Archive for non-informative priors

Bayesian spectacles

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on October 4, 2017 by xi'an

E.J. Wagenmakers and his enthusiastic team of collaborators at University of Amsterdam and in the JASP software designing team have started a blog called Bayesian spectacles which I find a fantastic title. And not only because I wear glasses. Plus, they got their own illustrator, Viktor Beekman, which sounds like the epitome of sophistication! (Compared with resorting to vacation or cat pictures…)

In a most recent post they addressed the criticisms we made of the 72 author paper on p-values, one of the co-authors being E.J.! Andrew already re-addressed some of the address, but here is a disagreement he let me to chew on my own [and where the Abandoners are us!]:

Disagreement 2. The Abandoners’ critique the UMPBTs –the uniformly most powerful Bayesian tests– that features in the original paper. This is their right (see also the discussion of the 2013 Valen Johnson PNAS paper), but they ignore the fact that the original paper presented a series of other procedures that all point to the same conclusion: p-just-below-.05 results are evidentially weak. For instance, a cartoon on the JASP blog explains the Vovk-Sellke bound. A similar result is obtained using the upper bounds discussed in Berger & Sellke (1987) and Edwards, Lindman, & Savage (1963). We suspect that the Abandoners’ dislike of Bayes factors (and perhaps their upper bounds) is driven by a disdain for the point-null hypothesis. That is understandable, but the two critiques should not be mixed up. The first question is Given that we wish to test a point-null hypothesis, do the Bayes factor upper bounds demonstrate that the evidence is weak for p-just-below-.05 results? We believe they do, and in this series of blog posts we have provided concrete demonstrations.

Obviously, this reply calls for an examination of the entire BS blog series, but being short in time at the moment, let me point out that the upper lower bounds on the Bayes factors showing much more support for H⁰ than a p-value at 0.05 only occur in special circumstances. Even though I spend some time in my book discussing those bounds. Indeed, the [interesting] fact that the lower bounds are larger than the p-values does not hold in full generality. Moving to a two-dimensional normal with potentially zero mean is enough to see the order between lower bound and p-value reverse, as I found [quite] a while ago when trying to expand Berger and Sellker (1987, the same year as I was visiting Purdue where both had a position). I am not sure this feature has been much explored in the literature, I did not pursue it when I realised the gap was missing in larger dimensions… I must also point out I do not have the same repulsion for point nulls as Andrew! While considering whether a parameter, say a mean, is exactly zero [or three or whatever] sounds rather absurd when faced with the strata of uncertainty about models, data, procedures, &tc.—even in theoretical physics!—, comparing several [and all wrong!] models with or without some parameters for later use still makes sense. And my reluctance in using Bayes factors does not stem from an opposition to comparing models or from the procedure itself, which is quite appealing within a Bayesian framework [thus appealing per se!], but rather from the unfortunate impact of the prior [and its tail behaviour] on the quantity and on the delicate calibration of the thing. And on a lack of reference solution [to avoid the O and the N words!]. As exposed in the demise papers. (Which main version remains in a publishing limbo, the onslaught from the referees proving just too much for me!)

round-table on Bayes[ian[ism]]

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 7, 2017 by xi'an

In a [sort of] coincidence, shortly after writing my review on Le bayésianisme aujourd’hui, I got invited by the book editor, Isabelle Drouet, to take part in a round-table on Bayesianism in La Sorbonne. Which constituted the first seminar in the monthly series of the séminaire “Probabilités, Décision, Incertitude”. Invitation that I accepted and honoured by taking place in this public debate (if not dispute) on all [or most] things Bayes. Along with Paul Egré (CNRS, Institut Jean Nicod) and Pascal Pernot (CNRS, Laboratoire de chimie physique). And without a neuroscientist, who could not or would not attend.

While nothing earthshaking came out of the seminar, and certainly not from me!, it was interesting to hear of the perspectives of my philosophy+psychology and chemistry colleagues, the former explaining his path from classical to Bayesian testing—while mentioning trying to read the book Statistical rethinking reviewed a few months ago—and the later the difficulty to teach both colleagues and students the need for an assessment of uncertainty in measurements. And alluding to GUM, developed by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures I visited last year. I tried to present my relativity viewpoints on the [relative] nature of the prior, to avoid the usual morass of debates on the nature and subjectivity of the prior, tried to explain Bayesian posteriors via ABC, mentioned examples from The Theorem that Would not Die, yet untranslated into French, and expressed reserves about the glorious future of Bayesian statistics as we know it. This seminar was fairly enjoyable, with none of the stress induced by the constraints of a radio-show. Just too bad it did not attract a wider audience!

le bayésianisme aujourd’hui [book review]

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 4, 2017 by xi'an

It is quite rare to see a book published in French about Bayesian statistics and even rarer to find one that connects philosophy of science, foundations of probability, statistics, and applications in neurosciences and artificial intelligence. Le bayésianisme aujourd’hui (Bayesianism today) was edited by Isabelle Drouet, a Reader in Philosophy at La Sorbonne. And includes a chapter of mine on the basics of Bayesian inference (à la Bayesian Choice), written in French like the rest of the book.

