Archive for MCMC

mixtures of mixtures

Posted in pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 9, 2015 by xi'an

linz4And yet another arXival of a paper on mixtures! This one is written by Gertraud Malsiner-Walli, Sylvia Frühwirth-Schnatter, and Bettina Grün, from the Johannes Kepler University Linz and the Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien I visited last September. With the exact title being Identifying mixtures of mixtures using Bayesian estimation.

So, what is a mixture of mixtures if not a mixture?! Or if not only a mixture. The upper mixture level is associated with clusters, while the lower mixture level is used for modelling the distribution of a given cluster. Because the cluster needs to be real enough, the components of the mixture are assumed to be heavily overlapping. The paper thus spends a large amount of space on detailing the construction of the associated hierarchical prior. Which in particular implies defining through the prior what a cluster means. The paper also connects with the overfitting mixture idea of Rousseau and Mengersen (2011, Series B). At the cluster level, the Dirichlet hyperparameter is chosen to be very small, 0.001, which empties superfluous clusters but sounds rather arbitrary (which is the reason why we did not go for such small values in our testing/mixture modelling). On the opposite, the mixture weights have an hyperparameter staying (far) away from zero. The MCMC implementation is based on a standard Gibbs sampler and the outcome is analysed and sorted by estimating the “true” number of clusters as the MAP and by selecting MCMC simulations conditional on that value. From there clusters are identified via the point process representation of a mixture posterior. Using a standard k-means algorithm.

The remainder of the paper illustrates the approach on simulated and real datasets. Recovering in those small dimension setups the number of clusters used in the simulation or found in other studies. As noted in the conclusion, using solely a Gibbs sampler with such a large number of components is rather perilous since it may get stuck close to suboptimal configurations. Especially with very small Dirichlet hyperparameters.

Unbiased Bayes for Big Data: Path of partial posteriors [a reply from the authors]

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on February 27, 2015 by xi'an

[Here is a reply by Heiko Strathmann to my post of yesterday. Along with the slides of a talk in Oxford mentioned in the discussion.]

Thanks for putting this up, and thanks for the discussion. Christian, as already exchanged via email, here are some answers to the points you make.

First of all, we don’t claim a free lunch — and are honest with the limitations of the method (see negative examples). Rather, we make the point that we can achieve computational savings in certain situations — essentially exploiting redundancy (what Michael called “tall” data in his note on subsampling & HMC) leading to fast convergence of posterior statistics.

Dan is of course correct noticing that if the posterior statistic does not converge nicely (i.e. all data counts), then truncation time is “mammoth”. It is also correct that it might be questionable to aim for an unbiased Bayesian method in the presence of such redundancies. However, these are the two extreme perspectives on the topic. The message that we want to get along is that there is a trade-off in between these extremes. In particular the GP examples illustrate this nicely as we are able to reduce MSE in a regime where posterior statistics have *not* yet stabilised, see e.g. figure 6.

“And the following paragraph is further confusing me as it seems to imply that convergence is not that important thanks to the de-biasing equation.”

To clarify, the paragraph refers to the additional convergence issues induced by alternative Markov transition kernels of mini-batch-based full posterior sampling methods by Welling, Bardenet, Dougal & co. For example, Firefly MC’s mixing time is increased by a factor of 1/q where q*N is the mini-batch size. Mixing of stochastic gradient Langevin gets worse over time. This is not true for our scheme as we can use standard transition kernels. It is still essential for the partial posterior Markov chains to converge (if MCMC is used). However, as this is a well studied problem, we omit the topic in our paper and refer to standard tools for diagnosis. All this is independent of the debiasing device.

