Bayesian inference with intractable normalizing functions

In the latest September issue of JASA I received a few days ago, I spotted a review paper by Jaewoo Park & Murali Haran on intractable normalising constants Z(θ). There have been many proposals for solving this problem as well as several surveys, some conferences and even a book. The current survey focus on MCMC solutions, from auxiliary variable approaches to likelihood approximation algorithms (albeit without ABC entries, even though the 2006 auxiliary variable solutions of Møller et al. et of Murray et al. do simulate pseudo-observations and hence…). This includes the MCMC approximations to auxiliary sampling proposed by Faming Liang and co-authors across several papers. And the paper Yves Atchadé, Nicolas Lartillot and I wrote ten years ago on an adaptive MCMC targeting Z(θ) and using stochastic approximation à la Wang-Landau. Park & Haran stress the relevance of using sufficient statistics in this approach towards fighting computational costs, which makes me wonder if an ABC version could be envisioned.  The paper also includes pseudo-marginal techniques like Russian Roulette (once spelled Roullette) and noisy MCMC as proposed in Alquier et al.  (2016). These methods are compared on three examples: (1) the Ising model, (2) a social network model, the Florentine business dataset used in our original paper, and a larger one where most methods prove too costly, and (3) an attraction-repulsion point process model. In conclusion, an interesting survey, taking care to spell out the calibration requirements and the theoretical validation, if of course depending on the chosen benchmarks.

Bayesian goodness of fit

 

Persi Diaconis and Guanyang Wang have just arXived an interesting reflection on the notion of Bayesian goodness of fit tests. Which is a notion that has always bothered me, in a rather positive sense (!), as

“I also have to confess at the outset to the zeal of a convert, a born again believer in stochastic methods. Last week, Dave Wright reminded me of the advice I had given a graduate student during my algebraic geometry days in the 70’s :`Good Grief, don’t waste your time studying statistics. It’s all cookbook nonsense.’ I take it back! …” David Mumford

The paper starts with a reference to David Mumford, whose paper with Wu and Zhou on exponential “maximum entropy” synthetic distributions is at the source (?) of this paper, and whose name appears in its very title: “A conversation for David Mumford”…, about his conversion from pure (algebraic) maths to applied maths. The issue of (Bayesian) goodness of fit is addressed, with card shuffling examples, the null hypothesis being that the permutation resulting from the shuffling is uniformly distributed if shuffling takes enough time. Interestingly, while the parameter space is compact as a distribution on a finite set, Lindley’s paradox still occurs, namely that the null (the permutation comes from a Uniform) is always accepted provided there is no repetition under a “flat prior”, which is the Dirichlet D(1,…,1) over all permutations. (In this finite setting an improper prior is definitely improper as it does not get proper after accounting for observations. Although I do not understand why the Jeffreys prior is not the Dirichlet(½,…,½) in this case…) When resorting to the exponential family of distributions entertained by Zhou, Wu and Mumford, including the uniform distribution as one of its members, Diaconis and Wang advocate the use of a conjugate prior (exponential family, right?!) to compute a Bayes factor that simplifies into a ratio of two intractable normalising constants. For which the authors suggest using importance sampling, thermodynamic integration, or the exchange algorithm. Except that they rely on the (dreaded) harmonic mean estimator for computing the Bayes factor in the following illustrative section! Due to the finite nature of the space, I presume this estimator still has a finite variance. (Remark 1 calls for convergence results on exchange algorithms, which can be found I think in the just as recent arXival by Christophe Andrieu and co-authors.) An interesting if rare feature of the example processed in the paper is that the sufficient statistic used for the permutation model can be directly simulated from a Multinomial distribution. This is rare as seen when considering the benchmark of Ising models, for which the summary and sufficient statistic cannot be directly simulated. (If only…!) In fine, while I enjoyed the paper a lot, I remain uncertain as to its bearings, since defining an objective alternative for the goodness-of-fit test becomes quickly challenging outside simple enough models.

probabilities larger than one…

oxwasp@amazon.de

The reason for my short visit to Berlin last week was an OxWaSP (Oxford and Warwick Statistics Program) workshop hosted by Amazon Berlin with talks between statistics and machine learning, plus posters from our second year students. While the workshop was quite intense, I enjoyed very much the atmosphere and the variety of talks there. (Just sorry that I left too early to enjoy the social programme at a local brewery, Brauhaus Lemke, and the natural history museum. But still managed nice runs east and west!) One thing I found most interesting (if obvious in retrospect) was the different focus of academic and production talks, where the later do not aim at a full generality or at a guaranteed improvement over the existing, provided the new methodology provides a gain in efficiency over the existing.

This connected nicely with me reading several Nature articles on quantum computing during that trip,  where researchers from Google predict commercial products appearing in the coming five years, even though the technology is far from perfect and the outcome qubit error prone. Among the examples they provided, quantum simulation (not meaning what I consider to be simulation!), quantum optimisation (as a way to overcome multimodality), and quantum sampling (targeting given probability distributions). I find the inclusion of the latest puzzling in that simulation (in that sense) shows very little tolerance for errors, especially systematic bias. It may be that specific quantum architectures can be designed for specific probability distributions, just like some are already conceived for optimisation. (It may even be the case that quantum solutions are (just next to) available for intractable constants as in Ising or Potts models!)

estimating constants [survey]

A new survey on Bayesian inference with intractable normalising constants was posted on arXiv yesterday by Jaewoo Park and Murali Haran. A rather massive work of 58 pages, almost handy for a short course on the topic! In particular, it goes through the most common MCMC methods with a detailed description, followed by comments on components to be calibrated and the potential theoretical backup. This includes for instance the method of Liang et al. (2016) that I reviewed a few months ago. As well as the Wang-Landau technique we proposed with Yves Atchadé and Nicolas Lartillot. And the noisy MCMC of Alquier et al. (2016), also reviewed a few months ago. (The Russian Roulette solution is only mentioned very briefly as” computationally very expensive”. But still used in some illustrations. The whole area of pseudo-marginal MCMC is also missing from the picture.)

“…auxiliary variable approaches tend to be more efficient than likelihood approximation approaches, though efficiencies vary quite a bit…”

The authors distinguish between MCMC methods where the normalizing constant is approximated and those where it is omitted by an auxiliary representation. The survey also distinguishes between asymptotically exact and asymptotically inexact solutions. For instance, using a finite number of MCMC steps instead of the associated target results in an asymptotically inexact method. The question that remains open is what to do with the output, i.e., whether or not there is a way to correct for this error. In the illustration for the Ising model, the double Metropolis-Hastings version of Liang et al. (2010) achieves for instance massive computational gains, but also exhibits a persistent bias that would go undetected were it the sole method implemented. This aspect of approximate inference is not really explored in the paper, but constitutes a major issue for modern statistics (and machine learning as well, when inference is taken into account.)

In conclusion, this survey provides a serious exploration of recent MCMC methods. It begs for a second part involving particle filters, which have often proven to be faster and more efficient than MCMC methods, at least in state space models. In that regard, Nicolas Chopin and James Ridgway examined further techniques when calling to leave the Pima Indians [dataset] alone.