Archive for Queensland

computing Bayes, with some approximations

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 10, 2024 by xi'an

futuristic statistical science [editorial]

Posted in Books, Kids, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 13, 2024 by xi'an

This special issue of Statistical Science is devoted to the future of Bayesian computational statistics, from several perspectives. It involves a large group of researchers who contributed to collective articles, bringing their own perspectives and research interests into these surveys. Somewhat paradoxically, it starts with the past—and a conference on a Gold Coast beach. Martin, Frazier, and Robert first submitted a survey on the history of Bayesian computation, written after Gael Martin delivered a plenary lecture at Bayes on the Beach, a conference held in November 2017 in Surfers Paradise, Gold Coast, Queensland, and organised by Bayesian Research and Applications Group (BRAG), the Bayesian research group headed by Kerrie Mengersen at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). Following a first round of reviews, this paper got split into two separate articles, Computing Bayes: From Then ‘Til Now , retracing some of the history of Bayesian computation, and Approximating Bayes in the 21st Century, which is both a survey and a prospective on the directions and trends of approximate Bayesian approaches (and not solely ABC). At this point, Sonia Petrone, editor of Statistical Science, suggested we had a special issue on the whole issue of trends of interest and promise for Bayesian computational statistics. Joining forces, after some delays and failures to convince others to engage, or to produce multilevel papers with distinct vignettes, we eventually put together an additional four papers, where lead authors gathered further authors to produce this diverse picture of some incoming advances in the field. We have deliberated avoided topics which have excellent recent reviews— such as Stein’s method, sequential Monte Carlo, piecewise deterministic Markov processes— and topics which are still in their infancy, such as the relationship of Bayesian approaches to large language models (LLMs) and foundation models.

Within this issue, Past, Present, and Future of Software for Bayesian Inference from Erik Štrumbelj & al covers the state of the art in the most popular Bayesian software, reminding us of the massive impact BUGS has had on the adoption of Bayesian tools since its early introduction in the early 1990s (which I remember discovering at the Fourth Valencia meeting on Bayesian statistics in April 1991). With an interesting distinction between first and second generations, and a light foray of the potential third generation, maybe missing the role of LLMs in coding that are already impacting the approach to computing and the less immediate revolution brought by quantum computing. Winter & al.’s The Future of Bayesian Computation [TITLE TO CHANCE] is making a link with machine learning techniques, without looking at the scariest issue of how Bayesian inference can survive in a machine learning world! While it produces an additional foray into the blurry division between proper sampling (à la MCMC) and approximations, additional to the historical Martin et al. (2024), it articulates these aspects within a (deep) machine learning perspective, emphasizing the role of summaries produced by generative models exploiting the power of neural network computation/optimization. And the pivotal reliance on variational Bayes, which is the most active common denominator with machine learning. With further entries on major issues like distributed computing, opening on the important aspect of data protection and guaranteed  privacy. We particularly like the clinical presentation of this paper with attention to automation and limitations. Normalizing flows actually link this paper with Heng, Bortoli and Doucet’s coverage of the Schrödinger bridge, which is a more focussed coverage of recent advances on possibly the next generation of posterior samplers. The final paper, Bayesian experimental design by Rainforth & al., provides a most convincing application of the methods exposed in the earlier papers in that the field of Bayesian design has hugely benefited from the occurrence of such tools to become a prevalent way of designing statistical experiments in real settings.

We feel the future of Bayesian computing is bright! The Monte Carlo revolution of the 1990s continues to be a huge influence on today’s work, and now is complemented by an exciting range of new directions informed by modern machine learning.

Dennis Prangle and Christian P Robert

Bayes on the Beach²⁴

Posted in Statistics, Travel with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on August 29, 2023 by xi'an

nested sampling via SMC

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 2, 2020 by xi'an

“We show that by implementing a special type of [sequential Monte Carlo] sampler that takes two im-portance sampling paths at each iteration, one obtains an analogous SMC method to [nested sampling] that resolves its main theoretical and practical issues.”

A paper by Queenslander Robert Salomone, Leah South, Chris Drovandi and Dirk Kroese that I had missed (and recovered by Grégoire after we discussed this possibility with our Master students). On using SMC in nested sampling. What are the difficulties mentioned in the above quote?

  1. Dependence between the simulated samples, since only the offending particle is moved by one or several MCMC steps. (And MultiNest is not a foolproof solution.)
  2. The error due to quadrature is hard to evaluate, with parallelised versions aggravating the error.
  3. There is a truncation error due to the stopping rule when the exact maximum of the likelihood function is unknown.

Not mentioning the Monte Carlo error, of course, which should remain at the √n level.

“Nested Sampling is a special type of adaptive SMC algorithm, where weights are assigned in a suboptimal way.”

The above remark is somewhat obvious for a fixed sequence of likelihood levels and a set of particles at each (ring) level. moved by a Markov kernel with the right stationary target. Constrained to move within the ring, which may prove delicate in complex settings. Such a non-adaptive version is however not realistic and hence both the level sets and the stopping rule need be selected from the existing simulation, respectively as a quantile of the observed likelihood and as a failure to modify the evidence approximation, an adaptation that is a Catch 22! as we already found in the AMIS paper.  (AMIS stands for adaptive mixture importance sampling.) To escape the quandary, the authors use both an auxiliary variable (to avoid atoms) and two importance sampling sequences (as in AMIS). And only a single particle with non-zero incremental weight for the (upper level) target. As the full details are a bit fuzzy to me, I hope I can experiment with my (quarantined) students on the full implementation of the method.

“Such cases asides, the question whether SMC is preferable using the TA or NS approach is really one of whether it is preferable to sample (relatively) easy distributions subject to a constraint or to sample potentially difficult distributions.”

A question (why not regular SMC?) I was indeed considering until coming to the conclusion section but did not find it treated in the paper. There is little discussion on the computing requirements either, as it seems the method is more time-consuming than a regular nested sample. (On the personal side,  I appreciated very much their “special thanks to Christian Robert, whose many blog posts on NS helped influence this work, and played a large partin inspiring it.”)

Australia’s burning…

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , on November 13, 2019 by xi'an