Archive for shrinkage test

slice samplers for nested sampling

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , on March 6, 2023 by xi'an

“…the likelihoods of discarded points have interesting properties. In particular, the fraction of prior mass below the likelihood threshold is approximately 1/K [number of particles].”

I came across a newly arXived paper on nested sampling, written by Johannes Buchner, with a focus on sampling over the constrained space defined by the lower bound on the likelihood value, and promoting different manners to implement a slice sampler in this possibly complex space.

“After a number of Metropolis steps, by which points with lower likelihood than required are not visited, a useful independent prior sample is obtained. This is only the case if enough steps are made, such that the random walk can reach all of the relevant volume.”

A slice sampler for nested sampling means (1) picking a direction v and (2) deriving the length of the slice by bisection, before (3) sampling uniformly over the interval. I do not get why the slice should necessarily be connected, rather than made of several segments for multimodal likelihoods. Ten versions are opposed when selecting the direction! With some missing the detailed balance property.

The comparison between these different slice samplers makes use of a shrinkage test proposed by the author in Statistics & Computing (2014), monitoring convergence by evaluating the volume ratio distribution of a sequence of discarded samples produced by nested sampling. Namely a test (on which I had reservations, blogged at the time) for following the decrease in volume predicted by the Uniform order statistics. Now, I have trouble understanding the calibration figures (like the one above) that are at the core of the paper towards ranking the ten versions…

a statistical test for nested sampling

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , on July 25, 2014 by xi'an

A new arXival on nested sampling: “A statistical test for nested sampling algorithms” by Johannes Buchner. The point of the test is to check if versions of the nested sampling algorithm that fail to guarantee increased likelihood (or nesting) at each step are not missing parts of the posterior mass. and hence producing biased evidence approximations. This applies to MultiNest for instance. This version of nest sampling evaluates the above-threshold region by drawing hyper-balls around the remaining points. A solution which is known to fail in one specific but meaningful case. Buchner’s  arXived paper proposes an hyper-pyramid distribution for which the volume of any likelihood constrained set is known. Hence allowing for a distribution test like Kolmogorov-Smirnov. Confirming the findings of Beaujean and Caldwell (2013). The author then proposes an alternative to MultiNest that is more robust but also much more costly as it computes distances between all pairs of bootstrapped samples. This solution passes the so-called “shrinkage test”, but it is orders of magnitude less efficient than MultiNest. And also simply shows that its coverage is fine for a specific target rather than all possible targets. I wonder if a solution to the problem is at all possible given that evaluating a support or a convex hull is a complex problem which complexity explodes with the dimension.