About MCMC convergence.
Yesterday in Oxford, Pierre Jacob pointed out that if MCMC is used for estimating partial posterior statistics, the overall result is not unbiased. We had a nice discussion how this bias could be addressed via a two-stage debiasing procedure: debiasing the MC estimates as described in the “Unbiased Monte Carlo” paper by Agapiou et al, and then plugging those into the path estimators — though it is (yet) not so clear how (and whether) this would work in our case.
In the current version of the paper, we do not address the bias present due to MCMC. We have a paragraph on this in section 3.2. Rather, we start from a premise that full posterior MCMC samples are a gold standard. Furthermore, the framework we study is not necessarily linked to MCMC – it could be that the posterior expectation is available in closed form, but simply costly in N. In this case, we can still unbiasedly estimate this posterior expectation – see GP regression.

“The choice of the tail rate is thus quite delicate to validate against the variance constraints (2) and (3).”

It is true that the choice is crucial in order to control the variance. However, provided that partial posterior expectations converge at a rate n with n the size of a minibatch, computational complexity can be reduced to N1-α (α<β) without variance exploding. There is a trade-off: the faster the posterior expectations converge, more computation can be saved; β is in general unknown, but can be roughly estimated with the “direct approach” as we describe in appendix.

About the “direct approach”
It is true that for certain classes of models and φ functionals, the direct averaging of expectations for increasing data sizes yields good results (see log-normal example), and we state this. However, the GP regression experiments show that the direct averaging gives a larger MSE as with debiasing applied. This is exactly the trade-off mentioned earlier.

I also wonder what people think about the comparison to stochastic variational inference (GP for Big Data), as this hasn’t appeared in discussions yet. It is the comparison to “non-unbiased” schemes that Christian and Dan asked for.

Unbiased Bayes for Big Data: Path of partial posteriors

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on February 26, 2015 by xi'an

“Data complexity is sub-linear in N, no bias is introduced, variance is finite.”

Heiko Strathman, Dino Sejdinovic and Mark Girolami have arXived a few weeks ago a paper on the use of a telescoping estimator to achieve an unbiased estimator of a Bayes estimator relying on the entire dataset, while using only a small proportion of the dataset. The idea is that a sequence  converging—to an unbiased estimator—of estimators φt can be turned into an unbiased estimator by a stopping rule T:

\sum_{t=1}^T \dfrac{\varphi_t-\varphi_{t-1}}{\mathbb{P}(T\ge t)}

is indeed unbiased. In a “Big Data” framework, the components φt are MCMC versions of posterior expectations based on a proportion αt of the data. And the stopping rule cannot exceed αt=1. The authors further propose to replicate this unbiased estimator R times on R parallel processors. They further claim a reduction in the computing cost of

\mathcal{O}(N^{1-\alpha})\qquad\text{if}\qquad\mathbb{P}(T=t)\approx e^{-\alpha t}

which means that a sub-linear cost can be achieved. However, the gain in computing time means higher variance than for the full MCMC solution:

“It is clear that running an MCMC chain on the full posterior, for any statistic, produces more accurate estimates than the debiasing approach, which by construction has an additional intrinsic source of variance. This means that if it is possible to produce even only a single MCMC sample (…), the resulting posterior expectation can be estimated with less expected error. It is therefore not instructive to compare approaches in that region. “

I first got a “free lunch” impression when reading the paper, namely it sounded like using a random stopping rule was enough to overcome unbiasedness and large size jams. This is not the message of the paper, but I remain both intrigued by the possibilities the unbiasedness offers and bemused by the claims therein, for several reasons: Continue reading

the travelling salesman

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , on January 3, 2015 by xi'an

IMG_1099A few days ago, I was grading my last set of homeworks for the MCMC graduate course I teach to both Dauphine and ENSAE graduate students. A few students had chosen to write a travelling salesman simulated annealing code (Exercice 7.22 in Monte Carlo Statistical Methods) and one of them included this quote

“And when I saw that, I realized that selling was the greatest career a man could want. ‘Cause what could be more satisfying than to be able to go, at the age of eighty-four, into twenty or thirty different cities, and pick up a phone, and be remembered and loved and helped by so many different people ?”
Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman

which was a first!

testing MCMC code

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , on December 26, 2014 by xi'an

