BayesComp²³ [aka MCMski⁶]

The main BayesComp meeting started right after the ABC workshop and went on at a grueling pace, and offered a constant conundrum as to which of the four sessions to attend, the more when trying to enjoy some outdoor activity during the lunch breaks. My overall feeling is that it went on too fast, too quickly! Here are some quick and haphazard notes from some of the talks I attended, as for instance the practical parallelisation of an SMC algorithm by Adrien Corenflos, the advances made by Giacommo Zanella on using Bayesian asymptotics to assess robustness of Gibbs samplers to the dimension of the data (although with no assessment of the ensuing time requirements), a nice session on simulated annealing, from black holes to Alps (if the wrong mountain chain for Levi), and the central role of contrastive learning à la Geyer (1994) in the GAN talks of Veronika Rockova and Éric Moulines. Victor  Elvira delivered an enthusiastic talk on our massively recycled importance on-going project that we need to complete asap!

While their earlier arXived paper was on my reading list, I was quite excited by Nicolas Chopin’s (along with Mathieu Gerber) work on some quadrature stabilisation that is not QMC (but not too far either), with stratification over the unit cube (after a possible reparameterisation) requiring more evaluations, plus a sort of pulled-by-its-own-bootstrap control variate, but beating regular Monte Carlo in terms of convergence rate and practical precision (if accepting a large simulation budget from the start). A difficulty common to all (?) stratification proposals is that it does not readily applies to highly concentrated functions.

I chaired the lightning talks session, which were 3mn one-slide snapshots about some incoming posters selected by the scientific committee. While I appreciated the entry into the poster session, the more because it was quite crowded and busy, if full of interesting results, and enjoyed the slide solely made of “0.234”, I regret that not all poster presenters were not given the same opportunity (although I am unclear about which format would have permitted this) and that it did not attract more attendees as it took place in parallel with other sessions.

In a not-solely-ABC session, I appreciated Sirio Legramanti speaking on comparing different distance measures via Rademacher complexity, highlighting that some distances are not robust, incl. for instance some (all?) Wasserstein distances that are not defined for heavy tailed distributions like the Cauchy distribution. And using the mean as a summary statistic in such heavy tail settings comes as an issue, since the distance between simulated and observed means does not decrease in variance with the sample size, with the practical difficulty that the problem is hard to detect on real (misspecified) data since the true distribution behing (if any) is unknown. Would that imply that only intrinsic distances like maximum mean discrepancy or Kolmogorov-Smirnov are the only reasonable choices in misspecified settings?! While, in the ABC session, Jeremiah went back to this role of distances for generalised Bayesian inference, replacing likelihood by scoring rule, and requirement for Monte Carlo approximation (but is approximating an approximation that a terrible thing?!). I also discussed briefly with Alejandra Avalos on her use of pseudo-likelihoods in Ising models, which, while not the original model, is nonetheless a model and therefore to taken as such rather than as approximation.

I also enjoyed Gregor Kastner’s work on Bayesian prediction for a city (Milano) planning agent-based model relying on cell phone activities, which reminded me at a superficial level of a similar exploitation of cell usage in an attraction park in Singapore Steve Fienberg told me about during his last sabbatical in Paris.

In conclusion, an exciting meeting that should have stretched a whole week (or taken place in a less congenial environment!). The call for organising BayesComp 2025 is still open, by the way.

 

PR[AI]RIE colloquium [12/12]

sampling, transport, and diffusions

This week, I am attending a very cool workshop at the Flatiron Institute (not in the Flatiron building!, but close enough) on Sampling, Transport, and Diffusions, organised by Bob Carpenter and Michael Albergo. It is quite exciting as I do not know most participants or their work! The Flatiron Institute is a private institute focussed on fundamental science funded by the Simons Foundation (in such working conditions universities cannot compete with!).

