Next week, Rémi Bardenet is giving a seminar in Paris, Thursday April 14, 2pm, in ENSAE [room 15] on MCMC methods for tall data. Unfortunately, I will miss this opportunity to discuss with Rémi as I will be heading to La Sapienza, Roma, for Clara Grazian‘s PhD defence the next day. And on Monday afternoon, April 11, Nicolas Chopin will give a talk on quasi-Monte Carlo for sequential problems at Institut Henri Poincaré.
Archive for quasi-Monte Carlo methods
As I am flying back to Paris (with an afternoon committee meeting in München in-between), I am reminiscing on the superlative scientific quality of this MCMski meeting, on the novel directions in computational Bayesian statistics exhibited therein, and on the potential settings for the next meeting. If any.
First, as hopefully obvious from my previous entries, I found the scientific program very exciting, with almost uniformly terrific talks, and a coverage of the field of computational Bayesian statistics that is perfectly tuned to my own interest. In that sense, MCMski is my “top one” conference! Even without considering the idyllic location. While some of the talks were about papers I had already read (and commented here), others brought new vistas and ideas. If one theme is to emerge from this meeting it has to be the one of approximate and noisy algorithms, with a wide variety of solutions and approaches to overcome complexity issues. If anything, I wish the solutions would also incorporate the Boxian fact that the statistical models themselves are approximate. Overall, a fantastic program (says one member of the scientific committee).
Second, as with previous MCMski meetings, I again enjoyed the unique ambience of the meeting, which always feels more relaxed and friendly than other conferences of a similar size, maybe because of the après-ski atmosphere or of the special coziness provided by luxurious mountain hotels. This year hotel was particularly pleasant, with non-guests like myself able to partake of some of their facilities. A big thank you to Anto for arranging so meticulously all the details of such a large meeting!!! I am even more grateful when realising this is the third time Anto takes over the heavy load of organising MCMski. Grazie mille!
Since this is a [and even the!] BayesComp conference, the current section program chair and board must decide on the structure and schedule of the next meeting. A few suggestions if I may: I would scrap entirely the name MCMski from the next conference as (a) it may sound like academic tourism for unaware bystanders (who only need to check the program of any of the MCMski conferences to stand reassured!) and (b) its topic go way beyond MCMC. Given the large attendance and equally large proportion of young researchers, I would also advise against hosting the conference in a ski resort for both cost and accessibility reasons [as we had already discussed after MCMskiv], in favour of a large enough town to offer a reasonable range of accommodations and of travel options. Like Chamonix, Innsbruck, Reykjavik, or any place with a major airport about one hour away… If nothing is available with skiing possibilities, so be it! While the outdoor inclinations of the early organisers induced us to pick locations where skiing over lunch break was a perk, any accessible location that allows for a concentration of researchers in a small area and for the ensuing day-long exchange is fine! Among the novelties in the program, the tutorials and the Breaking news! sessions were quite successful (says one member of the scientific committee). And should be continued in one format or another. Maybe a more programming thread could be added as well… And as we had mentioned earlier, to see a stronger involvement of the Young Bayesian section in the program would be great! (Even though the current meeting already had many young researcher talks.)
Last day at MCMskv! Not yet exhausted by this exciting conference, but this was the toughest day with one more session and a tutorial by Art Own on quasi Monte-Carlo. (Not even mentioning the night activities that I skipped. Or the ski break that I did not even consider.) Krys Latunszynski started with a plenary on exact methods for discretised diffusions, with a foray in Bernoulli factory problems. Then a neat session on adaptive MCMC methods that contained a talk by Chris Sherlock on delayed acceptance, where the approximation to the target was built by knn trees. (The adaptation was through the construction of the tree by including additional evaluations of the target density. Another paper sitting in my to-read list for too a long while: the exploitation of the observed values of π towards improving an MCMC sampler has always be “obvious” to me even though I could not see any practical way of doing so. )
It was wonderful that Art Owen accepted to deliver a tutorial at MCMskv on quasi-random Monte Carlo. Great tutorial, with a neat coverage of the issues most related to Monte Carlo integration. Since quasi-random sequences have trouble with accept/reject methods, a not-even-half-baked idea that came to me during Art’s tutorial was that the increased computing power granted by qMC could lead to a generic integration of the Metropolis-Hastings step in a Rao-Blackwellised manner. Art mentioned he was hoping that in a near future one could switch between pseudo- and quasi-random in an almost automated manner when running standard platforms like R. This would indeed be great, especially since quasi-random sequences seem to be available at the same cost as their pseudo-random counterpart. During the following qMC session, Art discussed the construction of optimal sequences on sets other than hypercubes (with the surprising feature that projecting optimal sequences from the hypercube does not work). Mathieu Gerber presented the quasi-random simulated annealing algorithm he developed with Luke Bornn that I briefly discussed a while ago. Or thought I did as I cannot trace a post on that paper! While the fact that annealing also works with quasi-random sequences is not astounding, the gain over random sequences shown on two examples is clear. The session also had a talk by Lester Mckey who relies Stein’s discrepancy to measure the value of an approximation to the true target. This was quite novel, with a surprising connection to Chris Oates’ talk and the use of score-based control variates, if used in a dual approach.
