## Jeffreys priors for hypothesis testing [Bayesian reads #2]

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 9, 2019 by xi'an

A second (re)visit to a reference paper I gave to my OxWaSP students for the last round of this CDT joint program. Indeed, this may be my first complete read of Susie Bayarri and Gonzalo Garcia-Donato 2008 Series B paper, inspired by Jeffreys’, Zellner’s and Siow’s proposals in the Normal case. (Disclaimer: I was not the JRSS B editor for this paper.) Which I saw as a talk at the O’Bayes 2009 meeting in Phillie.

The paper aims at constructing formal rules for objective proper priors in testing embedded hypotheses, in the spirit of Jeffreys’ Theory of Probability “hidden gem” (Chapter 3). The proposal is based on symmetrised versions of the Kullback-Leibler divergence κ between null and alternative used in a transform like an inverse power of 1+κ. With a power large enough to make the prior proper. Eventually multiplied by a reference measure (i.e., the arbitrary choice of a dominating measure.) Can be generalised to any intrinsic loss (not to be confused with an intrinsic prior à la Berger and Pericchi!). Approximately Cauchy or Student’s t by a Taylor expansion. To be compared with Jeffreys’ original prior equal to the derivative of the atan transform of the root divergence (!). A delicate calibration by an effective sample size, lacking a general definition.

At the start the authors rightly insist on having the nuisance parameter v to differ for each model but… as we all often do they relapse back to having the “same ν” in both models for integrability reasons. Nuisance parameters make the definition of the divergence prior somewhat harder. Or somewhat arbitrary. Indeed, as in reference prior settings, the authors work first conditional on the nuisance then use a prior on ν that may be improper by the “same” argument. (Although conditioning is not the proper term if the marginal prior on ν is improper.)

The paper also contains an interesting case of the translated Exponential, where the prior is L¹ Student’s t with 2 degrees of freedom. And another one of mixture models albeit in the simple case of a location parameter on one component only.

## risk-adverse Bayes estimators

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on January 28, 2019 by xi'an

An interesting paper came out on arXiv in early December, written by Michael Brand from Monash. It is about risk-adverse Bayes estimators, which are defined as avoiding the use of loss functions (although why avoiding loss functions is not made very clear in the paper). Close to MAP estimates, they bypass the dependence of said MAPs on parameterisation by maximising instead π(θ|x)/√I(θ), which is invariant by reparameterisation if not by a change of dominating measure. This form of MAP estimate is called the Wallace-Freeman (1987) estimator [of which I never heard].

The formal definition of a risk-adverse estimator is still based on a loss function in order to produce a proper version of the probability to be “wrong” in a continuous environment. The difference between estimator and true value θ, as expressed by the loss, is enlarged by a scale factor k pushed to infinity. Meaning that differences not in the immediate neighbourhood of zero are not relevant. In the case of a countable parameter space, this is essentially producing the MAP estimator. In the continuous case, for “well-defined” and “well-behaved” loss functions and estimators and density, including an invariance to parameterisation as in my own intrinsic losses of old!, which the author calls likelihood-based loss function,  mentioning f-divergences, the resulting estimator(s) is a Wallace-Freeman estimator (of which there may be several). I did not get very deep into the study of the convergence proof, which seems to borrow more from real analysis à la Rudin than from functional analysis or measure theory, but keep returning to the apparent dependence of the notion on the dominating measure, which bothers me.

## Bayes for good

Posted in Books, Mountains, pictures, Running, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 27, 2018 by xi'an

A very special weekend workshop on Bayesian techniques used for social good in many different sense (and talks) that we organised with Kerrie Mengersen and Pierre Pudlo at CiRM, Luminy, Marseilles. It started with Rebecca (Beka) Steorts (Duke) explaining [by video from Duke] how the Syrian war deaths were processed to eliminate duplicates, to be continued on Monday at the “Big” conference, Alex Volfonsky (Duke) on a Twitter experiment on the impact of being exposed to adverse opinions as depolarising (not!) or further polarising (yes), turning into network causal analysis. And then Kerrie Mengersen (QUT) on the use of Bayesian networks in ecology, through observational studies she conducted. And the role of neutral statisticians in case of adversarial experts!

Next day, the first talk of David Corlis (Peace-Work), who writes the Stats for Good column in CHANCE and here gave a recruiting spiel for volunteering in good initiatives. Quoting Florence Nightingale as the “first” volunteer. And presenting a broad collection of projects as supports to his recommendations for “doing good”. We then heard [by video] Julien Cornebise from Element AI in London telling of his move out of DeepMind towards investing in social impacting projects through this new startup. Including working with Amnesty International on Darfour village destructions, building evidence from satellite imaging. And crowdsourcing. With an incoming report on the year activities (still under embargo). A most exciting and enthusiastic talk!