Harvard2A title that caught my attention on arXiv: testing MCMC code by Roger Grosse and David Duvenaud. The paper is in fact a tutorial adapted from blog posts written by Grosse and Duvenaud, on the blog of the Harvard Intelligent Probabilistic Systems group. The purpose is to write code in such a modular way that (some) conditional probability computations can be tested. Using my favourite Gibbs sampler for the mixture model, they advocate computing the ratios

\dfrac{p(x'|z)}{p(x|z)}\quad\text{and}\quad \dfrac{p(x',z)}{p(x,z)}

to make sure they are exactly identical. (Where x denotes the part of the parameter being simulated and z anything else.) The paper also mentions an older paper by John Geweke—of which I was curiously unaware!—leading to another test: consider iterating the following two steps:

  1. update the parameter θ given the current data x by an MCMC step that preserves the posterior p(θ|x);
  2. update the data x given the current parameter value θ from the sampling distribution p(x|θ).

Since both steps preserve the joint distribution p(x,θ), values simulated from those steps should exhibit the same properties as a forward production of (x,θ), i.e., simulating from p(θ) and then from p(x|θ). So with enough simulations, comparison tests can be run. (Andrew has a very similar proposal at about the same time.) There are potential limitations to the first approach, obviously, from being unable to write the full conditionals [an ABC version anyone?!] to making a programming mistake that keep both ratios equal [as it would occur if a Metropolis-within-Gibbs was run by using the ratio of the joints in the acceptance probability]. Further, as noted by the authors it only addresses the mathematical correctness of the code, rather than the issue of whether the MCMC algorithm mixes well enough to provide a pseudo-iid-sample from p(θ|x). (Lack of mixing that could be spotted by Geweke’s test.) But it is so immediately available that it can indeed be added to every and all simulations involving a conditional step. While Geweke’s test requires re-running the MCMC algorithm altogether. Although clear divergence between an iid sampling from p(x,θ) and the Gibbs version above could appear fast enough for a stopping rule to be used. In fine, a worthwhile addition to the collection of checkings and tests built across the years for MCMC algorithms! (Of which the trick proposed by my friend Tobias Rydén to run first the MCMC code with n=0 observations in order to recover the prior p(θ) remains my favourite!)

Quasi-Monte Carlo sampling

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, Travel, University life, Wines with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 10, 2014 by xi'an

RSS wine“The QMC algorithm forces us to write any simulation as an explicit function of uniform samples.” (p.8)

As posted a few days ago, Mathieu Gerber and Nicolas Chopin will read this afternoon a Paper to the Royal Statistical Society on their sequential quasi-Monte Carlo sampling paper.  Here are some comments on the paper that are preliminaries to my written discussion (to be sent before the slightly awkward deadline of Jan 2, 2015).

Quasi-Monte Carlo methods are definitely not popular within the (mainstream) statistical community, despite regular attempts by respected researchers like Art Owen and Pierre L’Écuyer to induce more use of those methods. It is thus to be hoped that the current attempt will be more successful, it being Read to the Royal Statistical Society being a major step towards a wide diffusion. I am looking forward to the collection of discussions that will result from the incoming afternoon (and bemoan once again having to miss it!).

“It is also the resampling step that makes the introduction of QMC into SMC sampling non-trivial.” (p.3)

At a mathematical level, the fact that randomised low discrepancy sequences produce both unbiased estimators and error rates of order

\mathfrak{O}(N^{-1}\log(N)^{d-}) \text{ at cost } \mathfrak{O}(N\log(N))

means that randomised quasi-Monte Carlo methods should always be used, instead of regular Monte Carlo methods! So why is it not always used?! The difficulty stands [I think] in expressing the Monte Carlo estimators in terms of a deterministic function of a fixed number of uniforms (and possibly of past simulated values). At least this is why I never attempted at crossing the Rubicon into the quasi-Monte Carlo realm… And maybe also why the step had to appear in connection with particle filters, which can be seen as dynamic importance sampling methods and hence enjoy a local iid-ness that relates better to quasi-Monte Carlo integrators than single-chain MCMC algorithms.  For instance, each resampling step in a particle filter consists in a repeated multinomial generation, hence should have been turned into quasi-Monte Carlo ages ago. (However, rather than the basic solution drafted in Table 2, lower variance solutions like systematic and residual sampling have been proposed in the particle literature and I wonder if any of these is a special form of quasi-Monte Carlo.) In the present setting, the authors move further and apply quasi-Monte Carlo to the particles themselves. However, they still assume the deterministic transform