Another great session was the noisy MCMC one organised by Paul Jenkins (Warwick), with again a coherent presentation of views on the quality or lack thereof of noisy (or inexact) versions, with an update from Richard Everitt on inexact MCMC, Felipe Medina Aguayo (Warwick) on sufficient conditions for noisy versions to converge (and counterexamples), Jere Koskela (Warwick) on a pseudo-likelihood approach to the highly complex Kingman’s coalescent model in population genetics (of ABC fame!), and Rémi Bardenet on the tall data approximations techniques discussed in a recent post. Having seen or read most of those results previously did not diminish the appeal of the session.
Mathieu Gerber (formerly CREST) and Luke Bornn have arXived a paper on the almost sure convergence of simulated annealing algorithms when using a non-Markovian sequence that can be in the limiting case completely deterministic and hence use quasi-Monte Carlo sequences. The paper extends the earlier Gerber and Bornn (2015) that I missed. While the paper is highly technical, it shows that under some conditions a sequence of time-varying kernels can be used to reach the maximum of an objective function. With my limited experience with simulated annealing I find this notion of non-iid or even non-random both worth investigating and somewhat unsurprising from a practitioner’s view in that modifying a standard simulated annealing algorithm with steps depending on the entire past of the sequence usually produces better performances.
As a coincidence, I received my copy of JRSS Series B with the Read Paper by Mathieu Gerber and Nicolas Chopin on sequential quasi Monte Carlo just as I was preparing an arXival of a few discussions on the paper! Among the [numerous and diverse] discussions, a few were of particular interest to me [I highlighted members of the University of Warwick and of Université Paris-Dauphine to suggest potential biases!]:
- Mike Pitt (Warwick), Murray Pollock et al. (Warwick) and Finke et al. (Warwick) all suggested combining quasi Monte Carlo with pseudomarginal Metropolis-Hastings, pMCMC (Pitt) and Rao-Bklackwellisation (Finke et al.);
- Arnaud Doucet pointed out that John Skilling had used the Hilbert (ordering) curve in a 2004 paper;
- Chris Oates, Dan Simpson and Mark Girolami (Warwick) suggested combining quasi Monte Carlo with their functional control variate idea;
- Richard Everitt wondered about the dimension barrier of d=6 and about possible slice extensions;
- Zhijian He and Art Owen pointed out simple solutions to handle a random number of uniforms (for simulating each step in sequential Monte Carlo), namely to start with quasi Monte Carlo and end up with regular Monte Carlo, in an hybrid manner;
- Hans Künsch points out the connection with systematic resampling à la Carpenter, Clifford and Fearnhead (1999) and wonders about separating the impact of quasi Monte Carlo between resampling and propagating [which vaguely links to one of my comments];
- Pierre L’Ecuyer points out a possible improvement over the Hilbert curve by a preliminary sorting;
- Frederik Lindsten and Sumeet Singh propose using ABC to extend the backward smoother to intractable cases [but still with a fixed number of uniforms to use at each step], as well as Mateu and Ryder (Paris-Dauphine) for a more general class of intractable models;
- Omiros Papaspiliopoulos wonders at the possibility of a quasi Markov chain with “low discrepancy paths”;
- Daniel Rudolf suggest linking the error rate of sequential quasi Monte Carlo with the bounds of Vapnik and Ĉervonenkis (1977).
The arXiv document also includes the discussions by Julyan Arbel and Igor Prünster (Turino) on the Bayesian nonparametric side of sqMC and by Robin Ryder (Dauphine) on the potential of sqMC for ABC.
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
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
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
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?
As I was reading in the Paris métro a new textbook on Quasi-Monte Carlo methods, Introduction to Quasi-Monte Carlo Integration and Applications, written by Gunther Leobacher and Friedrich Pillichshammer, I came upon the lemma that, given two sequences on (0,1) such that, for all i’s,
and the geometric bound made me wonder if there was an easy probabilistic proof to this inequality. Rather than the algebraic proof contained in the book. Unsurprisingly, there is one based on associating with each pair (u,v) a pair of independent events (A,B) such that, for all i’s,
Obviously, there is no visible consequence to this remark, but it was a good way to switch off the métro hassle for a while! (The book is under review and the review will hopefully be posted on the ‘Og as soon as it is completed.)