mixture models with a prior on the number of components

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , on March 6, 2015 by xi'an

“From a Bayesian perspective, perhaps the most natural approach is to treat the numberof components like any other unknown parameter and put a prior on it.”

Another mixture paper on arXiv! Indeed, Jeffrey Miller and Matthew Harrison recently arXived a paper on estimating the number of components in a mixture model, comparing the parametric with the non-parametric Dirichlet prior approaches. Since priors can be chosen towards agreement between those. This is an obviously interesting issue, as they are often opposed in modelling debates. The above graph shows a crystal clear agreement between finite component mixture modelling and Dirichlet process modelling. The same happens for classification.  However, Dirichlet process priors do not return an estimate of the number of components, which may be considered a drawback if one considers this is an identifiable quantity in a mixture model… But the paper stresses that the number of estimated clusters under the Dirichlet process modelling tends to be larger than the number of components in the finite case. Hence that the Dirichlet process mixture modelling is not consistent in that respect, producing parasite extra clusters…

In the parametric modelling, the authors assume the same scale is used in all Dirichlet priors, that is, for all values of k, the number of components. Which means an incoherence when marginalising from k to (k-p) components. Mild incoherence, in fact, as the parameters of the different models do not have to share the same priors. And, as shown by Proposition 3.3 in the paper, this does not prevent coherence in the marginal distribution of the latent variables. The authors also draw a comparison between the distribution of the partition in the finite mixture case and the Chinese restaurant process associated with the partition in the infinite case. A further analogy is that the finite case allows for a stick breaking representation. A noteworthy difference between both modellings is about the size of the partitions

$\mathbb{P}(s_1,\ldots,s_k)\propto\prod_{j=1}^k s_j^{-\gamma}\quad\text{versus}\quad\mathbb{P}(s_1,\ldots,s_k)\propto\prod_{j=1}^k s_j^{-1}$

in the finite (homogeneous partitions) and infinite (extreme partitions) cases.

An interesting entry into the connections between “regular” mixture modelling and Dirichlet mixture models. Maybe not ultimately surprising given the past studies by Peter Green and Sylvia Richardson of both approaches (1997 in Series B and 2001 in JASA).

Overfitting Bayesian mixture models with an unknown number of components

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , on March 4, 2015 by xi'an

During my Czech vacations, Zoé van Havre, Nicole White, Judith Rousseau, and Kerrie Mengersen1 posted on arXiv a paper on overfitting mixture models to estimate the number of components. This is directly related with Judith and Kerrie’s 2011 paper and with Zoé’s PhD topic. The paper also returns to the vexing (?) issue of label switching! I very much like the paper and not only because the author are good friends!, but also because it brings a solution to an approach I briefly attempted with Marie-Anne Gruet in the early 1990’s, just before finding about the reversible jump MCMC algorithm of Peter Green at a workshop in Luminy and considering we were not going to “beat the competition”! Hence not publishing the output of our over-fitted Gibbs samplers that were nicely emptying extra components… It also brings a rebuke about a later assertion of mine’s at an ICMS workshop on mixtures, where I defended the notion that over-fitted mixtures could not be detected, a notion that was severely disputed by David McKay…

What is so fantastic in Rousseau and Mengersen (2011) is that a simple constraint on the Dirichlet prior on the mixture weights suffices to guarantee that asymptotically superfluous components will empty out and signal they are truly superfluous! The authors here cumulate the over-fitted mixture with a tempering strategy, which seems somewhat redundant, the number of extra components being a sort of temperature, but eliminates the need for fragile RJMCMC steps. Label switching is obviously even more of an issue with a larger number of components and identifying empty components seems to require a lack of label switching for some components to remain empty!

When reading through the paper, I came upon the condition that only the priors of the weights are allowed to vary between temperatures. Distinguishing the weights from the other parameters does make perfect sense, as some representations of a mixture work without those weights. Still I feel a bit uncertain about the fixed prior constraint, even though I can see the rationale in not allowing for complete freedom in picking those priors. More fundamentally, I am less and less happy with independent identical or exchangeable priors on the components.

Our own recent experience with almost zero weights mixtures (and with Judith, Kaniav, and Kerrie) suggests not using solely a Gibbs sampler there as it shows poor mixing. And even poorer label switching. The current paper does not seem to meet the same difficulties, maybe thanks to (prior) tempering.