\mathbf{x}_t^n = \Gamma_t(\mathbf{x}_{t-1}^n,\mathbf{u}_{t}^n)

which the q-block on which I stumbled each time I contemplated quasi-Monte Carlo… So the fundamental difficulty with the whole proposal is that the generation from the Markov proposal

m_t(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{t-1}^n,\cdot)

has to be of the above form. Is the strength of this assumption discussed anywhere in the paper? All baseline distributions there are normal. And in the case it does not easily apply, what would the gain bw in only using the second step (i.e., quasi-Monte Carlo-ing the multinomial simulation from the empirical cdf)? In a sequential setting with unknown parameters θ, the transform is modified each time θ is modified and I wonder at the impact on computing cost if the inverse cdf is not available analytically. And I presume simulating the θ’s cannot benefit from quasi-Monte Carlo improvements.

The paper obviously cannot get into every detail, obviously, but I would also welcome indications on the cost of deriving the Hilbert curve, in particular in connection with the dimension d as it has to separate all of the N particles, and on the stopping rule on m that means only Hm is used.

Another question stands with the multiplicity of low discrepancy sequences and their impact on the overall convergence. If Art Owen’s (1997) nested scrambling leads to the best rate, as implied by Theorem 7, why should we ever consider another choice?

In connection with Lemma 1 and the sequential quasi-Monte Carlo approximation of the evidence, I wonder at any possible Rao-Blackwellisation using all proposed moves rather than only those accepted. I mean, from a quasi-Monte Carlo viewpoint, is Rao-Blackwellisation easier and is it of any significant interest?

What are the computing costs and gains for forward and backward sampling? They are not discussed there. I also fail to understand the trick at the end of 4.2.1, using SQMC on a single vector instead of (t+1) of them. Again assuming inverse cdfs are available? Any connection with the Polson et al.’s particle learning literature?

Last questions: what is the (learning) effort for lazy me to move to SQMC? Any hope of stepping outside particle filtering?

reflections on the probability space induced by moment conditions with implications for Bayesian Inference [refleXions]

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , on November 26, 2014 by xi'an

“The main finding is that if the moment functions have one of the properties of a pivotal, then the assertion of a distribution on moment functions coupled with a proper prior does permit Bayesian inference. Without the semi-pivotal condition, the assertion of a distribution for moment functions either partially or completely specifies the prior.” (p.1)

Ron Gallant will present this paper at the Conference in honour of Christian Gouréroux held next week at Dauphine and I have been asked to discuss it. What follows is a collection of notes I made while reading the paper , rather than a coherent discussion, to come later. Hopefully prior to the conference.

The difficulty I have with the approach presented therein stands as much with the presentation as with the contents. I find it difficult to grasp the assumptions behind the model(s) and the motivations for only considering a moment and its distribution. Does it all come down to linking fiducial distributions with Bayesian approaches? In which case I am as usual sceptical about the ability to impose an arbitrary distribution on an arbitrary transform of the pair (x,θ), where x denotes the data. Rather than a genuine prior x likelihood construct. But I bet this is mostly linked with my lack of understanding of the notion of structural models.