## Implicit maximum likelihood estimates

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 9, 2018 by xi'an

An ‘Og’s reader pointed me to this paper by Li and Malik, which made it to arXiv after not making it to NIPS. While the NIPS reviews were not particularly informative and strongly discordant, the authors point out in the comments that they are available for the sake of promoting discussion. (As made clear in earlier posts, I am quite supportive of this attitude! Disclaimer: I was not involved in an evaluation of this paper, neither for NIPS nor for another conference or journal!!) Although the paper does not seem to mention ABC in the setting of implicit likelihoods and generative models, there is a reference to the early (1984) paper by Peter Diggle and Richard Gratton that is often seen as the ancestor of ABC methods. The authors point out numerous issues with solutions proposed for parameter estimation in such implicit models. For instance, for GANs, they signal that “minimizing the Jensen-Shannon divergence or the Wasserstein distance between the empirical data distribution and the model distribution does not necessarily minimize the same between the true data distribution and the model distribution.” (Not mentioning the particular difficulty with Bayesian GANs.) Their own solution is the implicit maximum likelihood estimator, which picks the value of the parameter θ bringing a simulated sample the closest to the observed sample. Closest in the sense of the Euclidean distance between both samples. Or between the minimum of several simulated samples and the observed sample. (The modelling seems to imply the availability of n>1 observed samples.) They advocate using a stochastic gradient descent approach for finding the optimal parameter θ which presupposes that the dependence between θ and the simulated samples is somewhat differentiable. (And this does not account for using a min, which would make differentiation close to impossible.) The paper then meanders in a lengthy discussion as to whether maximising the likelihood makes sense, with a rather naïve view on why using the empirical distribution in a Kullback-Leibler divergence does not make sense! What does not make sense is considering the finite sample approximation to the Kullback-Leibler divergence with the true distribution in my opinion.

## optimal proposal for ABC

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 8, 2018 by xi'an

As pointed out by Ewan Cameron in a recent c’Og’ment, Justin Alsing, Benjamin Wandelt, and Stephen Feeney have arXived last August a paper where they discuss an optimal proposal density for ABC-SMC and ABC-PMC. Optimality being understood as maximising the effective sample size.

“Previous studies have sought kernels that are optimal in the (…) Kullback-Leibler divergence between the proposal KDE and the target density.”

The effective sample size for ABC-SMC is actually the regular ESS multiplied by the fraction of accepted simulations. Which surprisingly converges to the ratio

E[q(θ)/π(θ)|D]/E[π(θ)/q(θ)|D]

under the (true) posterior. (Where q(θ) is the importance density and π(θ) the prior density.] When optimised in q, this usually produces an implicit equation which results in a form of geometric mean between posterior and prior. The paper looks at approximate ways to find this optimum. Especially at an upper bound on q. Something I do not understand from the simulations is that the starting point seems to be the plain geometric mean between posterior and prior, in a setting where the posterior is supposedly unavailable… Actually the paper is silent on how the optimal can be approximated in practice, for the very reason I just mentioned. Apart from using a non-parametric or mixture estimate of the posterior after each SMC iteration, which may prove extremely costly when processed through the optimisation steps. However, an interesting if side outcome of these simulations is that the above geometric mean does much better than the posterior itself when considering the effective sample size.

## efficient adaptive importance sampling

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags , , , , , , , on June 22, 2018 by xi'an

Bernard Delyon and François Portier just recently arXived a paper on population or evolutionary importance sampling, pointed out to me by Víctor Elvira. Changing the proposal or importance sampler at each iteration. And averaging the estimates across iterations, but also mentioning AMIS. While drawing a distinction that I do not understand, since the simulation cost remains the same, while improving the variance of the resulting estimator. (But the paper points out later that their martingale technique of proof does not apply in this AMIS case.) Some interesting features of the paper are that

• convergence occurs when the total number of simulations grows to infinity, which is the most reasonable scale for assessing the worth of the method;
• some optimality in the oracle sense is established for the method;
• an improvement is found by eliminating outliers and favouring update rate over simulation rate (at a constant cost). Unsurprisingly, the optimal weight of the t-th estimator is given by its inverse variance (with eqn (13) missing an inversion step). Although it relies on the normalised versions of the target and proposal densities, since it assumes the expectation of the ratio is equal to one.

When updating the proposal or importance distribution, the authors consider a parametric family with the update in the parameter being driven by moment or generalised moment matching, or Kullback reduction as in our population Monte Carlo paper. The interesting technical aspects of the paper include the use of martingale and empirical risk arguments. All in all, quite a pleasant surprise to see some follow-up to our work on that topic, more than 10 years later.

## what is a large Kullback-Leibler divergence?

Posted in Books, Kids, pictures, Statistics with tags , , on May 2, 2018 by xi'an

A question that came up on X validated is about scaling a Kullback-Leibler divergence. A fairly interesting question in my opinion since this pseudo-distance is neither naturally nor universally scaled. Take for instance the divergence between two Gaussian

$\text{KL}(p, q) = \log \frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1} + \frac{\sigma_1^2 + (\mu_1 - \mu_2)^2}{2 \sigma_2^2} - \frac{1}{2}$

which is scaled by the standard deviation of the second Normal. There is no absolute bound in this distance for which it can be seen as large. Bypassing the coding analogy from signal processing, which has never been clear to me, he only calibration I can think of is statistical, namely to figure out a value extreme for two samples from the same distribution. In the sense of the Kullback between the corresponding estimated distributions. The above is an illustration, providing the distribution of the Kullback-Leibler divergences from samples from a Gamma distribution, for sample sizes n=15 and n=150. The sample size obviously matters.