The title of the book is rather surprising (to me) as I had never heard the term Bayesianism mentioned before. As shown by this link, the term apparently exists. (Even though I dislike the sound of it!) The notion is one of a probabilistic structure of knowledge and learning, à la Poincaré. As described in the beginning of the book. But I fear the arguments minimising the subjectivity of the Bayesian approach should not be advanced, following my new stance on the relativity of probabilistic statements, if only because they are defensive and open the path all too easily to counterarguments. Similarly, the argument according to which the “Big Data” era makesp the impact of the prior negligible and paradoxically justifies the use of Bayesian methods is limited to the case of little Big Data, i.e., when the observations are more or less iid with a limited number of parameters. Not when the number of parameters explodes. Another set of arguments that I find both more modern and compelling [for being modern is not necessarily a plus!] is the ease with which the Bayesian framework allows for integrative and cooperative learning. Along with its ultimate modularity, since each component of the learning mechanism can be extracted and replaced with an alternative. Continue reading

non-local priors for mixtures

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 15, 2016 by xi'an

[For some unknown reason, this commentary on the paper by Jairo Fúquene, Mark Steel, David Rossell —all colleagues at Warwick— on choosing mixture components by non-local priors remained untouched in my draft box…]

Choosing the number of components in a mixture of (e.g., Gaussian) distributions is a hard problem. It may actually be an altogether impossible problem, even when abstaining from moral judgements on mixtures. I do realise that the components can eventually be identified as the number of observations grows to infinity, as demonstrated foFaith, Barossa Valley wine: strange name for a Shiraz (as it cannot be a mass wine!, but nice flavoursr instance by Judith Rousseau and Kerrie Mengersen (2011). But for a finite and given number of observations, how much can we trust any conclusion about the number of components?! It seems to me that the criticism about the vacuity of point null hypotheses, namely the logical absurdity of trying to differentiate θ=0 from any other value of θ, applies to the estimation or test on the number of components of a mixture. Doubly so, one might argue, since a very small or a very close component is undistinguishable from a non-existing one. For instance, Definition 2 is correct from a mathematical viewpoint, but it does not spell out the multiple contiguities between k and k’ component mixtures.

The paper starts with a comprehensive coverage of l’état de l’art… When using a Bayes factor to compare a k-component and an h-component mixture, the behaviour of the factor is quite different depending on which model is correct. Essentially overfitted mixtures take much longer to detect than underfitted ones, which makes intuitive sense. And BIC should be corrected for overfitted mixtures by a canonical dimension λ between the true and the (larger) assumed number of parameters  into

2 log m(y) = 2 log p(y|θ) – λ log O(n) + O(log log n)

I would argue that this purely invalidates BIG in mixture settings since the canonical dimension λ is unavailable (and DIC does not provide a useful substitute as we illustrated a decade ago…) The criticism about Rousseau and Mengersen (2011) over-fitted mixture that their approach shrinks less than a model averaging over several numbers of components relates to minimaxity and hence sounds both overly technical and reverting to some frequentist approach to testing. Replacing testing with estimating sounds like the right idea.  And I am also unconvinced that a faster rate of convergence of the posterior probability or of the Bayes factor is a relevant factor when conducting

As for non local priors, the notion seems to rely on a specific topology for the parameter space since a k-component mixture can approach a k’-component mixture (when k'<k) in a continuum of ways (even for a given parameterisation). This topology seems to be summarised by the penalty (distance?) d(θ) in the paper. Is there an intrinsic version of d(θ), given the weird parameter space? Like one derived from the Kullback-Leibler distance between the models? The choice of how zero is approached clearly has an impact on how easily the “null” is detected, the more because of the somewhat discontinuous nature of the parameter space. Incidentally, I find it curious that only the distance between means is penalised… The prior also assumes independence between component parameters and component weights, which I think is suboptimal in dealing with mixtures, maybe suboptimal in a poetic sense!, as we discussed in our reparameterisation paper. I am not sure either than the speed the distance converges to zero (in Theorem 1) helps me to understand whether the mixture has too many components for the data’s own good when I can run a calibration experiment under both assumptions.

While I appreciate the derivation of a closed form non-local prior, I wonder at the importance of the result. Is it because this leads to an easier derivation of the posterior probability? I do not see the connection in Section 3, except maybe that the importance weight indeed involves this normalising constant when considering several k’s in parallel. Is there any convergence issue in the importance sampling solution of (3.1) and (3.3) since the simulations are run under the local posterior? While I appreciate the availability of an EM version for deriving the MAP, a fact I became aware of only recently, is it truly bringing an improvement when compared with picking the MCMC simulation with the highest completed posterior?

