**S**amuel Wiqvist and co-authors from Scandinavia have recently arXived a paper on a new version of delayed acceptance MCMC. The ADA in the novel algorithm stands for approximate and accelerated, where the approximation in the first stage is to use a Gaussian process to replace the likelihood. In our approach, we used subsets for partial likelihoods, ordering them so that the most varying sub-likelihoods were evaluated first. Furthermore, if a parameter reaches the second stage, the likelihood is not necessarily evaluated, based on the global probability that a second stage is rejected or accepted. Which of course creates an approximation. Even when using a local predictor of the probability. The outcome of a comparison in two complex models is that the delayed approach does not necessarily do better than particle MCMC in terms of effective sample size per second, since it does reject significantly more. Using various types of surrogate likelihoods and assessments of the approximation effect could boost the appeal of the method. Maybe using ABC first could suggest another surrogate?

## Archive for Gaussian processes

## delayed-acceptance. ADA boosted

Posted in Statistics with tags ABC, delayed acceptance, Gaussian processes, MCMC, particle MCMC, Scandinavia on August 11, 2019 by xi'an## uncertainty in the ABC posterior

Posted in Statistics with tags ABC, Bayesian Analysis, Gaussian processes, misspecified model, Monte Carlo error, prior predictive, synthetic likelihood on July 24, 2019 by xi'an**I**n the most recent Bayesian Analysis, Marko Järvenpää et al. (including my coauthor Aki Vehtari) consider an ABC setting where the number of available simulations of pseudo-samples is limited. And where they want to quantify the amount of uncertainty resulting from the estimation of the ABC posterior density. Which is a version of the Monte Carlo error in practical ABC, in that this is the difference between the ABC posterior density for a given choice of summaries and a given choice of tolerance, and the actual approximation based on a finite number of simulations from the prior predictive. As in earlier works by Michael Gutmann and co-authors, the focus stands in designing a sequential strategy to decide where to sample the next parameter value towards minimising a certain expected loss. And in adopting a Gaussian process modelling for the discrepancy between observed data and simulated data, hence generalising the synthetic likelihood approach. This allows them to compute the expectation and the variance of the unnormalised ABC posterior, based on plugged-in estimators. From where the authors derive a loss as the expected variance of the acceptance probability (although it is not parameterisation invariant). I am unsure I see the point for this choice in that there is no clear reason for the resulting sequence of parameter choices to explore the support of the posterior distribution in a relatively exhaustive manner. The paper also mentions alternatives where the next parameter is chosen at the location where “the uncertainty of the unnormalised ABC posterior is highest”. Which sounds more pertinent to me. And further avoids integrating out the parameter. I also wonder if ABC mis-specification analysis could apply in this framework since the Gaussian process is most certainly a “wrong” model. (When concluding this post, I realised I had written a similar entry two years ago about the earlier version of the paper!)

## probably ABC [and provably robust]

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, Travel with tags ABC, ABC-SMC, adaptive Monte Carlo algorithm, Bayesian asymptotics, CREST, Gaussian processes, likelihood-free methods, misspecified model, oracle inequalities on August 8, 2017 by xi'an**T**wo weeks ago, James Ridgway (formerly CREST) arXived a paper on misspecification and ABC, a topic on which David Frazier, Judith Rousseau and I have been working for a while now [and soon to be arXived as well]. Paper that I re-read on a flight to Amsterdam [hence the above picture], written as a continuation of our earlier paper with David, Gael, and Judith. One specificity of the paper is to use an exponential distribution on the distance between the observed and simulated sample within the ABC distribution. Which reminds me of the resolution by Bissiri, Holmes, and Walker (2016) of the intractability of the likelihood function. James’ paper contains oracle inequalities between the ABC approximation and the genuine distribution of the summary statistics, like a bound on the distance between the expectations of the summary statistics under both models. Which writes down as a sum of a model bias, of two divergences between empirical and theoretical averages, on smoothness penalties, and on a prior impact term. And a similar bound on the distance between the expected distance to the oracle estimator of θ under the ABC distribution [and a Lipschitz type assumption also found in our paper]. Which first sounded weird [to me] as I would have expected the true posterior, until it dawned on me that the ABC distribution is the one used for the estimation [a passing strike of over-Bayesianism!]. While the oracle bound could have been used directly to discuss the rate of convergence of the exponential rate λ to zero [with the sample size n], James goes into the interesting alternative direction of setting a prior on λ, an idea that dates back to Olivier Catoni and Peter Grünwald. Or rather a pseudo-posterior on λ, a common occurrence in the PAC-Bayesian literature. In one of his results, James obtains a dependence of λ on the dimension m of the summary [as well as the root dependence on the sample size n], which seems to contradict our earlier independence result, until one realises this scale parameter is associated with a distance variable, itself scaled in m.

