Archive for Metropolis-Hastings algorithm

Bernoulli mixtures

Posted in pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , on October 30, 2019 by xi'an

An interesting query on (or from) X validated: given a Bernoulli mixture where the weights are known and the probabilities are jointly drawn from a Dirichlet, what is the most efficient from running a Gibbs sampler including the latent variables to running a basic Metropolis-Hastings algorithm based on the mixture representation to running a collapsed Gibbs sampler that only samples the indicator variables… I provided a closed form expression for the collapsed target, but believe that the most efficient solution is based on the mixture representation!

robust Bayesian synthetic likelihood

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 16, 2019 by xi'an

David Frazier (Monash University) and Chris Drovandi (QUT) have recently come up with a robustness study of Bayesian synthetic likelihood that somehow mirrors our own work with David. In a sense, Bayesian synthetic likelihood is definitely misspecified from the start in assuming a Normal distribution on the summary statistics. When the data generating process is misspecified, even were the Normal distribution the “true” model or an appropriately converging pseudo-likelihood, the simulation based evaluation of the first two moments of the Normal is biased. Of course, for a choice of a summary statistic with limited information, the model can still be weakly compatible with the data in that there exists a pseudo-true value of the parameter θ⁰ for which the synthetic mean μ(θ⁰) is the mean of the statistics. (Sorry if this explanation of mine sounds unclear!) Or rather the Monte Carlo estimate of μ(θ⁰) coincidences with that mean.The same Normal toy example as in our paper leads to very poor performances in the MCMC exploration of the (unsympathetic) synthetic target. The robustification of the approach as proposed in the paper is to bring in an extra parameter to correct for the bias in the mean, using an additional Laplace prior on the bias to aim at sparsity. Or the same for the variance matrix towards inflating it. This over-parameterisation of the model obviously avoids the MCMC to get stuck (when implementing a random walk Metropolis with the target as a scale).

Computational Bayesian Statistics [book review]

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 1, 2019 by xi'an

This Cambridge University Press book by M. Antónia Amaral Turkman, Carlos Daniel Paulino, and Peter Müller is an enlarged translation of a set of lecture notes in Portuguese. (Warning: I have known Peter Müller from his PhD years in Purdue University and cannot pretend to perfect objectivity. For one thing, Peter once brought me frozen-solid beer: revenge can also be served cold!) Which reminds me of my 1994 French edition of Méthodes de Monte Carlo par chaînes de Markov, considerably upgraded into Monte Carlo Statistical Methods (1998) thanks to the input of George Casella. (Re-warning: As an author of books on the same topic(s), I can even less pretend to objectivity.)

“The “great idea” behind the development of computational Bayesian statistics is the recognition that Bayesian inference can be implemented by way of simulation from the posterior distribution.”

The book is written from a strong, almost militant, subjective Bayesian perspective (as, e.g., when half-Bayesians are mentioned!). Subjective (and militant) as in Dennis Lindley‘s writings, eminently quoted therein. As well as in Tony O’Hagan‘s. Arguing that the sole notion of a Bayesian estimator is the entire posterior distribution. Unless one brings in a loss function. The book also discusses the Bayes factor in a critical manner, which is fine from my perspective.  (Although the ban on improper priors makes its appearance in a very indirect way at the end of the last exercise of the first chapter.)

Somewhat at odds with the subjectivist stance of the previous chapter, the chapter on prior construction only considers non-informative and conjugate priors. Which, while understandable in an introductory book, is a wee bit disappointing. (When mentioning Jeffreys’ prior in multidimensional settings, the authors allude to using univariate Jeffreys’ rules for the marginal prior distributions, which is not a well-defined concept or else Bernardo’s and Berger’s reference priors would not have been considered.) The chapter also mentions the likelihood principle at the end of the last exercise, without a mention of the debate about its derivation by Birnbaum. Or Deborah Mayo’s recent reassessment of the strong likelihood principle. The following chapter is a sequence of illustrations in classical exponential family models, classical in that it is found in many Bayesian textbooks. (Except for the Poison model found in Exercise 3.3!)

Nothing to complain (!) about the introduction of Monte Carlo methods in the next chapter, especially about the notion of inference by Monte Carlo methods. And the illustration by Bayesian design. The chapter also introduces Rao-Blackwellisation [prior to introducing Gibbs sampling!]. And the simplest form of bridge sampling. (Resuscitating the weighted bootstrap of Gelfand and Smith (1990) may not be particularly urgent for an introduction to the topic.) There is furthermore a section on sequential Monte Carlo, including the Kalman filter and particle filters, in the spirit of Pitt and Shephard (1999). This chapter is thus rather ambitious in the amount of material covered with a mere 25 pages. Consensus Monte Carlo is even mentioned in the exercise section.

