**T**oday, I read a newly arXived paper by Stephen Gratton on a method called GLASS for *General Likelihood Approximate Solution Scheme*… The starting point is the same as with ABC or synthetic likelihood, namely a collection of summary statistics and an intractable likelihood. The author proposes to use as a substitute a maximum entropy solution based on these summary statistics and their assumed moments under the theoretical model. What is quite unclear in the paper is whether or not these assumed moments are available in closed form or not. Otherwise, it would appear as a variant to the synthetic likelihood [aka simulated moments] approach, meaning that the expectations of the summary statistics under the theoretical model and for a given value of the parameter are obtained through Monte Carlo approximations. (All the examples therein allow for closed form expressions.)

## Archive for untractable normalizing constant

## approximate likelihood

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags ABC, arXiv, likelihood-free methods, maximum entropy, synthetic likelihood, untractable normalizing constant on September 6, 2017 by xi'an## normalising constants of G-Wishart densities

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags birth-and-death process, G-Wishart distribution, graphs, ratio of integrals, reversible jump MCMC, untractable normalizing constant, Wishart distribution on June 28, 2017 by xi'anAbdolreza Mohammadi, Hélène Massam, and Gérard Letac arXived last week a paper on a new approximation of the ratio of two normalising constants associated with two G-Wishart densities associated with different graphs G. The G-Wishart is the generalisation of the Wishart distribution by Alberto Roverato to the case when some entries of the matrix are equal to zero, which locations are associated with the graph G. While enjoying the same shape as the Wishart density, this generalisation does not enjoy a closed form normalising constant. Which leads to an intractable ratio of normalising constants when doing Bayesian model selection across different graphs.

Atay-Kayis and Massam (2005) expressed the ratio as a ratio of two expectations, and the current paper shows that this leads to an approximation of the ratio of normalising constants for a graph G against the graph G augmented by the edge e, equal to

Γ(½{δ+d}) / 2 √π Γ(½{δ+d+1})

where δ is the degree of freedom of the G-Wishart and d is the number of minimal paths of length 2 linking the two end points of e. This is remarkably concise and provides a fast approximation. (The proof is quite involved, by comparison.) Which can then be used in reversible jump MCMC. The difficulty is obviously in evaluating the impact of the approximation on the target density, as there is no manageable available alternative to calibrate the approximation. In a simulation example where such an alternative is available, the error is negligible though.

## density normalization for MCMC algorithms

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags harmonic mean estimator, importance sampling, Laplace approximation, MCMC, MCQMC, Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, normalising constant, Rao-Blackwellisation, untractable normalizing constant on November 6, 2014 by xi'an**A**nother paper addressing the estimation of the normalising constant and the wealth of available solutions just came out on arXiv, with the full title of “Target density normalization for Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms“, written by Allen Caldwell and Chang Liu. (I became aware of it by courtesy of Ewan Cameron, as it appeared in the physics section of arXiv. It is actually a wee bit annoying that papers in the subcategory “Data Analysis, Statistics and Probability” of physics do not get an automated reposting on the statistics lists…)

In this paper, the authors compare three approaches to the problem of finding

when the density f is unormalised, i.e., in more formal terms, when f is proportional to a probability density (and available):

- an “arithmetic mean”, which is an importance sampler based on (a) reducing the integration volume to a neighbourhood ω of the global mode. This neighbourhood is chosen as an hypercube and the importance function turns out to be the uniform over this hypercube. The corresponding estimator is then a rescaled version of the average of f over uniform simulations in ω.
- an “harmonic mean”, of all choices!, with again an integration over the neighbourhood ω of the global mode in order to avoid the almost sure infinite variance of harmonic mean estimators.
- a Laplace approximation, using the target at the mode and the Hessian at the mode as well.

