Archive for Kullback-Leibler divergence

sequential neural likelihood estimation as ABC substitute

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 14, 2020 by xi'an

A JMLR paper by Papamakarios, Sterratt, and Murray (Edinburgh), first presented at the AISTATS 2019 meeting, on a new form of likelihood-free inference, away from non-zero tolerance and from the distance-based versions of ABC, following earlier papers by Iain Murray and co-authors in the same spirit. Which I got pointed to during the ABC workshop in Vancouver. At the time I had no idea as to autoregressive flows meant. We were supposed to hold a reading group in Paris-Dauphine on this paper last week, unfortunately cancelled as a coronaviral precaution… Here are some notes I had prepared for the meeting that did not take place.

A simulator model is a computer program, which takes a vector of parameters θ, makes internal calls to a random number generator, and outputs a data vector x.”

Just the usual generative model then.

“A conditional neural density estimator is a parametric model q(.|φ) (such as a neural network) controlled by a set of parameters φ, which takes a pair of datapoints (u,v) and outputs a conditional probability density q(u|v,φ).”

Less usual, in that the outcome is guaranteed to be a probability density.

“For its neural density estimator, SNPE uses a Mixture Density Network, which is a feed-forward neural network that takes x as input and outputs the parameters of a Gaussian mixture over θ.”

In which theoretical sense would it improve upon classical or Bayesian density estimators? Where are the error evaluation, the optimal rates, the sensitivity to the dimension of the data? of the parameter?

“Our new method, Sequential Neural Likelihood (SNL), avoids the bias introduced by the proposal, by opting to learn a model of the likelihood instead of the posterior.”

I do not get the argument in that the final outcome (of using the approximation within an MCMC scheme) remains biased since the likelihood is not the exact likelihood. Where is the error evaluation? Note that in the associated Algorithm 1, the learning set is enlarged on each round, as in AMIS, rather than set back to the empty set ∅ on each round.

…given enough simulations, a sufficiently flexible conditional neural density estimator will eventually approximate the likelihood in the support of the proposal, regardless of the shape of the proposal. In other words, as long as we do not exclude parts of the parameter space, the way we propose parameters does not bias learning the likelihood asymptotically. Unlike when learning the posterior, no adjustment is necessary to account for our proposing strategy.”

This is a rather vague statement, with the only support being that the Monte Carlo approximation to the Kullback-Leibler divergence does converge to its actual value, i.e. a direct application of the Law of Large Numbers! But an interesting point I informally made a (long) while ago that all that matters is the estimate of the density at x⁰. Or at the value of the statistic at x⁰. The masked auto-encoder density estimator is based on a sequence of bijections with a lower-triangular Jacobian matrix, meaning the conditional density estimate is available in closed form. Which makes it sounds like a form of neurotic variational Bayes solution.

The paper also links with ABC (too costly?), other parametric approximations to the posterior (like Gaussian copulas and variational likelihood-free inference), synthetic likelihood, Gaussian processes, noise contrastive estimation… With experiments involving some of the above. But the experiments involve rather smooth models with relatively few parameters.

“A general question is whether it is preferable to learn the posterior or the likelihood (…) Learning the likelihood can often be easier than learning the posterior, and it does not depend on the choice of proposal, which makes learning easier and more robust (…) On the other hand, methods such as SNPE return a parametric model of the posterior directly, whereas a further inference step (e.g. variational inference or MCMC) is needed on top of SNL to obtain a posterior estimate”

A fair point in the conclusion. Which also mentions the curse of dimensionality (both for parameters and observations) and the possibility to work directly with summaries.

Getting back to the earlier and connected Masked autoregressive flow for density estimation paper, by Papamakarios, Pavlakou and Murray:

“Viewing an autoregressive model as a normalizing flow opens the possibility of increasing its flexibility by stacking multiple models of the same type, by having each model provide the source of randomness for the next model in the stack. The resulting stack of models is a normalizing flow that is more flexible than the original model, and that remains tractable.”

Which makes it sound like a sort of a neural network in the density space. Optimised by Kullback-Leibler minimisation to get asymptotically close to the likelihood. But a form of Bayesian indirect inference in the end, namely an MLE on a pseudo-model, using the estimated model as a proxy in Bayesian inference…

ABC webinar, first!

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 13, 2020 by xi'an

Screenshot_20200409_122723

The première of the ABC World Seminar last Thursday was most successful! It took place at the scheduled time, with no technical interruption and allowed 130⁺ participants from most of the World [sorry, West Coast friends!] to listen to the first speaker, Dennis Prangle,  presenting normalising flows and distilled importance sampling. And to answer questions. As I had already commented on the earlier version of his paper, I will not reproduce them here. In short, I remain uncertain, albeit not skeptical, about the notions of normalising flows and variational encoders for estimating densities, when perceived as a non-parametric estimator due to the large number of parameters it involves and wonder at the availability of convergence rates. Incidentally, I had forgotten at the remarkable link between KL distance & importance sampling variability. Adding to the to-read list Müller et al. (2018) on neural importance sampling.