The paper proposes a strategy called Zswitch to resolve label switching, which amounts to identify a MAP for each possible number of components and a subsequent relabelling. Even though I do not entirely understand the way the permutation is constructed. I wonder in particular at the cost of the relabelling.

trans-dimensional nested sampling and a few planets

Posted in Books, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 2, 2015 by xi'an

This morning, in the train to Dauphine (train that was even more delayed than usual!), I read a recent arXival of Brendon Brewer and Courtney Donovan. Entitled Fast Bayesian inference for exoplanet discovery in radial velocity data, the paper suggests to associate Matthew Stephens’ (2000)  birth-and-death MCMC approach with nested sampling to infer about the number N of exoplanets in an exoplanetary system. The paper is somewhat sparse in its description of the suggested approach, but states that the birth-date moves involves adding a planet with parameters simulated from the prior and removing a planet at random, both being accepted under a likelihood constraint associated with nested sampling. I actually wonder if this actually is the birth-date version of Peter Green’s (1995) RJMCMC rather than the continuous time birth-and-death process version of Matthew…

“The traditional approach to inferring N also contradicts fundamental ideas in Bayesian computation. Imagine we are trying to compute the posterior distribution for a parameter a in the presence of a nuisance parameter b. This is usually solved by exploring the joint posterior for a and b, and then only looking at the generated values of a. Nobody would suggest the wasteful alternative of using a discrete grid of possible a values and doing an entire Nested Sampling run for each, to get the marginal likelihood as a function of a.”

This criticism is receivable when there is a huge number of possible values of N, even though I see no fundamental contradiction with my ideas about Bayesian computation. However, it is more debatable when there are a few possible values for N, given that the exploration of the augmented space by a RJMCMC algorithm is often very inefficient, in particular when the proposed parameters are generated from the prior. The more when nested sampling is involved and simulations are run under the likelihood constraint! In the astronomy examples given in the paper, N never exceeds 15… Furthermore, by merging all N’s together, it is unclear how the evidences associated with the various values of N can be computed. At least, those are not reported in the paper.

The paper also omits to provide the likelihood function so I do not completely understand where “label switching” occurs therein. My first impression is that this is not a mixture model. However if the observed signal (from an exoplanetary system) is the sum of N signals corresponding to N planets, this makes more sense.

using mixtures towards Bayes factor approximation

Posted in Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , on December 11, 2014 by xi'an

Phil O’Neill and Theodore Kypraios from the University of Nottingham have arXived last week a paper on “Bayesian model choice via mixture distributions with application to epidemics and population process models”. Since we discussed this paper during my visit there earlier this year, I was definitely looking forward the completed version of their work. Especially because there are some superficial similarities with our most recent work on… Bayesian model choice via mixtures! (To the point that I misunderstood at the beginning their proposal for ours…)

The central idea in the paper is that, by considering the mixture likelihood

$\alpha\ell_1(\theta_1|\mathbf{x})+(1-\alpha)\ell_2(\theta_2|\mathbf{x})$

where x corresponds to the entire sample, it is straighforward to relate the moments of α with the Bayes factor, namely

$\mathfrak{B}_{12}=\dfrac{\mathbb{E}[\alpha]-\mathbb{E}[\alpha^2]-\mathbb{E}[\alpha|\mathbf{x}](1-\mathbb{E}[\alpha])}{\mathbb{E}[\alpha]\mathbb{E}[\alpha|\mathbf{x}]-\mathbb{E}[\alpha^2]}$

which means that estimating the mixture weight α by MCMC is equivalent to estimating the Bayes factor.

What puzzled me at first was that the mixture weight is in fine estimated with a single “datapoint”, made of the entire sample. So the posterior distribution on α is hardly different from the prior, since it solely varies by one unit! But I came to realise that this is a numerical tool and that the estimator of α is not meaningful  from a statistical viewpoint (thus differing completely from our perspective). This explains why the Beta prior on α can be freely chosen so that the mixing and stability of the Markov chain is improved: This parameter is solely an algorithmic entity.

There are similarities between this approach and the pseudo-prior encompassing perspective of Carlin and Chib (1995), even though the current version does not require pseudo-priors, using true priors instead. But thinking of weakly informative priors and of the MCMC consequence (see below) leads me to wonder if pseudo-priors would not help in this setting…

Another aspect of the paper that still puzzles me is that the MCMC algorithm mixes at all: indeed, depending on the value of the binary latent variable z, one of the two parameters is updated from the true posterior while the other is updated from the prior. It thus seems unlikely that the value of z would change quickly. Creating a huge imbalance in the prior can counteract this difference, but the same problem occurs once z has moved from 0 to 1 or from 1 to 0. It seems to me that resorting to a common parameter [if possible] and using as a proposal the model-based posteriors for both parameters is the only way out of this conundrum. (We do certainly insist on this common parametrisation in our approach as it is paramount to the use of improper priors.)