“This and other aspects that could be criticized should not prevent one from using this [Bayes factor] method in some contexts, with due caution.”

Chapter 5 turns back to inference with model assessment. Using Bayesian p-values for model assessment. (With an harmonic mean spotted in Example 5.1!, with no warning about the risks, except later in 5.3.2.) And model comparison. Presenting the whole collection of xIC information criteria. from AIC to WAIC, including a criticism of DIC. The chapter feels somewhat inconclusive but methinks this is the right feeling on the current state of the methodology for running inference about the model itself.

“Hint: There is a very easy answer.”

Chapter 6 is also a mostly standard introduction to Metropolis-Hastings algorithms and the Gibbs sampler. (The argument given later of a Metropolis-Hastings algorithm with acceptance probability one does not work.) The Gibbs section also mentions demarginalization as a [latent or auxiliary variable] way to simulate from complex distributions [as we do], but without defining the notion. It also references the precursor paper of Tanner and Wong (1987). The chapter further covers slice sampling and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, the later with sufficient details to lead to reproducible implementations. Followed by another standard section on convergence assessment, returning to the 1990’s feud of single versus multiple chain(s). The exercise section gets much larger than in earlier chapters with several pages dedicated to most problems. Including one on ABC, maybe not very helpful in this context!

“…dimension padding (…) is essentially all that is to be said about the reversible jump. The rest are details.”

The next chapter is (somewhat logically) the follow-up for trans-dimensional problems and marginal likelihood approximations. Including Chib’s (1995) method [with no warning about potential biases], the spike & slab approach of George and McCulloch (1993) that I remember reading in a café at the University of Wyoming!, the somewhat antiquated MC³ of Madigan and York (1995). And then the much more recent array of Bayesian lasso techniques. The trans-dimensional issues are covered by the pseudo-priors of Carlin and Chib (1995) and the reversible jump MCMC approach of Green (1995), the later being much more widely employed in the literature, albeit difficult to tune [and even to comprehensively describe, as shown by the algorithmic representation in the book] and only recommended for a large number of models under comparison. Once again the exercise section is most detailed, with recent entries like the EM-like variable selection algorithm of Ročková and George (2014).

The book also includes a chapter on analytical approximations, which is also the case in ours [with George Casella] despite my reluctance to bring them next to exact (simulation) methods. The central object is the INLA methodology of Rue et al. (2009) [absent from our book for obvious calendar reasons, although Laplace and saddlepoint approximations are found there as well]. With a reasonable amount of details, although stopping short of implementable reproducibility. Variational Bayes also makes an appearance, mostly following the very recent Blei et al. (2017).

The gem and originality of the book are primarily to be found in the final and ninth chapter where four software are described, all with interfaces to R: OpenBUGS, JAGS, BayesX, and Stan, plus R-INLA which is processed in the second half of the chapter (because this is not a simulation method). As in the remainder of the book, the illustrations are related to medical applications. Worth mentioning is the reminder that BUGS came in parallel with Gelfand and Smith (1990) Gibbs sampler rather than as a consequence. Even though the formalisation of the Markov chain Monte Carlo principle by the later helped in boosting the power of this software. (I also appreciated the mention made of Sylvia Richardson’s role in this story.) Since every software is illustrated in depth with relevant code and output, and even with the shortest possible description of its principle and modus vivendi, the chapter is 60 pages long [and missing a comparative conclusion]. Given my total ignorance of the very existence of the BayesX software, I am wondering at the relevance of its inclusion in this description rather than, say, other general R packages developed by authors of books such as Peter Rossi. The chapter also includes a description of CODA, with an R version developed by Martin Plummer [now a Warwick colleague].

In conclusion, this is a high-quality and all-inclusive introduction to Bayesian statistics and its computational aspects. By comparison, I find it much more ambitious and informative than Albert’s. If somehow less pedagogical than the thicker book of Richard McElreath. (The repeated references to Paulino et al.  (2018) in the text do not strike me as particularly useful given that this other book is written in Portuguese. Unless an English translation is in preparation.)

Disclaimer: this book was sent to me by CUP for endorsement and here is what I wrote in reply for a back-cover entry:

An introduction to computational Bayesian statistics cooked to perfection, with the right mix of ingredients, from the spirited defense of the Bayesian approach, to the description of the tools of the Bayesian trade, to a definitely broad and very much up-to-date presentation of Monte Carlo and Laplace approximation methods, to an helpful description of the most common software. And spiced up with critical perspectives on some common practices and an healthy focus on model assessment and model selection. Highly recommended on the menu of Bayesian textbooks!

And this review is likely to appear in CHANCE, in my book reviews column.

