Archive for Metropolis-Hastings algorithm

general perspective on the Metropolis–Hastings kernel

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 14, 2021 by xi'an

[My Bristol friends and co-authors] Christophe Andrieu, and Anthony Lee, along with Sam Livingstone arXived a massive paper on 01 January on the Metropolis-Hastings kernel.

“Our aim is to develop a framework making establishing correctness of complex Markov chain Monte Carlo kernels a purely mechanical or algebraic exercise, while making communication of ideas simpler and unambiguous by allowing a stronger focus on essential features (…) This framework can also be used to validate kernels that do not satisfy detailed balance, i.e. which are not reversible, but a modified version thereof.”

A central notion in this highly general framework is, extending Tierney (1998), to see an MCMC kernel as a triplet involving a probability measure μ (on an extended space), an involution transform φ generalising the proposal step (i.e. þ²=id), and an associated acceptance probability ð. Then μ-reversibility occurs for

\eth(\xi)\mu(\text{d}\xi)= \eth(\phi(\xi))\mu^{\phi}(\text{d}\xi)

with the rhs involving the push-forward measure induced by μ and φ. And furthermore there is always a choice of an acceptance probability ð ensuring for this equality to happen. Interestingly, the new framework allows for mostly seamless handling of more complex versions of MCMC such as reversible jump and parallel tempering. But also non-reversible kernels, incl. for instance delayed rejection. And HMC, incl. NUTS. And pseudo-marginal, multiple-try, PDMPs, &c., &c. it is remarkable to see such a general theory emerging a this (late?) stage of the evolution of the field (and I will need more time and attention to understand its consequences).

Arianna Rosenbluth (1927-2020)

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , on December 30, 2020 by xi'an

Berni Alder obituary in Nature [and the Metropolis algorithm]

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on December 4, 2020 by xi'an

When reading through the 15 October issue of Nature, I came across an obituary by David Ceperley for Berni Alder (1925-2020). With Thomas Wainwright, Alder invented the technique of molecular dynamics, “silencing criticism that the results were the product of inaccurate computer arithmetic.” 

“Berni Alder pioneered computer simulation, in particular of the dynamics of atoms and molecules in condensed matter. To answer fundamental questions, he encouraged the view that computer simulation was a new way of doing science, one that could connect theory with experiment. Alder’s vision transformed the field of statistical mechanics and many other areas of applied science.”

As I was completely unaware of Alder’s contributions to the field, I was most surprised to read the following

“During his PhD, he and the computer scientist Stan Frankel developed an early Monte Carlo algorithm — one in which the spheres are given random displacements — to calculate the properties of the hard-sphere fluid. The advance was scooped by Nicholas Metropolis and his group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.”

that would imply missing credit is due!, but I could only find the following information on Stan Frankel’s Wikipedia page: Frankel “worked with PhD candidate Berni Alder in 1949–1950 to develop what is now known as Monte Carlo analysis. They used techniques that Enrico Fermi had pioneered in the 1930s. Due to a lack of local computing resources, Frankel travelled to England in 1950 to run Alder’s project on the Manchester Mark 1 computer. Unfortunately, Alder’s thesis advisor [John Kirkwood] was unimpressed, so Alder and Frankel delayed publication of their results until 1955, in the Journal of Chemical Physics. This left the major credit for the technique to a parallel project by a team including Teller and Metropolis who published similar work in the same journal in 1953.” The (short) paper by Alder, Frankel and Lewinson is however totally silent on a potential precursor to the Metropolis et al. algorithm (included in its references)… It also contains a proposal for a completely uniform filling of a box by particles, provided they do not overlap, but the authors had to stop at 98 particles due to its inefficiency.

maximal couplings of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 17, 2020 by xi'an

As a sequel to their JRSS B paper, John O’Leary, Guanyang Wang, and [my friend, co-author and former student!] Pierre E. Jacob have recently posted a follow-up paper on maximal coupling for Metropolis-Hastings algorithms, where maximal is to be understood in terms of the largest possible probability for the coupled chains to be equal, according to the bound set by the coupling inequality. It made me realise that there is a heap of very recent works in this area.

