Archive for reversible jump MCMC

scolded!

Posted in Books, Kids, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 9, 2026 by xi'an

I recently received a request for refereeing a paper for a journal I had never heard of, in a field far, far away from my own, with an abstract that indicated little innovation beyond transferring a by now standard technique to this very field. Given the volume of such requests, I immediately declined and received the scolding and peeved reply, as of below, from said journal editor! (The above picture is from Bayesian Core, not from the paper submitted.)

Invited Reviewer:

Thank you for letting us know that you are not willing to review the submission, “Bayesian Analysis of Mixtures with an Unknown Number of Components &tc,” for Journal of Some Socio-Economics Issues®.

It is most unfortunate that you did not choose to make your impression that “the contents sound very standard given the existing literature” known to the author/s on behalf of the Journal.  It would certainly have aided them in the longer run.
We also find it rather extraordinary for a potential reviewer to turn down an invitation “because there is little possibility I [will] ever publish in your journal”.  So much for fostering your discipline and academic excellence outside of a specific circle of publications … 

Best regards,

The editor

mixture models [book review]

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 14, 2024 by xi'an

Strangely enough, I became aware of this new book on mixtures through one of these annoying emails “Your work has been cited n times this week“… Mixture Models (Parametric, Semiparametric, and New Directions) by Weixin Yao and Sijia Wang got published by CRC Press earlier this year, within the Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability green series (#175), and covers across 380 pages most aspects of mixture (and hidden Markov) estimation, if with strong emphasis on maximum likelihood estimation, while the new directions are unsurprisingly those pursued by the authors, namely robust and semi-parametric estimation, as well as model selection by testing.

An early warning about this book review is that I co-edited a Handbook of Mixture Analysis with my friends Sylvia Früwirth-Schnatter and Gilles Celeux a few years ago. I am therefore biased in what I would have included in a new book on the topic, the more because I find the available literature already plentiful, even though the early (1984) book of Titterington et al. that was my entry to the field may have become an historical reference. For instance, Finite Mixtures by McLachlan and Peel (2000) remains relevant, with similar emphasis on maximum likelihood and the EM algorithm, while Sylvia’s Finite Mixture and Markov Switching Models is still a reference to this day.

And an additional warning on me not being a massive fan of semi- and non-parametric estimation in this setting…

Preliminaries that may explain my limited enthusiasm about the book and its limited originality. Not that I found significant errors there (even though “improper priors [do not always] yield improper posteriors” [p.145] as we demonstrated in several papers), however, I had trouble with the uneven pace adopted by the authors that often skim some topics of importance while spending an inconsiderate amount of space on less relevant once. Some items get many bibliographical references, while others do not. For instance, EM receives a lion’s share (see, e..g, Sections 6.6 and 6.7). Or the 12 pages of proof in Chapter 10. Declination of sections into mixtures, mixtures of regressions, multivariate mixtures, hidden Markov models, and so on feels somewhat repetitive. This is particularly the case for the “mixture regression models” chapter.

The book also contains Bayesian entries, with a first introduction (p.105) in the discrete data chapter that precedes the short Bayesian chapter #4 (p.145), the same issue arising for related algorithms like Gibbs (p.107) that “estimate properties of the joint posterior” and MCMC (p.112). Which sort of erases the specificity of a Bayesian approach by reducing it to one item in the toolbox (with the wrong stress on MAP estimates). In this Bayesian chapter, MCMC validation is handled for discrete state spaces while applied in general spaces. The focus is mostly on relabelling for the following label switching chapter, albeit a large collection of methods are compared if not mentioned.

Handing an unknown number of components by hypothesis testing is supported in the next short chapter, although very little is said about reversible jump MCMC. And there is no general discussion on the consistency of these tests, in particular with bootstrap. Or at least on the regularity conditions they request. An puzzling paradox (p.191) is the existence of an unbounded Fisher information of an exponential mixture

\pi\mathcal Exp(1)+(1-\pi)\mathcal Exp(2)

when the weight π is the parameter (and close to 1).

High-dimensional mixtures in Chapter 8 are mostly handled by linear projections in smaller subspaces, which is natural given that they preserve the mixture structure but open a Pandora box of a wide range of proposed methods, again with little comparison available. Except in the R final section opposing several R functions on the same dataset (if unconclusively).

The semi-parametric chapters mention Dirichlet process priors, albeit briefly, but fail to relate to the recent works on using these when inferring about the number of components. Or failing to do so. There is also a very limited connection pointed out with machine learning but little can be gathered from the three page presentation (pp.308-310). These chapters also have significant overlap with the review paper of Xiang et al. (2019) in Statistical Science.

Most chapters end up with an R section, which usually reads as a quick demo of a related R package, like BayesLCA or our own mixtool. Hence not massively helpful beyond pointers to these packages. The numerical illustrations also are unevenly distributed between chapters, from nothing at all to four pages of small font tables on an MSE comparison between more or less robust approaches undertaken by Yu et al. (2020).

The above thus explains why I am not particularly excited about this bibliographical addition to the analysis of mixtures. It does offer a reference for researchers in the field by adding recent references and approaches to the existing books mentioned above, but I could not recommend it as a textbook (as suggested on p.xiii).

[Disclaimer about potential self-plagiarism: this post or an edited version may eventually appear in my Books Review section in CHANCE.]