Screenshot_20200409_124707

distilling importance

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , on November 13, 2019 by xi'an

As I was about to leave Warwick at the end of last week, I noticed a new arXival by Dennis Prangle, distilling importance sampling. In connection with [our version of] population Monte Carlo, “each step of [Dennis’] distilled importance sampling method aims to reduce the Kullback Leibler (KL) divergence from the distilled density to the current tempered posterior.”  (The introduction of the paper points out various connections with ABC, conditional density estimation, adaptive importance sampling, X entropy, &tc.)

“An advantage of [distilled importance sampling] over [likelihood-free] methods is that it performs inference on the full data, without losing information by using summary statistics.”

A notion used therein I had not heard before is the one of normalising flows, apparently more common in machine learning and in particular with GANs. (The slide below is from Shakir Mohamed and Danilo Rezende.) The  notion is to represent an arbitrary variable as the bijective transform of a standard variate like a N(0,1) variable or a U(0,1) variable (calling the inverse cdf transform). The only link I can think of is perfect sampling where the representation of all simulations as a function of a white noise vector helps with coupling.

I read a blog entry by Eric Jang on the topic (who produced this slide among other things) but did not emerge much the wiser. As the text instantaneously moves from the Jacobian formula to TensorFlow code… In Dennis’ paper, it appears that the concept is appealing for quickly producing samples and providing a rich family of approximations, especially when neural networks are included as transforms. They are used to substitute for a tempered version of the posterior target, validated as importance functions and aiming at being the closest to this target in Kullback-Leibler divergence. With the importance function interpretation, unbiased estimators of the gradient [in the parameter of the normalising flow] can be derived, with potential variance reduction. What became clearer to me from reading the illustration section is that the prior x predictive joint can also be modeled this way towards producing reference tables for ABC (or GANs) much faster than with the exact model. (I came across several proposals of that kind in the past months.) However, I deem mileage should vary depending on the size and dimension of the data. I also wonder at the connection between the (final) distribution simulated by distilled importance [the least tempered target?] and the ABC equivalent.

an independent sampler that maximizes the acceptance rate of the MH algorithm

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 3, 2019 by xi'an

An ICLR 2019 paper by Neklyudov, Egorov and Vetrov on an optimal choice of the proposal in an independent Metropolis algorithm I discovered via an X validated question. Namely whether or not the expected Metropolis-Hastings acceptance ratio is always one (which it is not when the support of the proposal is restricted). The paper mentions the domination of the Accept-Reject algorithm by the associated independent Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, which has actually been stated in our Monte Carlo Statistical Methods (1999, Lemma 6.3.2) and may prove even older. The authors also note that the expected acceptance probability is equal to one minus the total variation distance between the joint defined as target x Metropolis-Hastings proposal distribution and its time-reversed version. Which seems to suffer from the same difficulty as the one mentioned in the X validated question. Namely that it only holds when the support of the Metropolis-Hastings proposal is at least the support of the target (or else when the support of the joint defined as target x Metropolis-Hastings proposal distribution is somewhat symmetric. Replacing total variation with Kullback-Leibler then leads to a manageable optimisation target if the proposal is a parameterised independent distribution. With a GAN version when the proposal is not explicitly available. I find it rather strange that one still seeks independent proposals for running Metropolis-Hastings algorithms as the result will depend on the family of proposals considered and as performances will deteriorate with dimension (the authors mention a 10% acceptance rate, which sounds quite low). [As an aside, ICLR 2020 will take part in Addis Abeba next April.]

a generalized representation of Bayesian inference

Posted in Books with tags , , , , , , on July 5, 2019 by xi'an

Jeremias Knoblauch, Jack Jewson and Theodoros Damoulas, all affiliated with Warwick (hence a potentially biased reading!), arXived a paper on loss-based Bayesian inference that Jack discussed with me on my last visit to Warwick. As I was somewhat scared by the 61 pages, of which the 8 first pages are in NeurIPS style. The authors argue for a decision-theoretic approach to Bayesian inference that involves a loss over distributions and a divergence from the prior. For instance, when using the log-score as the loss and the Kullback-Leibler divergence, the regular posterior emerges, as shown by Arnold Zellner. Variational inference also falls under this hat. The argument for this generalization is that any form of loss can be used and still returns a distribution that is used to assess uncertainty about the parameter (of interest). In the axioms they produce for justifying the derivation of the optimal procedure, including cases where the posterior is restricted to a certain class, one [Axiom 4] generalizes the likelihood principle. Given the freedom brought by this general framework, plenty of fringe Bayes methods like standard variational Bayes can be seen as solutions to such a decision problem. Others like EP do not. Of interest to me are the potentials for this formal framework to encompass misspecification and likelihood-free settings, as well as for assessing priors, which is always a fishy issue. (The authors mention in addition the capacity to build related specific design Bayesian deep networks, of which I know nothing.) The obvious reaction of mine is one of facing an abundance of wealth (!) but encompassing approximate Bayesian solutions within a Bayesian framework remains an exciting prospect.