and merge move on two clusters at a time. Merging or splitting the subset. With intermediate target distributions, SMC style. While this is quite an involved mechanism, that could be deemed as excessive for the problem at hand, as well as inducing extra computing time, experiments in the paper demonstrate the mostly big improvement in efficiency brought by this algorithm.

dynamic mixtures [at NBBC15]

Posted in R, Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 18, 2015 by xi'an

KleifarvatnA funny coincidence: as I was sitting next to Arnoldo Frigessi at the NBBC15 conference, I came upon a new question on Cross Validated about a dynamic mixture model he had developed in 2002 with Olga Haug and Håvård Rue [whom I also saw last week in Valencià]. The dynamic mixture model they proposed replaces the standard weights in the mixture with cumulative distribution functions, hence the term dynamic. Here is the version used in their paper (x>0)

(1-w_{\mu,\tau}(x))f_{\beta,\lambda}(x)+w_{\mu,\tau}(x)g_{\epsilon,\sigma}(x)

where f is a Weibull density, g a generalised Pareto density, and w is the cdf of a Cauchy distribution [all distributions being endowed with standard parameters]. While the above object is not a mixture of a generalised Pareto and of a Weibull distributions (instead, it is a mixture of two non-standard distributions with unknown weights), it is close to the Weibull when x is near zero and ends up with the Pareto tail (when x is large). The question was about simulating from this distribution and, while an answer was in the paper, I replied on Cross Validated with an alternative accept-reject proposal and with a somewhat (if mildly) non-standard MCMC implementation enjoying a much higher acceptance rate and the same fit.

Overfitting Bayesian mixture models with an unknown number of components

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , on March 4, 2015 by xi'an

During my Czech vacations, Zoé van Havre, Nicole White, Judith Rousseau, and Kerrie Mengersen1 posted on arXiv a paper on overfitting mixture models to estimate the number of components. This is directly related with Judith and Kerrie’s 2011 paper and with Zoé’s PhD topic. The paper also returns to the vexing (?) issue of label switching! I very much like the paper and not only because the author are good friends!, but also because it brings a solution to an approach I briefly attempted with Marie-Anne Gruet in the early 1990’s, just before finding about the reversible jump MCMC algorithm of Peter Green at a workshop in Luminy and considering we were not going to “beat the competition”! Hence not publishing the output of our over-fitted Gibbs samplers that were nicely emptying extra components… It also brings a rebuke about a later assertion of mine’s at an ICMS workshop on mixtures, where I defended the notion that over-fitted mixtures could not be detected, a notion that was severely disputed by David McKay…

What is so fantastic in Rousseau and Mengersen (2011) is that a simple constraint on the Dirichlet prior on the mixture weights suffices to guarantee that asymptotically superfluous components will empty out and signal they are truly superfluous! The authors here cumulate the over-fitted mixture with a tempering strategy, which seems somewhat redundant, the number of extra components being a sort of temperature, but eliminates the need for fragile RJMCMC steps. Label switching is obviously even more of an issue with a larger number of components and identifying empty components seems to require a lack of label switching for some components to remain empty!

When reading through the paper, I came upon the condition that only the priors of the weights are allowed to vary between temperatures. Distinguishing the weights from the other parameters does make perfect sense, as some representations of a mixture work without those weights. Still I feel a bit uncertain about the fixed prior constraint, even though I can see the rationale in not allowing for complete freedom in picking those priors. More fundamentally, I am less and less happy with independent identical or exchangeable priors on the components.

Our own recent experience with almost zero weights mixtures (and with Judith, Kaniav, and Kerrie) suggests not using solely a Gibbs sampler there as it shows poor mixing. And even poorer label switching. The current paper does not seem to meet the same difficulties, maybe thanks to (prior) tempering.

The paper proposes a strategy called Zswitch to resolve label switching, which amounts to identify a MAP for each possible number of components and a subsequent relabelling. Even though I do not entirely understand the way the permutation is constructed. I wonder in particular at the cost of the relabelling.

the demise of the Bayes factor

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , on December 8, 2014 by xi'an

alphaPost1nalphaPost2n

With Kaniav Kamary, Kerrie Mengersen, and Judith Rousseau, we have just arXived (and submitted) a paper entitled “Testing hypotheses via a mixture model”. (We actually presented some earlier version of this work in Cancũn, Vienna, and Gainesville, so you may have heard of it already.) The notion we advocate in this paper is to replace the posterior probability of a model or an hypothesis with the posterior distribution of the weights of a mixture of the models under comparison. That is, given two models under comparison,