The paper then goes to comparing those three solutions on a few examples, demonstrating how the diameter of the hypercube can be calibrated towards a minimum (estimated) uncertainty. The rather anticlimactic conclusion is that the arithmetic mean is the most reliable solution as harmonic means may fail in larger dimension and more importantly fail to signal its failure, while Laplace approximations only approximate well quasi-Gaussian densities…

What I find most interesting in this paper is the idea of using only one part of the integration space to compute the integral, even though it is not exactly new. Focussing on a specific region ω has pros and cons, the pros being that the reduction to a modal region reduces needs for absolute MCMC convergence and helps in selecting alternative proposals and also prevents from the worst consequences of using a dreaded harmonic mean, the cons being that the region needs be well-identified, which means requirements on the MCMC kernel, and that the estimate is a product of two estimates, the frequency being driven by a Binomial noise. I also like very much the idea of calibrating the diameter Δof the hypercube ex-post by estimating the uncertainty.

As an aside, the paper mentions most of the alternative solutions I just presented in my Monte Carlo graduate course two days ago (like nested or bridge or Rao-Blackwellised sampling, including our proposal with Darren Wraith), but dismisses them as not “directly applicable in an MCMC setting”, i.e., without modifying this setting. I unsurprisingly dispute this labelling, both because something like the Laplace approximation requires extra-work on the MCMC output (and once done this work can lead to advanced Laplace methods like INLA) and because other methods could be considered as well (for instance, bridge sampling over several hypercubes). As shown in the recent paper by Mathieu Gerber and Nicolas Chopin (soon to be discussed at the RSS!), MCqMC has also become a feasible alternative that would compete well with the methods studied in this paper.

Overall, this is a paper that comes in a long list of papers on constant approximations. I do not find the Markov chain of MCMC aspect particularly compelling or specific, once the effective sample size is accounted for. It would be nice to find generic ways of optimising the visit to the hypercube ω *and* to estimate efficiently the weight of ω. The comparison is solely run over examples, but they all rely on a proper characterisation of the hypercube and the ability to simulate efficiently f over that hypercube.

## this issue of Series B

Posted in Books, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags bag of little bootstraps, Bayesian bridge, Bayesian lasso, JRSSB, marginal likelihood, Markov chain Monte Carlo, normalising constant, Series B, simulation, untractable normalizing constant, Wasserman's paradox on September 5, 2014 by xi'an**T**he September issue of [JRSS] Series B I received a few days ago is of particular interest to me. (And not as an ex-co-editor since I was never involved in any of those papers!) To wit: a paper by Hani Doss and Aixin Tan on evaluating normalising constants based on MCMC output, a preliminary version I had seen at a previous JSM meeting, a paper by Nick Polson, James Scott and Jesse Windle on the Bayesian bridge, connected with Nick’s talk in Boston earlier this month, yet another paper by Ariel Kleiner, Ameet Talwalkar, Purnamrita Sarkar and Michael Jordan on the bag of little bootstraps, which presentation I heard Michael deliver a few times when he was in Paris. (Obviously, this does not imply any negative judgement on the other papers of this issue!)

For instance, Doss and Tan consider the multiple mixture estimator [my wording, the authors do not give the method a name, referring to Vardi (1985) but missing the connection with Owen and Zhou (2000)] of k ratios of normalising constants, namely

where the z’s are the normalising constants and with possible different numbers of iterations of each Markov chain. An interesting starting point (that Hans Künsch had mentioned to me a while ago but that I had since then forgotten) is that the problem was reformulated by Charlie Geyer (1994) as a quasi-likelihood estimation where the ratios of all z’s relative to one reference density are the unknowns. This is doubling interesting, actually, because it restates the constant estimation problem into a statistical light and thus somewhat relates to the infamous “paradox” raised by Larry Wasserman a while ago. The novelty in the paper is (a) to derive an optimal estimator of the ratios of normalising constants in the Markov case, essentially accounting for possibly different lengths of the Markov chains, and (b) to estimate the variance matrix of the ratio estimate by regeneration arguments. A favourite tool of mine, at least theoretically as practically useful minorising conditions are hard to come by, if at all available.