[more than] everything you always wanted to know about marginal likelihood

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 10, 2022 by xi'an

Earlier this year, F. Llorente, L. Martino, D. Delgado, and J. Lopez-Santiago have arXived an updated version of their massive survey on marginal likelihood computation. Which I can only warmly recommend to anyone interested in the matter! Or looking for a base camp to initiate a graduate project. They break the methods into four families

  1. Deterministic approximations (e.g., Laplace approximations)
  2. Methods based on density estimation (e.g., Chib’s method, aka the candidate’s formula)
  3. Importance sampling, including sequential Monte Carlo, with a subsection connecting with MCMC
  4. Vertical representations (mostly, nested sampling)

Besides sheer computation, the survey also broaches upon issues like improper priors and alternatives to Bayes factors. The parts I would have done in more details are reversible jump MCMC and the long-lasting impact of Geyer’s reverse logistic regression (with the noise contrasting extension), even though the link with bridge sampling is briefly mentioned there. There is even a table reporting on the coverage of earlier surveys. Of course, the following postnote of the manuscript

The Christian Robert’s blog deserves a special mention , since Professor C. Robert has devoted several entries of his blog with very interesting comments regarding the marginal likelihood estimation and related topics.

does not in the least make me less objective! Some of the final recommendations

  • use of Naive Monte Carlo [simulate from the prior] should be always considered [assuming a proper prior!]
  • a multiple-try method is a good choice within the MCMC schemes
  • optimal umbrella sampling estimator is difficult and costly to implement , so its best performance may not be achieved in practice
  • adaptive importance sampling uses the posterior samples to build a suitable normalized proposal, so it benefits from localizing samples in regions of high posterior probability while preserving the properties of standard importance sampling
  • Chib’s method is a good alternative, that provide very good performances [but is not always available]
  • the success [of nested sampling] in the literature is surprising.

transformation MCMC

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , on January 3, 2022 by xi'an

For reasons too long to describe here, I recently came across a 2013 paper by Dutta and Bhattacharya (from ISI Kolkata) entitled MCMC based on deterministic transforms, which sounded a bit dubious until I realised the deterministic label apply to the choice of the transformation and not to the Metropolis-Hastings proposal… The core of the proposed method is to make a proposal that simultaneously considers a move and its inverse, namely from x to either x’=T(x,ε) or x”=T⁻¹(x,ε) , where ε is an independent random noise, possibly degenerated to a manifold of lesser dimension. Due to the symmetry the acceptance probability is then a ratio of the target, multiplied by the x-Jacobian of T (as in reversible jump). I tried the method on a mixture of Gamma distributions target (in red) with an Exponential scale change and the resulting sample indeed fitted said target.

The authors even make an argument in favour of a unidimensional noise, although this amounts to running an implicit Gibbs sampler. Argument based on a reduced simulation cost for ε, albeit the full dimensional transform x’=T(x,ε) still requires to be computed. And as noted in the paper this also requires checking for irreducibility. The claim for higher efficiency found therein is thus mostly unsubstantiated…

“The detailed balance requirement also demands that, given x, the regions covered by the forward and the backward transformations are disjoint.”

The above statement is also surprising in that the generic detailed balance condition does not impose such a restriction.

 

distributed evidence

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 16, 2021 by xi'an

Alexander Buchholz (who did his PhD at CREST with Nicolas Chopin), Daniel Ahfock, and my friend Sylvia Richardson published a great paper on the distributed computation of Bayesian evidence in Bayesian Analysis. The setting is one of distributed data from several sources with no communication between them, which relates to consensus Monte Carlo even though model choice has not been particularly studied from that perspective. The authors operate under the assumption of conditionally conjugate models, i.e., the existence of a data augmentation scheme into an exponential family so that conjugate priors can be used. For a division of the data into S blocks, the fundamental identity in the paper is

p(y) = \alpha^S \prod_{s=1}^S \tilde p(y_s) \int \prod_{s=1}^S \tilde p(\theta|y_s)\,\text d\theta

where α is the normalising constant of the sub-prior exp{log[p(θ)]/S} and the other terms are associated with this prior. Under the conditionally conjugate assumption, the integral can be approximated based on the latent variables. Most interestingly, the associated variance is directly connected with the variance of

p(z_{1:S}|y)\Big/\prod_{s=1}^S \tilde p(z_s|y_s)

under the joint:

“The variance of the ratio measures the quality of the product of the conditional sub-posterior as an importance sample proposal distribution.”

Assuming this variance is finite (which is likely). An approximate alternative is proposed, namely to replace the exact sub-posterior with a Normal distribution, as in consensus Monte Carlo, which should obviously require some consideration as to which parameterisation of the model produces the “most normal” (or the least abnormal!) posterior. And ensures a finite variance in the importance sampling approximation (as ensured by the strong bounds in Proposition 5). A problem shared by the bridgesampling package.

“…if the error that comes from MCMC sampling is relatively small and that the shard sizes are large enough so that the quality of the subposterior normal approximation is reasonable, our suggested approach will result in good approximations of the full data set marginal likelihood.”

The resulting approximation can also be handy in conjunction with reversible jump MCMC, in the sense that RJMCMC algorithms can be run in parallel on different chunks or shards of the entire dataset. Although the computing gain may be reduced by the need for separate approximations.