**A**lthough it went completely out of my mind, thanks to a rather heavy travel schedule, I gave last week a short interview about the notion of mathematical models, which got broadcast this week on France Culture, one of the French public radio channels. Within the daily *La Méthode Scientifique* show, which is a one-hour emission on scientific issues, always a [rare] pleasure to listen to. (Including the day they invited Claire Voisin.) The theme of the show that day was about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, with the [classical] questioning of whether it is an efficient tool towards solving scientific (and inference?) problems because the mathematical objects pre-existed their use *or* we are (pre-)conditioned to use mathematics to solve problems. I somewhat sounded like a dog in a game of skittles, but it was interesting to listen to the philosopher discussing my relativistic perspective [provided you understand French!]. And I appreciated very much the way Céline Loozen the journalist who interviewed me sorted the chaff from the wheat in the original interview to make me sound mostly coherent! (A coincidence: Jean-Michel Marin got interviewed this morning on France Inter, the major public radio, about the Grothendieck papers.)

## Archive for foundations

## La déraisonnable efficacité des mathématiques

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags all models are wrong, Bayesian inference, foundations, France Culture, France Inter, Grothendieck, interview, M-open inference, Paris, philosophy of sciences, Radio France, statistical mathematics on May 11, 2017 by xi'an## machine learning and the future of realism

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, University life with tags anti-realism, Cornell University, foundations, machine learning, neural network, Newcastle, philosophy of sciences, prediction, realism on May 4, 2017 by xi'an**G**iles and Cliff Hooker arXived a paper last week with this intriguing title. (Giles Hooker is an associate professor of statistics and biology at Cornell U, with an interesting blog on the notion of models, while Cliff Hooker is a professor of philosophy at Newcastle U, Australia.)

“Our conclusion is that simplicity is too complex”

The debate in this short paper is whether or not machine learning relates to a model. Or is it concerned with sheer (“naked”) prediction? And then does it pertain to science any longer?! While it sounds obvious at first, defining why science is more than prediction of effects given causes is much less obvious, although prediction sounds more pragmatic and engineer-like than scientific. (Furthermore, *prediction* has a somewhat negative flavour in French, being used as a synonym to *divination* and opposed to *prévision*.) In more philosophical terms, prediction offers no ontological feature. As for a machine learning structure like a neural network being scientific or a-scientific, its black box nature makes it much more the later than the former, in that it brings no explanation for the connection between input and output, between regressed and regressors. It further lacks the potential for universality of scientific models. For instance, as mentioned in the paper, Newton’s law of gravitation applies to any pair of weighted bodies, while a neural network built on a series of observations could not be assessed or guaranteed outside the domain where those observations are taken. Plus, would miss the simple square law established by Newton. Most fascinating questions, undoubtedly! Putting the stress on models from a totally different perspective from last week at the RSS.

As for machine learning being a challenge to realism, I am none the wiser after reading the paper. Utilising machine learning tools to produce predictions of causes given effects does not seem to modify the structure of the World and very little our understanding of it, since they do not bring explanation *per se*. What would lead to anti-realism is the adoption of those tools as substitutes for scientific theories and models.

## principles or unprincipled?!

Posted in Books, Kids, pictures, Statistics, Travel with tags all models are wrong, Bayesian Fiducial & Frequentist Conference, Bayesian principles, Error-Statistical philosophy, foundations, Harvard Square, philosophy of sciences, Science Centre on May 2, 2017 by xi'an**A** lively and wide-ranging discussion during the Bayes, Fiducial, Frequentist conference was about whether or not we should look for principles. Someone mentioned Terry Speed (2016) claim that it does not help statistics in being principled. Against being efficient. Which gets quite close in my opinion to arguing in favour of a no-U-turn move to machine learning—which requires a significant amount of data to reach this efficiency, as Xiao-Li Meng mentioned—. The debate brought me back to my current running or droning argument on the need to accommodate [more] the difference between models and reality. Not throwing away statistics and models altogether, but developing assessments that are not fully chained to those models. While keeping probabilistic models to handle uncertainty. One pessimistic conclusion I drew from the discussion is that while we [as academic statisticians] may set principles and even teach our students how to run principled and ethical statistical analyses, there is not much we can do about the daily practice of users of statistics…

## Fourth Bayesian, Fiducial, and Frequentist Conference

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, Travel, University life, Wines with tags Bayesian Analysis, Cambridge, Error-Statistical philosophy, foundations, Harvard University, Philosophy of Science, snow, Statistics done wrong on March 29, 2017 by xi'an**N**ext May 1-3, I will attend the 4th Bayesian, Fiducial and Frequentist Conference at Harvard University (hopefully not under snow at that time of year), which is a meeting between philosophers and statisticians about foundational thinking in statistics and inference under uncertainty. This should be fun! (Registration is now open.)

