**A**n infinite (mixture) session was truly the first one I could attend on Day 1, as a heap of unexpected last minute issues kept me busy or on hedge for the beginning of the day (if not preventing me from a dawn dip in Calanque de Morgiou). Using the CIRM video system for zoom talked required more preparation than I had thought and we made it barely in time for the first session, while I had to store zoom links for all speakers present in Luminy. Plus allocate sessions to the rooms provided by CIRM, twice since there was a mishap with the other workshop present at CIRM. And reassuring speakers, made anxious by the absence of a clear schedule. Chairing the second ABC session was also a tense moment, from checking every speaker could connect and share slides, to ensuring they kept on schedule (and they did on both!, ta’), to checking for questions at the end. Spotting a possible connection between Takuo Mastubara’s Stein’s approximation for in the ABC setup and a related paper by Liu and Lee I had read just a few days ago. Alas, it was too early to relax as an inverter in the CIRM room burned and led to a local power failure. Fortunately this was restored prior to the mixture session! (As several boars were spotted on the campus yesternight, I hope no tragic encounter happens before the end of the meeting!!!) So the mixture session proposed new visions on infering K, the number of components, some of which reminded me of… my first talk at CIRM where I was trying to get rid of empty components at each MCMC step, albeit in a much more rudimentary way obviously. And later had the wonderful surprise of hearing Xiao-Li’s lecture start by an excerpt from Car Talk, the hilarious Sunday morning radio talk-show about the art of used car maintenance on National Public Radio (NPR) that George Casella could not miss (and where a letter he wrote them about a mistaken probability computation was mentioned!). The final session of the day was an invited ABC session I chaired (after being exfiltrated from the CIRM dinner table!) with Kate Lee, Ryan Giordano, and Julien Stoehr as speakers. Besides Julien’s talk on our Gibbs-ABC paper, both other talks shared a concern with the frequentist properties of the ABC posterior, either to be used as a control tool or as a faster assessment of the variability of the (Monte Carlo) ABC output.

## Archive for finite mixtures

## ISBA 2021.1

Posted in Kids, Mountains, pictures, Running, Statistics, Travel, University life, Wines with tags ABC, Approximate Bayesian computation, boar, Car Talk, Charles Stein, CIRM, conference, dynamic mixture, finite mixtures, George Casella, ISBA, ISBA 2021, Luminy, Marseille, MCMC, Morgiou, NPR, organisers, talk-show on June 29, 2021 by xi'an## mathematical theory of Bayesian statistics [book review]

Posted in Books, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags AIC, Bayesian asymptotics, Bayesian statistics, book reviews, CHANCE, Cross Validation, DIC, finite mixtures, mathematical statistics, Metropolis algorithm, WAIC on May 6, 2021 by xi'an**I** came by chance (and not by CHANCE) upon this 2018 CRC Press book by Sumio Watanabe and ordered it myself to gather which material it really covered. As the back-cover blurb was not particularly clear and the title sounded quite general. After reading it, I found out that this is a mathematical treatise on some aspects of Bayesian information criteria, in particular on the Widely Applicable Information Criterion (WAIC) that was introduced by the author in 2010. The result is a rather technical and highly focussed book with little motivation or intuition surrounding the mathematical results, which may make the reading arduous for readers. Some background on mathematical statistics and Bayesian inference is clearly preferable and the book cannot be used as a textbook for most audiences, as opposed to eg An Introduction to Bayesian Analysis by J.K. Ghosh et al. or even more to Principles of Uncertainty by J. Kadane. In connection with this remark the exercises found in the book are closer to the delivery of additional material than to textbook-style exercises.

“posterior distributions are often far from any normal distribution, showing that Bayesian estimation gives the more accurate inference than other estimation methods.”

The overall setting is one where both the sampling and the prior distributions are different from respective “true” distributions. Requiring a tool to assess the discrepancy when utilising a specific pair of such distributions. Especially when the posterior distribution cannot be approximated by a Normal distribution. (Lindley’s paradox makes an interesting *incognito* incursion on p.238.) The WAIC is supported for the determination of the “true” model, in opposition to AIC and DIC, incl. on a mixture example that reminded me of our eight versions of DIC paper. In the “Basic Bayesian Theory” chapter (§3), the “basic theorem of Bayesian statistics” (p.85) states that the various losses related with WAIC can be expressed as second-order Taylor expansions of some cumulant generating functions, with order o(n⁻¹), “even if the posterior distribution cannot be approximated by any normal distribution” (p.87). With the intuition that

“if a log density ratio function has a relatively finite variance then the generalization loss, the cross validation loss, the training loss and WAIC have the same asymptotic behaviors.”

