Archive for zero measure set

simulation under zero measure constraints [a reply]

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , on November 21, 2016 by xi'an

grahamFollowing my post of last Friday on simulating over zero measure sets, as, e.g., producing a sample with a given maximum likelihood estimator, Dennis Prangle pointed out the recent paper on the topic by Graham and Storkey, and a wee bit later, Matt Graham himself wrote an answer to my X Validated question detailing the resolution of the MLE problem for a Student’s t sample. Including the undoubtedly awesome picture of a 3 observation sample distribution over a non-linear manifold in R³. When reading this description I was then reminded of a discussion I had a few months ago with Gabriel Stolz about his free energy approach that managed the same goal through a Langevin process. Including the book Free Energy Computations he wrote in 2010 with Tony Lelièvre and Mathias Rousset. I now have to dig deeper in these papers, but in the meanwhile let me point out that there is a bounty of 200 points running on this X Validated question for another three days. Offered by Glen B., the #1 contributor to X Validated question for all times.

Moment conditions and Bayesian nonparametrics

Posted in R, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , on August 6, 2015 by xi'an

Luke Bornn, Neil Shephard, and Reza Solgi (all from Harvard) have arXived a pretty interesting paper on simulating targets on a zero measure set. Although it is not initially presented this way, but rather in non-parametric terms as moment conditions


where θ is the parameter of the sampling distribution, constrained by the value of β. (Which also contains quantile regression.) The very problem of simulating under a hard constraint has been bugging me for years and it is hence very exciting to see them come up with a proposal towards solving this difficulty! Even though it is restricted here to observations with a finite support (hence allowing for the use of a parametric Dirichlet prior). One interesting extension (Section 3.6) processed in the paper is the case when the support is unknown, but finite, with some points in the support being unobserved. Maybe connecting with non-parametrics if a prior is added on the number of unobserved points.

The setting of constricting θ via a parameterised moment condition relates to moment defined econometrics models, in a similar spirit to Gallant’s paper I recently discussed, but equally to empirical likelihood, which would then benefit from a fully Bayesian treatment thanks to the approach advocated by the authors.

bornnshepardDespite the zero-measure difficulty, or more exactly the non-linear manifold structure of the parameter space, for instance

β = log {θ/(1-θ)}

the authors manage to define a “projected” [my words] measure on the set of admissible pairs (β,θ). In a sense this is related with the choice of a certain metric, but the so-called Hausdorff reference measure allows for an automated definition of the original prior. It took me a (wee) while to spot (p.7) that the starting point was not a (unconstrained) prior on that (unconstrained) pair (β,θ) but directly on the manifold


Which makes its construction a difficulty. Even though, as noted in Section 4, all that we need is a prior over θ since the Hausdorff-Jacobian identity defines the “joint”, in a sort of backward way. (This is a wee bit confusing in that β being a transform of θ, all we need is a prior over θ, but we nonetheless end up with a different density on the joint distribution on the pair (β,θ). Any connection with incompatible priors merged together into a consensus prior?) Another question extending the scope of the paper would be to define Jeffreys’ or reference priors in this manifold sense.

The authors also discuss (Section 4.3) the problem I originally thought they were processing, namely starting from an unconstrained pair (β,θ) and it corresponding prior. The projected prior can then be defined based on a version of the original density on the constrained space, but it is definitely arbitrary. In that sense the paper does not address the general problem.

bornnshepard1“…traditional simulation algorithms will fail because the prior and the posterior of the model are supported on a zero Lebesgue measure set…” (p.10)

I somewhat resist this presentation through the measure zero set: once the prior is defined on a manifold, the fact that it is a measure zero set in a larger space is moot. Provided one can simulate a proposal over that manifold, e.g., a random walk, absolutely continuous wrt the same dominating measure, and compute or estimate a Metropolis-Hastings ratio of densities against a common measure, one can formally run MCMC on manifolds as well as regular Euclidean spaces. A first and theoretically straightforward (?) solution is to solve the constraint


in β=β(θ). Then the joint prior p(β,θ) can be projected by the Hausdorff projection into p(θ). For instance, in the case of the above logit transform, the projected density is

p(θ)=p(β,θ) {1+1/θ²(1-θ)²}½

In practice, the inversion may be too costly and Bornn et al. directly simulate the pair (β,θ) within the manifold capitalising on the fact that the constraint is linear in θ given β. Indeed, in this setting, β is unconstrained and θ can be simulated from a proposal restricted to the hyperplane. Gibbs-like.

projective covariate selection

Posted in Mountains, pictures, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 28, 2014 by xi'an

While I was in Warwick, Dan Simpson [newly arrived from Norway on a postdoc position] mentioned to me he had attended a talk by Aki Vehtari in Norway where my early work with Jérôme Dupuis on projective priors was used. He gave me the link to this paper by Peltola, Havulinna, Salomaa and Vehtari that indeed refers to the idea that a prior on a given Euclidean space defines priors by projections on all subspaces, despite the zero measure of all those subspaces. (This notion first appeared in a joint paper with my friend Costas Goutis, who alas died in a diving accident a few months later.) The projection further allowed for a simple expression of the Kullback-Leibler deviance between the corresponding models and for a Pythagorean theorem on the additivity of the deviances between embedded models. The weakest spot of this approach of ours was, in my opinion and unsurprisingly, about deciding when a submodel was too far from the full model. The lack of explanatory power introduced therein had no absolute scale and later discussions led me to think that the bound should depend on the sample size to ensure consistency. (The recent paper by Nott and Leng that was expanding on this projection has now appeared in CSDA.)

“Specifically, the models with subsets of covariates are found by maximizing the similarity of their predictions to this reference as proposed by Dupuis and Robert [12]. Notably, this approach does not require specifying priors for the submodels and one can instead focus on building a good reference model. Dupuis and Robert (2003) suggest choosing the size of the covariate subset based on an acceptable loss of explanatory power compared to the reference model. We examine using cross-validation based estimates of predictive performance as an alternative.” T. Peltola et al.

The paper also connects with the Bayesian Lasso literature, concluding on the horseshoe prior being more informative than the Laplace prior. It applies the selection approach to identify biomarkers with predictive performances in a study of diabetic patients. The authors rank model according to their (log) predictive density at the observed data, using cross-validation to avoid exploiting the data twice. On the MCMC front, the paper implements the NUTS version of HMC with STAN.