## Le bayésianisme aujourd’hui

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags Bayesianism, book chapter, epistemology, foundations, France, French book, game theory, Philosophy of Science on September 19, 2016 by xi'an**A** few years ago, I was asked by Isabelle Drouet to contribute a chapter to a multi-disciplinary book on the Bayesian paradigm, book that is now soon to appear. In French. It has this rather ugly title of *Bayesianism today*. Not that I had hear of *Bayesianism* or *bayésianime* previously. There are chapters on the Bayesian notion(s) of probability, game theory, statistics, on applications, and on the (potentially) Bayesian structure of human intelligence. Most of it is thus outside statistics, but I will certainly read through it when I receive my copy.

## Validity and the foundations of statistical inference

Posted in Statistics with tags asymptotics, Bayesian inference, calibration, confidence, fiducial distribution, foundations, frequentist inference, p-values, pivot on July 29, 2016 by xi'an**N**atesh pointed out to me this recent arXival with a somewhat grandiose abstract:

In this paper, we argue that the primary goal of the foundations of statisticsis to provide data analysts with a set of guiding principles that are guaranteedto lead to valid statistical inference. This leads to two new questions: “whatis valid statistical inference?” and “do existing methods achieve this?” Towardsanswering these questions, this paper makes three contributions. First, we expressstatistical inference as a process of converting observations into degrees of belief, andwe give a clear mathematical definition of what it means for statistical inferenceto be valid. Second, we evaluate existing approaches Bayesian and frequentistapproaches relative to this definition and conclude that, in general, these fail toprovide valid statistical inference. This motivates a new way of thinking, and ourthird contribution is a demonstration that the inferential model framework meetsthe proposed criteria for valid and prior-free statistical inference, thereby solvingperhaps the most important unsolved problem in statistics.

Since solving the “most important unsolved problem in statistics” sounds worth pursuing, I went and checked the paper‘s contents.

“To us, the primary goal of the foundations of statistics is to provide a set of guiding principles that, if followed, will guarantee validity of the resulting inference. Our motivation for writing this paper is to be clear about what is meant by valid inference and to provide the necessary principles to help data analysts achieve validity.”

Which can be interpreted in so many ways that it is somewhat meaningless…

“…if real subjective prior information is available, we recommend using it. However, there is an expanding collection of work (e.g., machine learning, etc) that takes the perspective that no real prior information is available. Even a large part of the literature claiming to be Bayesian has abandoned the interpretation of the prior as a serious part of the model, opting for “default” prior that “works.” Our choice to omit a prior from the model is not for the (misleading) purpose of being “objective”—subjectivity is necessary—but, rather, for the purpose of exploring what can be done in cases where a fully satisfactory prior is not available, to see what improvements can be made over the status quo.”

This is a pretty traditional criticism of the Bayesian approach, namely that if a “true” prior is provided (by whom?) then it is optimal to use it. But this amounts to turn the prior into another piece of the sampling distribution and is not in my opinion a Bayesian argument! Most of the criticisms in the paper are directed at objective Bayes approaches, with the surprising conclusion that, because there exist cases where no matching prior is available, “the objective Bayesian approach [cannot] be considered as a general framework for scientific inference.” (p.9)

Another section argues that a Bayesian modelling cannot describe a state of total ignorance. This is formally correct, which is why there is no such thing as a non-informative or the non-informative prior, as often discussed here, but is this truly relevant, in that the inference problem contains one way or another information about the parameter, for instance through a loss function or a pseudo-likelihood.

“This is a desirable property that most existing methods lack.”

The proposal central to the paper thesis is to replace posterior probabilities by belief functions b(.|X), called statistical inference, that are interpreted as measures of evidence about subsets A of the parameter space. If not necessarily as probabilities. This is not very novel, witness the works of Dempster, Shafer and subsequent researchers. And not very much used outside Bayesian and fiducial statistics because of the mostly impossible task of defining a function over all subsets of the parameter space. Because of the subjectivity of such “beliefs”, they will be “valid” only if they are well-calibrated in the sense of b(A|X) being sub-uniform, that is, more concentrated near zero than a uniform variate (i.e., small) under the alternative, i.e. when θ is not in A. At this stage, since this is a mix of a minimax and proper coverage condition, my interest started to quickly wane… Especially because the sub-uniformity condition is highly demanding, if leading to controls over the Type I error and the frequentist coverage. As often, I wonder at the meaning of a calibration property obtained over all realisations of the random variable and all values of the parameter. So for me stability is neither “desirable” nor “essential”. Overall, I have increasing difficulties in perceiving proper coverage as a relevant property. Which has no stronger or weaker meaning that the coverage derived from a Bayesian construction.

“…frequentism does not provide any guidance for selecting a particular rule or procedure.”

I agree with this assessment, which means that there is no such thing as frequentist inference, but rather a philosophy for assessing procedures. That the Gleser-Hwang paradox invalidates this philosophy sounds a bit excessive, however. Especially when the bounded nature of Bayesian credible intervals is also analysed as a failure. A more relevant criticism is the lack of directives for picking procedures.