The paper also contains a non-parametric part, where the parameter θ is the unknown distribution of the data and the summary the data itself. Which is quite surprising as I did not deem it possible to handle non-parametrics with ABC. Especially in a misspecified setting (although I have trouble perceiving what this really means).

“We can use most of the Monte Carlo toolbox available in this context.”

The theoretical parts are a bit heavy on notations and hard to read [as a vacation morning read at least!]. They are followed by a Monte Carlo implementation using SMC-ABC. And pseudo-marginals [at least formally as I do not see how the specific features of pseudo-marginals are more that an augmented representation here]. And adaptive multiple pseudo-samples that reminded me of the Biometrika paper of Anthony Lee and Krys Latuszynski (Warwick). Therefore using indeed most of the toolbox!

## efficient acquisition rules for ABC

Posted in pictures, Statistics, University life with tags ABC, Banff, Bayesian inference, BIRS, design of experiments, discrepancy, Gaussian processes, NIPS 2014, posterior distribution on June 5, 2017 by xi'an**A** few weeks ago, Marko Järvenpää, Michael Gutmann, Aki Vehtari and Pekka Marttinen arXived a paper on sampling design for ABC that reminded me of presentations Michael gave at NIPS 2014 and in Banff last February. The main notion is that, when the simulation from the model is hugely expensive, random sampling does not make sense.

“While probabilistic modelling has been used to accelerate ABC inference, and strategies have been proposed for selecting which parameter to simulate next, little work has focused on trying to quantify the amount of uncertainty in the estimator of the ABC posterior density itself.”

The above question is obviously interesting, if already considered in the literature for it seems to focus on the Monte Carlo error in ABC, addressed for instance in Fearnhead and Prangle (2012), Li and Fearnhead (2016) and our paper with David Frazier, Gael Martin, and Judith Rousseau. With corresponding conditions on the tolerance and the number of simulations to relegate Monte Carlo error to a secondary level. And the additional remark that the (error free) ABC distribution itself is not the ultimate quantity of interest. Or the equivalent (?) one that ABC is actually an exact Bayesian method on a completed space.

The paper initially confused me for a section on the very general formulation of ABC posterior approximation and error in this approximation. And simulation design for minimising this error. It confused me as it sounded too vague but only for a while as the remaining sections appear to be independent. The operational concept of the paper is to assume that the discrepancy between observed and simulated data, when perceived as a random function of the parameter θ, is a Gaussian process [over the parameter space]. This modelling allows for a prediction of the discrepancy at a new value of θ, which can be chosen as maximising the variance of the likelihood approximation. Or more precisely of the acceptance probability. While the authors report improved estimation of the exact posterior, I find no intuition as to why this should be the case when focussing on the discrepancy, especially because small discrepancies are associated with parameters approximately generated from the posterior.

## Alan Gelfand in Paris

Posted in pictures, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags Alan Gelfand, BiPS, CREST, Duke University, ENSAE, Gaussian processes, Paris, seminar on May 11, 2017 by xi'anAlan Gelfand (Duke University) will be in Paris on the week of May 15 and give several seminars, including one at AgroParisTech on May 16:

and on at CREST (BiPS) on May 18, 2pm:

Scalable Gaussian processes for analyzing space and space-time datasets

## Monte Carlo with determinantal processes [reply from the authors]

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags Bayesian inference, central limit theorem, determinantal point processes, Gaussian processes, Gaussian quadrature, hypercube, Lebesgue measure, Monte Carlo integration, Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, orthogonal polynomials, probabilistic numerics, quasi-Monte Carlo methods, super-efficiency, Terence Tao, zero variance importance sampling on September 22, 2016 by xi'an*[Rémi Bardenet and Adrien Hardy have written a reply to my comments of today on their paper, which is more readable as a post than as comments, so here it is. I appreciate the intention, as well as the perfect editing of the reply, suited for a direct posting!]*

**T**hanks for your comments, Xian. As a foreword, a few people we met also had the intuition that DPPs would be relevant for Monte Carlo, but no result so far was backing this claim. As it turns out, we had to work hard to prove a CLT for importance-reweighted DPPs, using some deep recent results on orthogonal polynomials. We are currently working on turning this probabilistic result into practical algorithms. For instance, efficient sampling of DPPs is indeed an important open question, to which most of your comments refer. Although this question is out of the scope of our paper, note however that our results do not depend on how you sample. Efficient sampling of DPPs, along with other natural computational questions, is actually the crux of an ANR grant we just got, so hopefully in a few years we can write a more detailed answer on this blog! We now answer some of your other points.