## recycling accept-reject rejections

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags accept-reject algorithm, arXiv, auxiliary variable, Data augmentation, George Casella, intractable likelihood, Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, Rao-Blackwellisation, recycling, untractable normalizing constant on July 1, 2014 by xi'an**V**inayak Rao, Lizhen Lin and David Dunson just arXived a paper which proposes anew technique to handle intractable normalising constants. And which exact title is Data augmentation for models based on rejection sampling. (Paper that I read in the morning plane to B’ham, since this is one of my weeks in Warwick.) The central idea therein is that, if the sample density (*aka* likelihood) satisfies

where all terms but p are known in closed form, then completion by the rejected values of an hypothetical accept-reject algorithm−hypothetical in the sense that the data does not have to be produced by an accept-reject scheme but simply the above domination condition to hold−allows for a data augmentation scheme. Without requiring the missing normalising constant. Since the completed likelihood is

A closed-form, if not necessarily congenial, function.

**N**ow this is quite a different use of the “rejected values” from the accept reject algorithm when compared with our 1996 Biometrika paper on the Rao-Blackwellisation of accept-reject schemes (which, still, could have been mentioned there… Or Section 4.2 of Monte Carlo Statistical Methods. Rather than re-deriving the joint density of the augmented sample, “accepted+rejected”.)

**I**t is a neat idea in that it completely bypasses the approximation of the normalising constant. And avoids the somewhat delicate tuning of the auxiliary solution of Moller et al. (2006) The difficulty with this algorithm is however in finding an upper bound M on the unnormalised density f that is

- in closed form;
- with a manageable and tight enough “constant” M;
- compatible with running a posterior simulation conditional on the added rejections.

The paper seems to assume further that the bound M is independent from the current parameter value θ, at least as suggested by the notation (and Theorem 2), but this is not in the least necessary for the validation of the formal algorithm. Such a constraint would pull M higher, hence reducing the efficiency of the method. Actually the matrix Langevin distribution considered in the first example involves a bound that depends on the parameter κ.

**T**he paper includes a result (Theorem 2) on the uniform ergodicity that relies on heavy assumptions on the proposal distribution. And a rather surprising one, namely that the probability of *rejection* is bounded from below, i.e. calling for a *less* efficient proposal. Now it seems to me that a uniform ergodicity result holds as well when the probability of *acceptance* is bounded from below since, then, the event when no rejection occurs constitutes an atom from the augmented Markov chain viewpoint. There therefore occurs a renewal each time the rejected variable set ϒ is empty, and ergodicity ensues (Robert, 1995, *Statistical Science*).

**N**ote also that, despite the opposition raised by the authors, the method *per se* does constitute a pseudo-marginal technique à la Andrieu-Roberts (2009) since the independent completion by the (pseudo) rejected variables produces an unbiased estimator of the likelihood. It would thus be of interest to see how the recent evaluation tools of Andrieu and Vihola can assess the loss in efficiency induced by this estimation of the likelihood.

*Maybe some further experimental evidence tomorrow…*

## the Poisson transform

Posted in Books, Kids, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags Banff, Cauchy, logistic regression, Paris, Poisson point process, Sceaux, Siméon Poisson, untractable normalizing constant on June 19, 2014 by xi'an**I**n obvious connection with an earlier post on the “estimation” of normalising constants, Simon Barthelmé and Nicolas Chopin just arXived a paper on The Poisson transform for unormalised statistical models. Obvious connection because I heard of the Guttmann and Hyvärinen (2012) paper when Simon came to CREST to give a BiP talk on this paper a few weeks ago. (A connected talk he gave in Banff is available as a BIRS video.)

**W**ithout getting too much into details, the neat idea therein is to turn the observed likelihood

into a joint likelihood

which is the likelihood of a Poisson point process with intensity function

This is an alternative model in that the original likelihood does not appear as a marginal of the above. Only the modes coincide, with the conditional mode in ν providing the normalising constant. In practice, the above Poisson process likelihood is unavailable and Guttmann and Hyvärinen (2012) offer an approximation by means of their logistic regression.