“…we are the first to recognize that the belief function’s properties are necessary in order for the inferential output to satisfy the required validity property”

The construction of the “inferential model” proposed by the authors offers similarities withn fiducial inference, in that it builds upon the representation of the observable X as X=a(θ,U). With further constraints on the function a() to ensure the validity condition holds… An interesting point is that the functional connection X=a(θ,U) means that the nature of U changes once X is observed, albeit in a delicate manner outside a Bayesian framework. When illustrated on the Gleser-Hwang paradox, the resolution proceeds from an arbitrary choice of a one-dimensional summary, though. (As I am reading the paper, I realise it builds on other and earlier papers by the authors, papers that I cannot read for lack of time. I must have listned to a talk by one of the authors last year at JSM as this rings a bell. Somewhat.) In conclusion of a quick Sunday afternoon read, I am not convinced by the arguments in the paper and even less by the impression of a remaining arbitrariness in setting the resulting procedure.

## how individualistic should statistics be?

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics with tags ABC, All of Statistics, ancilarity, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, Bayesian inference, conditioning, control, foundations, frequentist inference, minimaxity, p-values, The Bayesian Choice on November 5, 2015 by xi'an**K**eli Liu and Xiao-Li Meng completed a paper on the very nature of inference, to appear in The Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application. This paper or chapter is addressing a fundamental (and foundational) question on drawing inference based a sample on a new observation. That is, in making prediction. To what extent should the characteristics of the sample used for that prediction resemble those of the future observation? In his 1921 book, *A Treatise on Probability*, Keynes thought this similarity (or individualisation) should be pushed to its extreme, which led him to somewhat conclude on the impossibility of statistics and never to return to the field again. Certainly missing the incoming possibility of comparing models and selecting variables. And not building so much on the “all models are wrong” tenet. On the contrary, classical statistics use the entire data available and the associated model to run the prediction, including Bayesian statistics, although it is less clear how to distinguish between data and control there. Liu & Meng debate about the possibility of creating controls from the data alone. Or “alone” as the model behind always plays a capital role.

“Bayes and Frequentism are two ends of the same spectrum—a spectrum defined in terms of relevance and robustness. The nominal contrast between them (…) is a red herring.”

The paper makes for an exhilarating if definitely challenging read. With a highly witty writing style. If only because the perspective is unusual, to say the least!, and requires constant mental contortions to frame the assertions into more traditional terms. For instance, I first thought that Bayesian procedures were in agreement with the ultimate conditioning approach, since it conditions on the observables and nothing else (except for the model!). Upon reflection, I am not so convinced that there is such a difference with the frequentist approach in the (specific) sense that they both take advantage of the entire dataset. Either from the predictive or from the plug-in distribution. It all boils down to how one defines “control”.

“Probability and randomness, so tightly yoked in our minds, are in fact distinct concepts (…) at the end of the day, probability is essentially a tool for bookkeeping, just like the abacus.”

Some sentences from the paper made me think of ABC, even though I am not trying to bring everything back to ABC!, as drawing controls is the nature of the ABC game. ABC draws samples or control from the prior predictive and only keeps those for which the relevant aspects (or the summary statistics) agree with those of the observed data. Which opens similar questions about the validity and precision of the resulting inference, as well as the loss of information due to the projection over the summary statistics. While ABC is not mentioned in the paper, it can be used as a benchmark to walk through it.

“In the words of Jack Kiefer, we need to distinguish those problems with `luck data’ from those with `unlucky data’.”

I liked very much recalling discussions we had with George Casella and Costas Goutis in Cornell about frequentist conditional inference, with the memory of Jack Kiefer still lingering around. However, I am not so excited about the processing of models here since, from what I understand in the paper (!), the probabilistic model behind the statistical analysis must be used to some extent in producing the control case and thus cannot be truly assessed with a critical eye. For instance, of which use is the mean square error when the model behind is unable to produce the observed data? In particular, the variability of this mean squared error is directly driven by this model. Similarly the notion of ancillaries is completely model-dependent. In the classification diagrams opposing robustness to relevance, all methods included therein are parametric. While non-parametric types of inference could provide a reference or a calibration ruler, at the very least.

Also, by continuously and maybe a wee bit heavily referring to the doctor-and-patient analogy, the paper is somewhat confusing as to which parts are analogy and which parts are methodology and to which type of statistical problem is covered by the discussion (sometimes it feels like all problems and sometimes like medical trials).

“The need to deliver individualized assessments of uncertainty are more pressing than ever.”

A final question leads us to an infinite regress: if the statistician needs to turn to individualized inference, at which level of individuality should the statistician be assessed? And who is going to provide the controls then? In any case, this challenging paper is definitely worth reading by (only mature?) statisticians to ponder about the nature of the game!