\mathfrak{M}_1:x\sim f_1(x|\theta_1) \text{ versus } \mathfrak{M}_2:x\sim f_2(x|\theta_2)

we propose to estimate the (artificial) mixture model

\mathfrak{M}_{\alpha}:x\sim\alpha f_1(x|\theta_1) + (1-\alpha) f_2(x|\theta_2)

and in particular derive the posterior distribution of α. One may object that the mixture model is neither of the two models under comparison but this is the case at the boundary, i.e., when α=0,1. Thus, if we use prior distributions on α that favour the neighbourhoods of 0 and 1, we should be able to see the posterior concentrate near 0 or 1, depending on which model is true. And indeed this is the case: for any given Beta prior on α, we observe a higher and higher concentration at the right boundary as the sample size increases. And establish a convergence result to this effect. Furthermore, the mixture approach offers numerous advantages, among which [verbatim from the paper]:

Continue reading

label switching in Bayesian mixture models

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on October 31, 2014 by xi'an

cover of Mixture Estimation and ApplicationsA referee of our paper on approximating evidence for mixture model with Jeong Eun Lee pointed out the recent paper by Carlos Rodríguez and Stephen Walker on label switching in Bayesian mixture models: deterministic relabelling strategies. Which appeared this year in JCGS and went beyond, below or above my radar.

Label switching is an issue with mixture estimation (and other latent variable models) because mixture models are ill-posed models where part of the parameter is not identifiable. Indeed, the density of a mixture being a sum of terms

\sum_{j=1}^k \omega_j f(y|\theta_i)

the parameter (vector) of the ω’s and of the θ’s is at best identifiable up to an arbitrary permutation of the components of the above sum. In other words, “component #1 of the mixture” is not a meaningful concept. And hence cannot be estimated.

This problem has been known for quite a while, much prior to EM and MCMC algorithms for mixtures, but it is only since mixtures have become truly estimable by Bayesian approaches that the debate has grown on this issue. In the very early days, Jean Diebolt and I proposed ordering the components in a unique way to give them a meaning. For instant, “component #1” would then be the component with the smallest mean or the smallest weight and so on… Later, in one of my favourite X papers, with Gilles Celeux and Merrilee Hurn, we exposed the convergence issues related with the non-identifiability of mixture models, namely that the posterior distributions were almost always multimodal, with a multiple of k! symmetric modes in the case of exchangeable priors, and therefore that Markov chains would have trouble to visit all those modes in a symmetric manner, despite the symmetry being guaranteed from the shape of the posterior. And we conclude with the slightly provocative statement that hardly any Markov chain inferring about mixture models had ever converged! In parallel, time-wise, Matthew Stephens had completed a thesis at Oxford on the same topic and proposed solutions for relabelling MCMC simulations in order to identify a single mode and hence produce meaningful estimators. Giving another meaning to the notion of “component #1”.

And then the topic began to attract more and more researchers, being both simple to describe and frustrating in its lack of definitive answer, both from simulation and inference perspectives. Rodriguez’s and Walker’s paper provides a survey on the label switching strategies in the Bayesian processing of mixtures, but its innovative part is in deriving a relabelling strategy. Which consists of finding the optimal permutation (at each iteration of the Markov chain) by minimising a loss function inspired from k-means clustering. Which is connected with both Stephens’ and our [JASA, 2000] loss functions. The performances of this new version are shown to be roughly comparable with those of other relabelling strategies, in the case of Gaussian mixtures. (Making me wonder if the choice of the loss function is not favourable to Gaussian mixtures.) And somehow faster than Stephens’ Kullback-Leibler loss approach.

“Hence, in an MCMC algorithm, the indices of the parameters can permute multiple times between iterations. As a result, we cannot identify the hidden groups that make [all] ergodic averages to estimate characteristics of the components useless.”

One section of the paper puzzles me, albeit it does not impact the methodology and the conclusions. In Section 2.1 (p.27), the authors consider the quantity

p(z_i=j|{\mathbf y})

which is the marginal probability of allocating observation i to cluster or component j. Under an exchangeable prior, this quantity is uniformly equal to 1/k for all observations i and all components j, by virtue of the invariance under permutation of the indices… So at best this can serve as a control variate. Later in Section 2.2 (p.28), the above sentence does signal a problem with those averages but it seem to attribute it to MCMC behaviour rather than to the invariance of the posterior (or to the non-identifiability of the components per se). At last, the paper mentions that “given the allocations, the likelihood is invariant under permutations of the parameters and the allocations” (p.28), which is not correct, since eqn. (8)

f(y_i|\theta_{\sigma(z_i)}) =f(y_i|\theta_{\tau(z_i)})

does not hold when the two permutations σ and τ give different images of zi