A question that came up when reading the paper with our PhD students is whether or not the coupled chains stay identical after meeting once. When facing two different targets this seems inevitable and indeed Lemma 2 seems to show that no. A strong lemma that does not [need to] state what happens outside the diagonal Δ.

One of the essential tricks is to optimise several kinds of maximal coupling, incl. one for the Bernoullesque choice of moving, as given on p.3.

Algorithm 1 came as a novelty to me as it first seemed (to me!) the two chains may never meet, but this was before I read the small prints of the transition (proposal) kernel being maximally coupled with itself. While Algorithm 2 may be the earliest example of Metropolis-Hastings coupling I have seen, namely in 1999 in Crete, in connection with a talk by Laird Breyer and Gareth Roberts at a workshop of our ESSS network. As explained by the authors, this solution is not always a maximal coupling for the reason that

min(q¹.q²) min(α¹,α²) ≤ min(q¹α¹,q²α²)

(with q for the transition kernel and α for the acceptance probability). Lemma 1 is interesting in that it describes the probability to un-meet (!) as the surface between one of the move densities and the minimum of the two.

The first solution is to couple by plain Accept-Reject with the first chain being the proposed value and if rejected [i.e. not in C] to generate from the remainder or residual of the second target, in a form of completion of acceptance-rejection (accept when above rather than below, i.e. in A or A’). This can be shown to be a maximal coupling. Another coupling using reflection residuals works better but requires some spherical structure in the kernel. A further coupling on the acceptance of the Metropolis-Hastings move seems to bring an extra degree of improvement.

In the introduction, the alternatives about the acceptance probability α(·,·), e.g. Metropolis-Hastings versus Barker, are mentioned but would it make a difference to the preferred maximal coupling when using one or the other?

A further comment is that, in larger dimensions, I mean larger than one!, a Gibbsic form of coupling could be considered. In which case it would certainly decrease the coupling probability but may still speed up the overall convergence by coupling more often. See “maximality is sometimes less important than other properties of a coupling, such as the contraction behavior when a meeting does not occur.” (p.8)

As a final pun, I noted that Vaserstein is not a typo, as Leonid Vaseršteĭn is a Russian-American mathematician, currently at Penn State.

computational advances in approximate Bayesian methods [at JSM]

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , on August 5, 2020 by xi'an

Another broadcast for an ABC (or rather ABM) session at JSM, organised and chaired by Robert Kohn, taking place tomorrow at 10am, ET, i.e., 2pm GMT, with variational and ABC talks:

454 * Thu, 8/6/2020, 10:00 AM – 11:50 AM Virtual
Computational Advances in Approximate Bayesian Methods — Topic Contributed Papers
Section on Bayesian Statistical Science
Organizer(s): Robert Kohn, University of New South Wales
Chair(s): Robert Kohn, University of New South Wales
10:05 AM Sparse Variational Inference: Bayesian Coresets from Scratch
Trevor Campbell, University of British Columbia
10:25 AM Fast Variational Approximation for Multivariate Factor Stochastic Volatility Model
David Gunawan, University of Wollongong; Robert Kohn, University of New South Wales; David Nott, National University of Singapore
10:45 AM High-Dimensional Copula Variational Approximation Through Transformation
Michael Smith, University of Melbourne; Ruben Loaiza-Maya, Monash University ; David Nott, National University of Singapore
11:05 AM Mini-Batch Metropolis-Hastings MCMC with Reversible SGLD Proposal
Rachel Wang, University of Sydney; Tung-Yu Wu, Stanford University; Wing Hung Wong, Stanford University
11:25 AM Weighted Approximate Bayesian Computation via Large Deviations Theory
Cecilia Viscardi, University of Florence; Michele Boreale, University of Florence; Fabio Corradi, University of Florence; Antonietta Mira, Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI)
11:45 AM Floor Discussion