Metropolis-Hastings importance sampling

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on June 6, 2018 by xi'an

[Warning: As I first got the paper from the authors and sent them my comments, this paper read contains their reply as well.]

In a sort of crazy coincidence, Daniel Rudolf and Björn Sprungk arXived a paper on a Metropolis-Hastings importance sampling estimator that offers similarities with  the one by Ingmar Schuster and Ilja Klebanov posted on arXiv the same day. The major difference in the construction of the importance sampler is that Rudolf and Sprungk use the conditional distribution of the proposal in the denominator of their importance weight, while Schuster and Klebanov go for the marginal (or a Rao-Blackwell representation of the marginal), mostly in an independent Metropolis-Hastings setting (for convergence) and for a discretised Langevin version in the applications. The former use a very functional L² approach to convergence (which reminded me of the early Schervish and Carlin, 1990, paper on the convergence of MCMC algorithms), not all of it necessary in my opinion. As for instance the extension of convergence properties to the augmented chain, namely (current, proposed), is rather straightforward since the proposed chain is a random transform of the current chain. An interesting remark at the end of the proof of the CLT is that the asymptotic variance of the importance sampling estimator is the same as with iid realisations from the target. This is a point we also noticed when constructing population Monte Carlo techniques (more than ten years ago), namely that dependence on the past in sequential Monte Carlo does not impact the validation and the moments of the resulting estimators, simply because “everything cancels” in importance ratios. The mean square error bound on the Monte Carlo error (Theorem 20) is not very surprising as the term ρ(y)²/P(x,y) appears naturally in the variance of importance samplers.

The first illustration where the importance sampler does worse than the initial MCMC estimator for a wide range of acceptance probabilities (Figures 2 and 3, which is which?) and I do not understand the opposite conclusion from the authors.

[Here is an answer from Daniel and Björn about this point:]

Indeed the formulation in our paper is unfortunate. The point we want to stress is that we observed in the numerical experiments certain ranges of step-sizes for which MH importance sampling shows a better performance than the classical MH algorithm with optimal scaling. Meaning that the MH importance sampling with optimal step-size can outperform MH sampling, without using additional computational resources. Surprisingly, the optimal step-size for the MH importance sampling estimator seems to remain constant for an increasing dimension in contrast to the well-known optimal scaling of the MH algorithm (given by a constant optimal acceptance rate).

The second uses the Pima Indian diabetes benchmark, amusingly (?) referring to Chopin and Ridgway (2017) who warn against the recourse to this dataset and to this model! The loss in mean square error due to the importance sampling may again be massive (Figure 5) and setting for an optimisation of the scaling factor in Metropolis-Hastings algorithms sounds unrealistic.

[And another answer from Daniel and Björn about this point:]

Indeed, Chopin and Ridgway suggest more complex problems with a larger number of covariates as benchmarks. However, the well-studied PIMA data set is a sufficient example in order to illustrate the possible benefits but also the limitations of the MH importance sampling approach. The latter are clearly (a) the required knowledge about the optimal step-size—otherwise the performance can indeed be dramatically worse than for the MH algorithm—and (b) the restriction to a small or at most moderate number of covariates. As you are indicating, optimizing the scaling factor is a challenging task. However, the hope is to derive some simple rule of thumb for the MH importance sampler similar to the well-known acceptance rate tuning for the standard MCMC estimator.

Markov chain importance sampling

Posted in Books, pictures, Running, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on May 31, 2018 by xi'an

Ingmar Schuster (formerly a postdoc at Dauphine and now in Freie Universität Berlin) and Ilja Klebanov (from Berlin) have recently arXived a paper on recycling proposed values in [a rather large class of] Metropolis-Hastings and unadjusted Langevin algorithms. This means using the proposed variates of one of these algorithms as in an importance sampler, with an importance weight going from the target over the (fully conditional) proposal to the target over the marginal stationary target. In the Metropolis-Hastings case, since the later is not available in most setups, the authors suggest using a Rao-Blackwellised nonparametric estimate based on the entire MCMC chain. Or a subset.

“Our estimator refutes the folk theorem that it is hard to estimate [the normalising constant] with mainstream Monte Carlo methods such as Metropolis-Hastings.”

The paper thus brings an interesting focus on the proposed values, rather than on the original Markov chain,  which naturally brings back to mind the derivation of the joint distribution of these proposed values we made in our (1996) Rao-Blackwellisation paper with George Casella. Where we considered a parametric and non-asymptotic version of this distribution, which brings a guaranteed improvement to MCMC (Metropolis-Hastings) estimates of integrals. In subsequent papers with George, we tried to quantify this improvement and to compare different importance samplers based on some importance sampling corrections, but as far as I remember, we only got partial results along this way, and did not cover the special case of the normalising constant Þ… Normalising constants did not seem such a pressing issue at that time, I figure. (A Monte Carlo 101 question: how can we be certain the importance sampler offers a finite variance?)