“In contrast, we consider the case where there is only one datum.”

The idea in the paper is therefore fully computational and relates to other linkage methods that create bridges between two models. It differs from our new notion of Bayesian testing in that we consider estimating the mixture between the two models in comparison, hence considering instead the mixture

$\prod_{i=1}^n\alpha f_1(x_i|\theta_1)+(1-\alpha) f_2(x_i|\theta_2)$

which is another model altogether and does not recover the original Bayes factor (Bayes factor that we altogether dismiss in favour of the posterior median of α and its entire distribution).

improved approximate-Bayesian model-choice method for estimating shared evolutionary history [reply from the author]

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 3, 2014 by xi'an

[Here is a very kind and detailed reply from Jamie Oakes to the comments I made on his ABC paper a few days ago:]

First of all, many thanks for your thorough review of my pre-print! It is very helpful and much appreciated. I just wanted to comment on a few things you address in your post.

I am a little confused about how my replacement of continuous uniform probability distributions with gamma distributions for priors on several parameters introduces a potentially crippling number of hyperparameters. Both uniform and gamma distributions have two parameters. So, the new model only has one additional hyperparameter compared to the original msBayes model: the concentration parameter on the Dirichlet process prior on divergence models. Also, the new model offers a uniform prior over divergence models (though I don’t recommend it).

Your comment about there being no new ABC technique is 100% correct. The model is new, the ABC numerical machinery is not. Also, your intuition is correct, I do not use the divergence times to calculate summary statistics. I mention the divergence times in the description of the ABC algorithm with the hope of making it clear that the times are scaled (see Equation (12)) prior to the simulation of the data (from which the summary statistics are calculated). This scaling is simply to go from units proportional to time, to units that are proportional to the expected number of mutations. Clearly, my attempt at clarity only created unnecessary opacity. I’ll have to make some edits.

Regarding the reshuffling of the summary statistics calculated from different alignments of sequences, the statistics are not exchangeable. So, reshuffling them in a manner that is not conistent across all simulations and the observed data is not mathematically valid. Also, if elements are exchangeable, their order will not affect the likelihood (or the posterior, barring sampling error). Thus, if our goal is to approximate the likelihood, I would hope the reshuffling would also have little affect on the approximate posterior (otherwise my approximation is not so good?).

You are correct that my use of “bias” was not well defined in reference to the identity line of my plots of the estimated vs true probability of the one-divergence model. I think we can agree that, ideally (all assumptions are met), the estimated posterior probability of a model should estimate the probability that the model is correct. For large numbers of simulation
replicates, the proportion of the replicates for which the one-divergence model is true will approximate the probability that the one-divergence model is correct. Thus, if the method has the desirable (albeit “frequentist”) behavior such that the estimated posterior probability of the one-divergence model is an unbiased estimate of the probability that the one-divergence model is correct, the points should fall near the identity line. For example, let us say the method estimates a posterior probability of 0.90 for the one-divergence model for 1000 simulated datasets. If the method is accurately estimating the probability that the one-divergence model is the correct model, then the one-divergence model should be the true model for approximately 900 of the 1000 datasets. Any trend away from the identity line indicates the method is biased in the (frequentist) sense that it is not correctly estimating the probability that the one-divergence model is the correct model. I agree this measure of “bias” is frequentist in nature. However, it seems like a worthwhile goal for Bayesian model-choice methods to have good frequentist properties. If a method strongly deviates from the identity line, it is much more difficult to interpret the posterior probabilites that it estimates. Going back to my example of the posterior probability of 0.90 for 1000 replicates, I would be alarmed if the model was true in only 100 of the replicates.

My apologies if my citation of your PNAS paper seemed misleading. The citation was intended to be limited to the context of ABC methods that use summary statistics that are insufficient across the models under comparison (like msBayes and the method I present in the paper). I will definitely expand on this sentence to make this clearer in revisions. Thanks!