Obviously, these “basic” aspects should come as a surprise to a fair percentage of Bayesians (in the sense of not being particularly *basic*). Myself included. Chapter 4 exposes why, for regular models, the posterior distribution accumulates in an ε neighbourhood of the optimal parameter at a speed O(n^{2/5}). With the normalised partition function being of order n^{-d/2} in the neighbourhood and exponentially negligible outside. A consequence of this regular asymptotic theory is that all above losses are asymptotically equivalent to the negative log likelihood plus similar order n⁻¹ terms that can be ordered. Chapters 5 and 6 deal with “standard” [the likelihood ratio is a multi-index power of the parameter ω] and general posterior distributions that can be written as mixtures of standard distributions, with expressions of the above losses in terms of new universal constants. Again, a rather remote concern of mine. The book also includes a chapter (§7) on MCMC, with a rather involved proof that a Metropolis algorithm satisfies detailed balance (p.210). The Gibbs sampling section contains an extensive example on a two-dimensional two-component unit-variance Normal mixture, with an unusual perspective on the posterior, which is considered as “singular” when the true means are close. (Label switching or the absence thereof is not mentioned.) In terms of approximating the normalising constant (or free energy), the only method discussed there is path sampling, with a cryptic remark about harmonic mean estimators (not identified as such). In a final knapsack chapter (§9), Bayes factors (confusedly denoted as L(x)) are shown to be most powerful tests in a Bayesian sense when comparing hypotheses without prior weights on said hypotheses, while posterior probability ratios are the natural statistics for comparing models with prior weights on said models. (With Lindley’s paradox making another appearance, still *incognito*!) And a notion of *phase transition* for hyperparameters is introduced, with the meaning of a radical change of behaviour at a critical value of said hyperparameter. For instance, for a simple normal- mixture outlier model, the critical value of the Beta hyperparameter is α=2. Which is a wee bit of a surprise when considering Rousseau and Mengersen (2011) since their bound for consistency was α=d/2.

In conclusion, this is quite an original perspective on Bayesian models, covering the somewhat unusual (and potentially controversial) issue of misspecified priors and centered on the use of information criteria. I find the book could have benefited from further editing as I noticed many typos and somewhat unusual sentences (at least unusual to me).

*[Disclaimer about potential self-plagiarism: this post or an edited version should eventually appear in my Books Review section in CHANCE.]*

## simulation fodder for future exams

Posted in Books, Kids, R, Statistics with tags accept-reject algorithm, cross validated, finite mixtures, Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, simulation on February 20, 2019 by xi'an**H**ere are two nice exercises for a future simulation exam, seen and solved on X validated.The first one is about simulating a Gibbs sampler associated with the joint target

exp{-|x|-|y|-a|y-x|}

defined over IR² for a≥0 (or possibly a>-1). The conditionals are identical and non-standard, but a simple bound on the conditional density is the corresponding standard double exponential density, which makes for a straightforward accept-reject implementation. However it is also feasible to break the full conditional into three parts, depending on the respective positions of x, y, and 0, and to obtain easily invertible cdfs on the three intervals.The second exercise is about simulating from the cdf

which can be numerically inverted. It is however more fun to call for an accept-reject algorithm by bounding the density with a ½ ½ mixture of an Exponential Exp(a) and of the 1/(p+1)-th power of an Exponential Exp(b/(p+1)). Since no extra constant appears in the solution, I suspect the (p+1) in b/(p+1) was introduced on purpose. As seen in the above fit for 10⁶ simulations (and a=1,b=2,p=3), there is no deviation from the target! There is nonetheless an even simpler and rather elegant resolution to the exercise: since the tail function (1-F(x)) appears as the product of two tail functions, exp(-ax) and the other one, the cdf is the distribution of the minimum of two random variates, one with the Exp(a) distribution and the other one being the 1/(p+1)-th power of an Exponential Exp(b/(p+1)) distribution. Which of course returns a very similar histogram fit:

## alternatives to EM

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, EM algorithm, finite mixtures, Iverson bracket function, Lagrangian, latent class model, multinomial distribution, quasi-Newton resolution on January 30, 2019 by xi'an**I**n an arXived preprint submitted to *Computational Statistics & Data Analysis*, Chan, Han, and Lim study alternatives to EM for latent class models. That is, mixtures of products of Multinomials. (First occurrence of an indicator function being called the “Iverson bracket function”!) The introduction is fairly extensive given this most studied model. The criticisms of EM laid by the authors are that (a) it does not produce an evaluation of the estimation error, which does not sound correct; (b) the convergence is slow, which is also rather misleading as my [low dimensional] experience with mixtures is that it gets very quickly and apparently linearly to the vicinity of one of the modes. The argument in favour of alternative non-linear optimisation approaches is that they can achieve quadratic convergence. One solution is a projected Quasi-Newton method, based on a quadratic approximation to the target. With some additional intricacies that make the claim of being “way easier than EM algorithm” somewhat specious. The second approach proposed in the paper is sequential quadratic programming, which incorporates the Lagrange multiplier in the target. While the different simulations in the paper show that EM may indeed call for a much larger number of iterations, the obtained likelihoods all are comparable.