Eric Vanden-Eijden gave an introductory lecture on using optimal transport notion to improve sampling, with a PDE/ODE approach of continuously turning a base distribution into a target (formalised by the distribution at time one). This amounts to solving a velocity solution to an KL optimisation objective whose target value is zero. Velocity parameterised as a deep neural network density estimator. Using a score function in a reverse SDE inspired by Hyvärinnen (2005), with a surprising occurrence of Stein’s unbiased estimator, there for the same reasons of getting rid of an unknown element. In a lot of environments, simulating from the target is the goal and this can be achieved by MCMC sampling by normalising flows, learning the transform / pushforward map.

At the break, Yuling Yao made a very smart remark that testing between two models could also be seen as an optimal transport, trying to figure an optimal transform from one model to the next, rather than the bland mixture model we used in our mixtestin paper. At this point I have no idea about the practical difficulty of using / inferring the parameters of this continuum but one could start from normalising flows. Because of time continuity, one would need some driving principle.

Esteban Tabak gave another interest talk on simulating from a conditional distribution, which sounds like a no-problem when the conditional density is known but a challenge when only pairs are observed. The problem is seen as a transport problem to a barycentre obtained as a distribution independent from the conditioning z and then inverting. Constructing maps through flows. Very cool, even possibly providing an answer for causality questions.

Many of the transport talks involved normalizing flows. One by [Simons Fellow] Christopher Jazynski about adding to the Hamiltonian (in HMC) an artificial flow field  (Vaikuntanathan and Jarzynski, 2009) to make up for the Hamiltonian moving too fast for the simulation to keep track. Connected with Eric Vanden-Eijden’s talk in the end.

An interesting extension of delayed rejection for HMC by Chirag Modi, with a manageable correction à la Antonietta Mira. Johnatan Niles-Weed provided a nonparametric perspective on optimal transport following Hütter+Rigollet, 21 AoS. With forays into the Sinkhorn algorithm, mentioning Aude Genevay’s (Dauphine graduate) regularisation.

Michael Lindsey gave a great presentation on the estimation of the trace of a matrix by the Hutchinson estimator for sdp matrices using only matrix multiplication. Solution surprisingly relying on Gibbs sampling called thermal sampling.

And while it did not involve optimal transport, I gave a short (lightning) talk on our recent adaptive restore paper: although in retrospect a presentation of Wasserstein ABC could have been more suited to the audience.

nonparametric ABC [seminar]

Puzzle: How do you run ABC when you mistrust the model?! We somewhat considered this question in our misspecified ABC paper with David and Judith. An AISTATS 2022 paper by Harita Dellaporta (Warwick), Jeremias Knoblauch,  Theodoros Damoulas (Warwick), and François-Xavier Briol (formerly Warwick) is addressing this same question and Harita presented the paper at the One World ABC webinar yesterday.

It is inspired from Lyddon, Walker & Holmes (2018), who place a nonparametric prior on the generating model, in top of the assumed parametric model (with an intractable likelihood). This induces a push-forward prior on the pseudo-true parameter, that is, the value that brings the parametric family the closest possible to the true distribution of the data. Here defined as a minimum distance parameter, the maximum mean discrepancy (MMD). Choosing RKHS framework allows for a practical implementation, resorting to simulations for posterior realisations from a Dirichlet posterior and from the parametric model, and stochastic gradient for computing the pseudo-true parameter, which may prove somewhat heavy in terms of computing cost.

The paper also containts a consistency result in an ε-contaminated setting (contamination of the assumed parametric family). Comparisons like the above with a fully parametric Wasserstein-ABC approach show that this alter resists better misspecification, as could be expected since the later is not constructed for that purpose.

Next talk is on 23 June by Cosma Shalizi.

accronyms [CDT lectures]

This week, I gave a short and introductory course in Warwick for the CDT (PhD) students on my perceived connections between reverse logistic regression à la Geyer and GANS, among other things. The first attempt was cancelled in 2020 due to the pandemic, the second one in 2021 was on-line and thus offered little possibilities for interactions. Preparing for this third attempt made me read more papers on some statistical analyses of GANs and WGANs, which was more satisfactory [for me] even though I could not get into the technical details…