Lastly, my concluding remarks in the paper about full-likelihood methods in this domain are not as lofty as you might think. The likelihood function of the msBayes model is tractable, and, in fact, has already been derived and implemented via reversible-jump MCMC (albeit, not readily available yet). Also, there are plenty of examples of rich, Kingman-coalescent models implemented in full-likelihood Bayesian frameworks. Too many to list, but a lot of them are implemented in the BEAST software package. One noteworthy example is the work of Bryant et al. (2012, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 29(8), 1917–32) that analytically integrates over all gene trees for biallelic markers under the coalescent.

Biometrika, volume 100

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 5, 2013 by xi'an

I had been privileged to have a look at a preliminary version of the now-published retrospective written by Mike Titterington on the 100 first issues of Biometrika (more exactly, “from volume 28 onwards“, as the title state). Mike was the dedicated editor of Biometrika for many years and edited a nice book for the 100th anniversary of the journal. He started from the 100th most highly cited papers within the journal to build a coherent chronological coverage. From a Bayesian perspective, this retrospective starts with Maurice Kendall trying to reconcile frequentists and non-frequentists in 1949, while having a hard time with fiducial statistics. Then Dennis Lindley makes it to the top 100 in 1957 with the Lindley-Jeffreys paradox. From 1958 till 1961, Darroch is quoted several times for his (fine) formalisation of the capture-recapture experiments we were to study much later (Biometrika, 1992) with Ed George… In the 1960’s, Bayesian papers became more visible, including Don Fraser (1961) and Arthur Dempster’ Demspter-Shafer theory of evidence, as well as George Box and co-authors (1965, 1968) and Arnold Zellner (1964). Keith Hastings’ 1970 paper stands as the fifth most highly cited paper, even though it was ignored for almost two decades. The number of Bayesian papers kept increasing. including Binder’s (1978) cluster estimation, Efron and Morris’ (1972) James-Stein estimators, and Efron and Thisted’s (1978) terrific evaluation of Shakespeare’s vocabulary. From then, the number of Bayesian papers gets too large to cover in its entirety. The 1980’s saw papers by Julian Besag (1977, 1989, 1989 with Peter Clifford, which was yet another precursor MCMC) and Luke Tierney’s work (1989) on Laplace approximation. Carter and Kohn’s (1994) MCMC algorithm on state space models made it to the top 40, while Peter Green’s (1995) reversible jump algorithm came close to Hastings’ (1970) record, being the 8th most highly cited paper. Since the more recent papers do not make it to the top 100 list, Mike Titterington’s coverage gets more exhaustive as the years draw near, with an almost complete coverage for the final years. Overall, a fascinating journey through the years and the reasons why Biometrika is such a great journal and constantly so.

reversible jump on HMMs

Posted in Books, Mountains, pictures, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , on December 19, 2011 by xi'an

Here is an email I received a few weeks ago about a paper written more than a decade ago in Glasgow with Tobias Rydén and Mike Titterington:

Sorry to bother you. I am a PhD student in economics. Recently, I am very interested in your paper “Bayesian inference in hidden Markov models through the reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo method”. I would like to use your method in estimating some regime-switching economic model. Unfortunately, I am not exactly understand your paper. Hence, I am writing to ask for your help. My questions are:

1. A split or merge move is determined at the same time or sequentially? If the moves are determined at that same time, then accepting a split move implies that we can not accept a merge move any more in the same sweep. If the moves are determined sequentially, it means that we can accept a split move first, then accept a merge move in the same sweep. [Answer: First interpretation is correct. Except that the type of move is first selected at random, then only the corresponding move is generated and potentially accepted.]
2.  In the paper, you discuss how to generate new transition probabilities in a split move in details. However, you did not discuss (probably, I am wrong) how to generate probabilities in each new state (series Zt in your paper).  Could you please tell me how to generate the series Zt? [Answer: check eqn (3).]
3. My economic model is a multiple series (a vector hidden Markov model), will you refer me to some other papers for the vector model? [Answer: If the observed series is multidimensional, the extension is formally straightforward, if potentially prone to slow mixing and low acceptance rates. If the hidden Markov chain is multidimensional, I have not seen a version of reversible jump in this setting. Maybe an extension of the variational methods described in Ghahramani and Jordan would help.]

to which I replied that the questions showed a deep lack of understanding of what reversible jump is and that the PhD student should first check the literature, for instance the great intro paper by Charlie Geyer in Handbook of Markov chain Monte Carlo and then the original papers by Green (1995) and Richardson and Green (1997).