“We are concerned with situations where the structural model does not imply exogeneity of θ, or one prefers not to rely on an assumption of exogeneity, or one cannot construct a likelihood at all due to the complexity of the model, or one does not trust the numerical approximations needed to construct a likelihood.” (p.4)

As often with econometrics papers, this notion of structural model sets me astray: does this mean any latent variable model or an incompletely defined model, and if so why is it incompletely defined? From a frequentist perspective anything random is not a parameter. The term exogeneity also hints at this notion of the parameter being not truly a parameter, but including latent variables and maybe random effects. Reading further (p.7) drives me to understand the structural model as defined by a moment condition, in the sense that

\mathbb{E}[m(\mathbf{x},\theta)]=0

has a unique solution in θ under the true model. However the focus then seems to make a major switch as Gallant considers the distribution of a pivotal quantity like

Z=\sqrt{n} W(\mathbf{x},\theta)^{-\frac{1}{2}} m(\mathbf{x},\theta)

as induced by the joint distribution on (x,θ), hence conversely inducing constraints on this joint, as well as an associated conditional. Which is something I have trouble understanding, First, where does this assumed distribution on Z stem from? And, second, exchanging randomness of terms in a random variable as if it was a linear equation is a pretty sure way to produce paradoxes and measure theoretic difficulties.

The purely mathematical problem itself is puzzling: if one knows the distribution of the transform Z=Z(X,Λ), what does that imply on the joint distribution of (X,Λ)? It seems unlikely this will induce a single prior and/or a single likelihood… It is actually more probable that the distribution one arbitrarily selects on m(x,θ) is incompatible with a joint on (x,θ), isn’t it?

“The usual computational method is MCMC (Markov chain Monte Carlo) for which the best known reference in econometrics is Chernozhukov and Hong (2003).” (p.6)

While I never heard of this reference before, it looks like a 50 page survey and may be sufficient for an introduction to MCMC methods for econometricians. What I do not get though is the connection between this reference to MCMC and the overall discussion of constructing priors (or not) out of fiducial distributions. The author also suggests using MCMC to produce the MAP estimate but this always stroke me as inefficient (unless one uses our SAME algorithm of course).

“One can also compute the marginal likelihood from the chain (Newton and Raftery (1994)), which is used for Bayesian model comparison.” (p.22)

Not the best solution to rely on harmonic means for marginal likelihoods…. Definitely not. While the author actually uses the stabilised version (15) of Newton and Raftery (1994) estimator, which in retrospect looks much like a bridge sampling estimator of sorts, it remains dangerously close to the original [harmonic mean solution] especially for a vague prior. And it only works when the likelihood is available in closed form.

“The MCMC chains were comprised of 100,000 draws well past the point where transients died off.” (p.22)

I wonder if the second statement (with a very nice image of those dying transients!) is intended as a consequence of the first one or independently.

“A common situation that requires consideration of the notions that follow is that deriving the likelihood from a structural model is analytically intractable and one cannot verify that the numerical approximations one would have to make to circumvent the intractability are sufficiently accurate.” (p.7)

This then is a completely different business, namely that defining a joint distribution by mean of moment equations prevents regular Bayesian inference because the likelihood is not available. This is more exciting because (i) there are alternative available! From ABC to INLA (maybe) to EP to variational Bayes (maybe). And beyond. In particular, the moment equations are strongly and even insistently suggesting that empirical likelihood techniques could be well-suited to this setting. And (ii) it is no longer a mathematical worry: there exist a joint distribution on m(x,θ), induced by a (or many) joint distribution on (x,θ). So the question of finding whether or not it induces a single proper prior on θ becomes relevant. But, if I want to use ABC, being given the distribution of m(x,θ) seems to mean I can only generate new values of this transform while missing a natural distance between observations and pseudo-observations. Still, I entertain lingering doubts that this is the meaning of the study. Where does the joint distribution come from..?!

“Typically C is coarse in the sense that it does not contain all the Borel sets (…)  The probability space cannot be used for Bayesian inference”

My understanding of that part is that defining a joint on m(x,θ) is not always enough to deduce a (unique) posterior on θ, which is fine and correct, but rather anticlimactic. This sounds to be what Gallant calls a “partial specification of the prior” (p.9).

Overall, after this linear read, I remain very much puzzled by the statistical (or Bayesian) implications of the paper . The fact that the moment conditions are central to the approach would once again induce me to check the properties of an alternative approach like empirical likelihood.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 821 other followers