**U**navailable likelihoods inevitably make me think of ABC. Would ABC solutions be of interest there? In particular, could the Poisson point process be simulated with no further approximation? Since the “true” likelihood is not preserved by this representation, similar questions to those found in ABC arise, like a measure of departure from the “true” posterior. Looking forward the Bayesian version!* (Marginalia: Siméon Poisson died in Sceaux, which seemed to have attracted many mathematicians at the time, since Cauchy also spent part of his life there…)*

## parallel MCMC via Weirstrass sampler (a reply by Xiangyu Wang)

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags big data, Chamonix, Duke University, kernel density estimator, large dimensions, likelihood-free methods, MCMC, O-Bayes 2013, parallel processing, ski, snow, untractable normalizing constant, Xiangyu Wang on January 3, 2014 by xi'an*Almost immediately after I published my comments on his paper with David Dunson, Xiangyu Wang sent a long comment that I think worth a post on its own (especially, given that I am now busy skiing and enjoying Chamonix!). So here it is:*

** T**hanks for the thoughtful comments. I did not realize that Neiswanger et al. also proposed the similar trick to avoid combinatoric problem as we did for the rejection sampler. Thank you for pointing that out.

**F**or the criticism 3 on the tail degeneration, we did not mean to fire on the non-parametric estimation issues, but rather the problem caused by using the product equation. When two densities are multiplied together, the accuracy of the product mainly depends on the tail of the two densities (the overlapping area), if there are more than two densities, the impact will be more significant. As a result, it may be unwise to directly use the product equation, as the most distant sub-posteriors could be potentially very far away from each other, and most of the sub posterior draws are outside the overlapping area. (The full Gibbs sampler formulated in our paper does not have this issue, as shown in equation 5, there is a common part multiplied on each sub-posterior, which brought them close.)

**P**oint 4 stated the problem caused by averaging. The approximated density follows Neiswanger et al. (2013) will be a mixture of Gaussian, whose component means are the average of the sub-posterior draws. Therefore, if sub-posteriors stick to different modes (assuming the true posterior is multi-modal), then the approximated density is likely to mess up the modes, and produce some faked modes (eg. average of the modes. We provide an example in the simulation 3.)

**S**orry for the vague description of the refining method (4.2). The idea is kinda dull. We start from an initial approximation to θ and then do one step Gibbs update to obtain a new θ, and we call this procedure ‘refining’, as we believe such process would bring the original approximation closer to the true posterior distribution.

**T**he first (4.1) and the second (4.2) algorithms do seem weird to be called as ‘parallel’, since they are both modified from the Gibbs sampler described in (4) and (5). The reason we want to propose these two algorithms is to overcome two problems. The first is the dimensionality curse, and the second is the issue when the subset inferences are not extremely accurate (subset effective sample size small) which might be a common scenario for logistic regression (with large parameters) even with huge data set. First, algorithm (4.1) and (4.2) both start from some initial approximations, and attempt to improve to obtain a better approximation, thus avoid the dimensional issue. Second, in our simulation 1, we attempt to pull down the performance of the simple averaging by worsening the sub-posterior performance (we allocate smaller amount of data to each subset), and the non-parametric method fails to approximate the combined density as well. However, the algorithm 4.1 and 4.2 still work in this case.

**I** have some problem with the logistic regression example provided in Neiswanger et al. (2013). As shown in the paper, under the authors’ setting (not fully specified in the paper), though the non-parametric method is better than simple averaging, the approximation error of simple averaging is small enough for practical use (I also have some problem with their error evaluation method), then why should we still bother to use a much more complicated method?

**A**ctually I’m adding a new algorithm into the Weierstrass rejection sampling, which will render it thoroughly free from the dimensionality curse of p. The new scheme is applicable to the nonparametric method in Neiswanger et al. (2013) as well. It should appear soon in the second version of the draft.