**Y**esterday, Andrew posted an announcement for a postdoc position in Paris, at the national medical research institute (INSERM) on Bayesian approaches to high throughput genetic analyses using nonlinear mixed effect models and the comments went ballistic about the low salary attached to this postdoctoral position, namely 2600€ – 3000€. As I have already commented on the rather stale clichés on French academics, let me briefly reflect on the limitations of comparing 3000€ a month in Paris with say $5000 a month in New York City. (Which seems to be at the high end of US postdoc salaries.) First, the posted salaries are “gross” but the French one already excludes the 25% taxes paid by the employer. I do not know if this is the case in the US. Second, comparing absolute values makes little sense imho. Even if the purchasing power parity is about one between France and the US, I think the long term cost of living [as opposed to visiting for a week] is lower here than there. If only because the amount is similar to, if higher than, the starting academic salaries and around the median salary. Interestingly, the same appears to be true for the US, if less favourably for the postdocs there.

## Archive for mixed effect models

## cost(s) of living

Posted in Kids, pictures, Travel, University life with tags Bayesian Analysis, cost of living, INSERM, mixed effect models, New York city, Paris, postdocs, salary on March 4, 2021 by xi'an## approximate likelihood perspective on ABC

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags ABC, Approximate Bayesian computation, approximate likelihood, curse of dimensionality, g-and-k distributions, Gibbs sampling, IMS, MCqMC 2018, mixed effect models, Potts model, Statistics Surveys, summary statistics, survey, tolerance, winference on December 20, 2018 by xi'an**G**eorge Karabatsos and Fabrizio Leisen have recently published in Statistics Surveys a fairly complete survey on ABC methods [which earlier arXival I had missed]. Listing within an extensive bibliography of 20 pages some twenty-plus earlier reviews on ABC (with further ones in applied domains)!

*“(…) any ABC method (algorithm) can be categorized as either (1) rejection-, (2) kernel-, and (3) coupled ABC; and (4) synthetic-, (5) empirical- and (6) bootstrap-likelihood methods; and can be **combined with classical MC or VI algorithms [and] all 22 reviews of ABC methods have covered rejection and kernel ABC methods, but only three covered synthetic likelihood, one reviewed the empirical likelihood, and none have reviewed coupled ABC and bootstrap likelihood methods.”*

The motivation for using approximate likelihood methods is provided by the examples of g-and-k distributions, although the likelihood can be efficiently derived by numerical means, as shown by Pierre Jacob‘s winference package, of mixed effect linear models, although a completion by the mixed effects themselves is available for Gibbs sampling as in Zeger and Karim (1991), and of the hidden Potts model, which we covered by pre-processing in our 2015 paper with Matt Moores, Chris Drovandi, Kerrie Mengersen. The paper produces a general representation of the approximate likelihood that covers the algorithms listed above as through the table below (where t(.) denotes the summary statistic):

The table looks a wee bit challenging simply because the review includes the synthetic likelihood approach of Wood (2010), which figured preeminently in the 2012 Read Paper discussion but opens the door to all kinds of approximations of the likelihood function, including variational Bayes and non-parametric versions. After a description of the above versions (including a rather ignored coupled version) and the special issue of ABC model choice, the authors expand on the difficulties with running ABC, from multiple tuning issues, to the genuine curse of dimensionality in the parameter (with unnecessary remarks on low-dimension sufficient statistics since they are almost surely inexistent in most realistic settings), to the mis-specified case (on which we are currently working with David Frazier and Judith Rousseau). To conclude, an worthwhile update on ABC and on the side a funny typo from the reference list!

Li, W. and Fearnhead, P. (2018, in press). On the asymptotic efficiency

of approximate Bayesian computation estimators.Biometrikanana-na.

## Bangalore workshop [ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಕಾರ್ಯಾಗಾರ] and new book

Posted in Books, pictures, R, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags Bangalore, book review, CHANCE, EM, IFCAM, Indian Institute of Science, INRIA, Kolkata, Marc Lavielle, MCMC, mixed effect models, Monolix, SAEM on August 13, 2014 by xi'an**O**n the last day of the IFCAM workshop in Bangalore, Marc Lavielle from INRIA presented a talk on mixed effects where he illustrated his original computer language Monolix. And mentioned that his CRC Press book on *Mixed Effects Models for the Population Approach* was out! (Appropriately listed as out on a 14th of July on amazon!) He actually demonstrated the abilities of Monolix live and on diabets data provided by an earlier speaker from Kolkata, which was a perfect way to start initiating a collaboration! Nice cover (which is all I saw from the book at this stage!) that maybe will induce candidates to write a review for CHANCE. Estimation of those mixed effect models relies on stochastic EM algorithms developed by Marc Lavielle and Éric Moulines in the 90’s, as well as MCMC methods.

## Computing evidence

Posted in Books, R, Statistics with tags Bayesian model choice, evidence, harmonic mean estimator, latent variable, Lecture Notes in Statistics, MCMC, mixed effect models, path sampling, prior projection, simulation, unbiasedness on November 29, 2010 by xi'anThe book ** Random effects and latent variable model selection**, edited by David Dunson in 2008 as a Springer Lecture Note. contains several chapters dealing with evidence approximation in mixed effect models. (Incidentally, I would be interested in the story behind the Lecture Note as I found no explanation in the backcover or in the preface. Some chapters but not all refer to a SAMSI workshop on model uncertainty…) The final chapter written by Joyee Ghosh and David Dunson (similar to a corresponding paper in JCGS) contains in particular the interesting identity that the Bayes factor opposing model

*h*to model

*h-1*can be unbiasedly approximated by (the average of the terms)

when

- is the model index,
- the ‘s are simulated from the posterior under model
*h,* - the model only considers the
*h-1*first components of , - the prior under model
*h-1*is the projection of the prior under model*h*. (Note that this marginalisation is not the projection used in.)**Bayesian Core**