The section on prior elicitation is obviously of central interest to me! It however seems to be restricted to the derivation of the scale factor g, in the distance, and of the parameter q in the Dirichlet prior on the weights. While the other parameters suffer from being allocated the conjugate-like priors. I would obviously enjoy seeing how this approach proceeds with our non-informative prior(s). In this regard, the illustration section is nice, but one always wonders at the representative nature of the examples and the possible interpretations of real datasets. For instance, when considering that the Old Faithful is more of an HMM than a mixture.

same data – different models – different answers

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on June 1, 2016 by xi'an

An interesting question from a reader of the Bayesian Choice came out on X validated last week. It was about Laplace’s succession rule, which I found somewhat over-used, but it was nonetheless interesting because the question was about the discrepancy of the “non-informative” answers derived from two models applied to the data: an Hypergeometric distribution in the Bayesian Choice and a Binomial on Wikipedia. The originator of the question had trouble with the difference between those two “non-informative” answers as she or he believed that there was a single non-informative principle that should lead to a unique answer. This does not hold, even when following a reference prior principle like Jeffreys’ invariant rule or Jaynes’ maximum entropy tenets. For instance, the Jeffreys priors associated with a Binomial and a Negative Binomial distributions differ. And even less when considering that  there is no unity in reaching those reference priors. (Not even mentioning the issue of the reference dominating measure for the definition of the entropy.) This led to an informative debate, which is the point of X validated.

On a completely unrelated topic, the survey ship looking for the black boxes of the crashed EgyptAir plane is called the Laplace.

objectivity in prior distributions for the multinomial model

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , on March 17, 2016 by xi'an

Today, Danilo Alvares visiting from the Universitat de Valencià gave a talk at CREST about choosing a prior for the Multinomial distribution. Comparing different Dirichlet priors. In a sense this is an hopeless task, first because there is no reason to pick a particular prior unless one picks a very specific and a-Bayesian criterion to discriminate between priors, second because the multinomial is a weird distribution, hardly a distribution at all in that it results from grouping observations into classes, often based on the observations themselves. A construction that should be included within the choice of the prior maybe? But there lurks a danger of ending up with a data-dependent prior. My other remark about this problem is that, among the token priors, Perk’s prior using 1/k as its hyper-parameter [where k is the number of categories] is rather difficult to justify compared with 1/k² or 1/k³, except for aggregation consistency to some extent. And Laplace’s prior gets highly concentrated as the number of categories grows.

read paper [in Bristol]

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 29, 2016 by xi'an

Clifton & Durdham Downs, Bristol, Sept. 25, 2012I went to give a seminar in Bristol last Friday and I chose to present the testing with mixture paper. As we are busy working on the revision, I was eagerly looking for comments and criticisms that could strengthen this new version. As it happened, the (Bristol) Bayesian Cake (Reading) Club had chosen our paper for discussion, two weeks in a row!, hence the title!, and I got invited to join the group the morning prior to the seminar! This was, of course, most enjoyable and relaxed, including an home-made cake!, but also quite helpful in assessing our arguments in the paper. One point of contention or at least of discussion was the common parametrisation between the components of the mixture. Although all parametrisations are equivalent from a single component point of view, I can [almost] see why using a mixture with the same parameter value on all components may impose some unsuspected constraint on that parameter. Even when the parameter is the same moment for both components. This still sounds like a minor counterpoint in that the weight should converge to either zero or one and hence eventually favour the posterior on the parameter corresponding to the “true” model.

Another point that was raised during the discussion is the behaviour of the method under misspecification or for an M-open framework: when neither model is correct does the weight still converge to the boundary associated with the closest model (as I believe) or does a convexity argument produce a non-zero weight as it limit (as hinted by one example in the paper)? I had thought very little about this and hence had just as little to argue though as this does not sound to me like the primary reason for conducting tests. Especially in a Bayesian framework. If one is uncertain about both models to be compared, one should have an alternative at the ready! Or use a non-parametric version, which is a direction we need to explore deeper before deciding it is coherent and convergent!

A third point of discussion was my argument that mixtures allow us to rely on the same parameter and hence the same prior, whether proper or not, while Bayes factors are less clearly open to this interpretation. This was not uniformly accepted!

Thinking afresh about this approach also led me to broaden my perspective on the use of the posterior distribution of the weight(s) α: while previously I had taken those weights mostly as a proxy to the posterior probabilities, to be calibrated by pseudo-data experiments, as for instance in Figure 9, I now perceive them primarily as the portion of the data in agreement with the corresponding model [or hypothesis] and more importantly as a solution for staying away from a Neyman-Pearson-like decision. Or error evaluation. Usually, when asked about the interpretation of the output, my answer is to compare the behaviour of the posterior on the weight(s) with a posterior associated with a sample from each model. Which does sound somewhat similar to posterior predictives if the samples are simulated from the associated predictives. But the issue was not raised during the visit to Bristol, which possibly reflects on how unfrequentist the audience was [the Statistics group is], as it apparently accepted with no further ado the use of a posterior distribution as a soft assessment of the comparative fits of the different models. If not necessarily agreeing the need of conducting hypothesis testing (especially in the case of the Pima Indian dataset!).