Ingmar’s views about this:

I think this is interesting future work. My intuition is that for Metropolis-Hastings importance sampling with random walk proposals, the variance is guaranteed to be finite because the importance distribution ρ_θ is a convolution of your target ρ with the random walk kernel q. This guarantees that the tails of ρ_θ are no lighter than those of ρ. What other forms of q mean for the tails of ρ_θ I have less intuition about.

When considering the Langevin alternative with transition (4), I was first confused and thought it was incorrect for moving from one value of Y (proposal) to the next. But that’s what unadjusted means in “unadjusted Langevin”! As pointed out in the early Langevin literature, e.g., by Gareth Roberts and Richard Tweedie, using a discretised Langevin diffusion in an MCMC framework means there is a risk of non-stationarity & non-ergodicity. Obviously, the corrected (MALA) version is more delicate to approximate (?) but at the very least it ensures the Markov chain does not diverge. Even when the unadjusted Langevin has a stationary regime, its joint distribution is likely quite far from the joint distribution of a proper discretisation. Now this also made me think about a parameterised version in the 1996 paper spirit, but there is nothing specific about MALA that would prevent the implementation of the general principle. As for the unadjusted version, the joint distribution is directly available.  (But not necessarily the marginals.)

Here is an answer from Ingmar about that point

Personally, I think the most interesting part is the practical performance gain in terms of estimation accuracy for fixed CPU time, combined with the convergence guarantee from the CLT. ULA was particularly important to us because of the papers of Arnak Dalalyan, Alain Durmus & Eric Moulines and recently from Mike Jordan’s group, which all look at an unadjusted Langevin diffusion (and unimodal target distributions). But MALA admits a Metropolis-Hastings importance sampling estimator, just as Random Walk Metropolis does – we didn’t include MALA in the experiments to not get people confused with MALA and ULA. But there is no delicacy involved whatsoever in approximating the marginal MALA proposal distribution. The beauty of our approach is that it works for almost all Metropolis-Hastings algorithms where you can evaluate the proposal density q, there is no constraint to use random walks at all (we will emphasize this more in the paper).

minibatch acceptance for Metropolis-Hastings

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags , , , , , on January 12, 2018 by xi'an

An arXival that appeared last July by Seita, Pan, Chen, and Canny, and that relates to my current interest in speeding up MCMC. And to 2014 papers by  Korattikara et al., and Bardenet et al. Published in Uncertainty in AI by now. The authors claim that their method requires less data per iteration than earlier ones…

“Our test is applicable when the variance (over data samples) of the log probability ratio between the proposal and the current state is less than one.”

By test, the authors mean a mini-batch formulation of the Metropolis-Hastings acceptance ratio in the (special) setting of iid data. First they use Barker’s version of the acceptance probability instead of Metropolis’. Second, they use a Gaussian approximation to the distribution of the logarithm of the Metropolis ratio for the minibatch, while the Barker acceptance step corresponds to comparing a logistic perturbation of the logarithm of the Metropolis ratio against zero. Which amounts to compare the logarithm of the Metropolis ratio for the minibatch, perturbed by a logistic minus Normal variate. (The cancellation of the Normal in eqn (13) is a form of fiducial fallacy, where the Normal variate has two different meanings. In other words, the difference of two Normal variates is not equal to zero.) However, the next step escapes me as the authors seek to optimise the distribution of this logistic minus Normal variate. Which I thought was uniquely defined as such a difference. Another constraint is that the estimated variance of the log-likelihood ratio gets below one. (Why one?) The argument is that the average of the individual log-likelihoods is approximately Normal by virtue of the Central Limit Theorem. Even when randomised. While the illustrations on a Gaussian mixture and on a logistic regression demonstrate huge gains in computational time, it is unclear to me to which amount one can trust the approximation for a given model and sample size…

multinomial resampling by Metropolis

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags , , , , , on December 28, 2017 by xi'an

A few years ago Lawrence Murray wrote a note on accelerating the resampling stage in particle filters by using a Metropolis step. And GPUs. The notion that Metropolis can be applied in this setting is at first puzzling since exact multinomial sampling is available. And Metropolis requires convergence guarantees. Which Lawrence covers by a Raftery and Lewis assessment, which has severe limitations in general but may well be adequate for this very case, although possibly too conservative in the number of recommended Metropolis iterations. The gain brought by Metropolis is that it does not require summing up all the particle weights, and as a result the gain is real in that Metropolis beats all other approaches (time-wise) when the number of particles is not too large and the heterogeneity of the weighs not too  high. (I did not know of this note until Richard Everitt brought it to my attention.)