*“one has to examine the conditions for the result to operate, from the support being within the unit hypercube,”*

Any compactly supported measure would do, using dilations, for instance. Note that we don’t assume the support is the whole hypercube.

*“to the existence of N orthogonal polynomials wrt the dominating measure, not discussed here”*

As explained in Section 2.1.2, it is enough that the reference measure charges some open set of the hypercube, which is for instance the case if it has a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure.

*“to the lack of relation between the point process and the integrand,”*

Actually, our method depends heavily on the target measure μ. Unlike vanilla QMC, the repulsiveness between the quadrature nodes is tailored to the integration problem.

*“changing N requires a new simulation of the entire vector unless I missed the point.”*

You’re absolutely right. This is a well-known open issue in probability, see the discussion on Terence Tao’s blog.

*“This requires figuring out the upper bounds on the acceptance ratios, a “problem-dependent” request that may prove impossible to implement”*

We agree that in general this isn’t trivial. However, good bounds are available for all Jacobi polynomials, see Section 3.

*“Even without this stumbling block, generating the N-sized sample for dimension d=N (why d=N, I wonder?)”*

This is a misunderstanding: we do not say that d=N in any sense. We only say that sampling from a DPP using the algorithm of [Hough et al] requires the same number of operations as orthonormalizing N vectors of dimension N, hence the cubic cost.

*1. “how does it relate to quasi-Monte Carlo?”*

So far, the connection to QMC is only intuitive: both rely on well-spaced nodes, but using different mathematical tools.

*2. “the marginals of the N-th order determinantal process are far from uniform (see Fig. 1), and seemingly concentrated on the boundaries”*

This phenomenon is due to orthogonal polynomials. We are investigating more general constructions that give more flexibility.

*3. “Is the variance of the resulting estimator (2.11) always finite?”*

Yes. For instance, this follows from the inequality below (5.56) since ƒ(x)/K(x,x) is Lipschitz.

*4. and 5.* We are investigating concentration inequalities to answer these points.

*6. “probabilistic numerics produce an epistemic assessment of uncertainty, contrary to the current proposal.”*

A partial answer may be our Remark 2.12. You can interpret DPPs as putting a Gaussian process prior over ƒ and sequentially sampling from the posterior variance of the GP.

## merging MCMC subposteriors

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags computing cost, Gaussian processes, importance sampling, log-normal distribution, Monte Carlo approximations, Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, scalability, sub-posteriors on June 8, 2016 by xi'an**C**hristopher Nemeth and Chris Sherlock arXived a paper yesterday about an approach to distributed MCMC sampling via Gaussian processes. As in several other papers commented on the ‘Og, the issue is to merge MCMC samples from sub-posteriors into a sample or any sort of approximation of the complete (product) posterior. I am quite sympathetic to the approach adopted in this paper, namely to use a log-Gaussian process representation of each sub-posterior and then to replace each sub-posterior with its log-Gaussian process posterior expectation in an MCMC or importance scheme. And to assess its variability through the posterior variance of the sum of log-Gaussian processes. As pointed out by the authors the closed form representation of the posterior mean of the log-posterior is invaluable as it allows for an HMC implementation. And importance solutions as well. The probabilistic numerics behind this perspective are also highly relevant.

A few arguable (?) points:

- The method often relies on importance sampling and hence on the choice of an importance function that is most likely influential but delicate to calibrate in complex settings as I presume the Gaussian estimates are not useful in this regard;
- Using Monte Carlo to approximate the value of the approximate density at a given parameter value (by simulating from the posterior distribution) is natural but is it that efficient?
- It could be that, by treating all sub-posterior samples as noisy versions of the same (true) posterior, a more accurate approximation of this posterior could be constructed;
- The method relies on the exponentiation of a posterior expectation or simulation. As of yesterday, I am somehow wary of log-normal expectations!
- If the purpose of the exercise is to approximate univariate integrals, it would seem more profitable to use the Gaussian processes at the univariate level;
- The way the normalising missing constants and the duplicate simulations are processed (or not) could deserve further exploration;
- Computing costs are in fine unclear when compared with the other methods in the toolbox.