Archive for variational approximations

Bayesian workflow [book review]

Posted in Books, R, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 8, 2026 by xi'an


“This original, thought-provoking, and transforming, book is much much more than an implementation manual for Bayesian Data Analysis, even though it shares almost the same perspective. (The first sentence of the book states that the authors’ `conceptions of statistical practice, and of Bayesian statistics, have changed over the years’.) By providing a modus vivendi for undertaking Bayesian modelling from scratch in realistic settings where models are not magicked out of the blue, the authors explicit and rationalise the many steps required by such a bottom-up modelling protocol (`not a checklist, not a cookbook’, and not a flowchart!) in real situations. The contents read very well and very smoothly, with a seamless conjunction of intuition, modelling advices, computational details, and comparison tools. While unsurprisingly Bayesian, the perspective adopted therein remains both open and inclusive, with a welcome humility about the limitations and challenges of Bayesian workflows. This book should thus appeal to and profit a wide variety of readers, as providing guidance through an extensive collection of highly detailed examples, with shared code and exercises.”

This book proposes a modus vivendi for Bayesian modelling in applied, realistic Bayesian analysis, where models are not magicked out of the blue. It thus emphases iterative model building, model checking, computational troubleshooting, and simulated-data experimentation, filling a gap that looks glaring in retrospect. It particularly targets users and developers of Stan, with code excerpts in R and Stan. It consists of four parts:

  1. background on Bayesian methods and computational tools;
  2. the Bayesian workflow proper, namely building a statistical model from its components, together with its assessment tools;
  3. the computational aspects of fitting models, diagnosing convergence and assessing calibration;
  4. case studies.

I was eagerly waiting for the book, as I knew Andrew, Aki, and Richard had been working on it for a few years. (The quote above is the blurb I wrote upon request from the publisher.)

The tenets of BaWoFlo—if I may resort to this acronym!—are (i) fitting multiple models, (ii) applying methods repeatedly, and (iii) resorting to simulated-data experiments, which should not come as a surprise to readers of BDA. As noted in the introduction, the protocol exposed therein can also benefit non-Bayesian experimenters. This agrees with the highly moderate, “M-open”, agnostic approach to Bayesianism adopted by the authors (“there is no safe haven”). I also welcome and share their humble perspective about the limitations and challenges of Bayesian workflows.

Examples are treated in full detail, with successive modelling and computational choices profusely commented, which is a big plus for such a practical book. This starts as early as Chapter 4, with a multiple-choice exam example. Indeed, there cannot be general principles or a generic theory that would make the approach foolproof. See, e.g., “A data model is not just a ‘likelihood’” (p.70), as when the data model is not fully generative. I very much liked the section on choosing priors (5.6), and the very rich graphs (see, e.g., Chapter 8) for assessing the impact of prior and likelihood, as well as for predictive checks. In coherent continuation of the authors’ earlier work, the book advocates LOO methods and model stacking rather than model averaging. (With a surprisingly anti-Ockham perspective in Section 9.7.)

The MCMC coverage is unsurprising, with \(\hat R\) at the forefront. Chapter 12, on using fast experiments to detect fitting or computational issues, is very nice. The book builds on the immense corpus of work achieved by the authors over the decades (for the most senior ones!). By contrast, the chapter on approximate solutions (13) is way too short, and the same goes for those on calibration and software development.

The book is very US-centric, unsurprisingly given Andrew’s focus on political science. Some sections are reminiscent of Andrew’s blog entries (or the opposite). The (football) World Cup example was initiated when Andrew was in France, during the 2014 World Cup, and as a result (?) the names of the teams are in French! One chapter also reanalyses the birthdate data displayed on the cover of BDA.

Mileage varies on the applied chapters, depending on the example. A dog chapter is followed by a cat chapter! Not that the (stat)dog experiment was in any way enjoyable, especially for the dogs. Maybe the cats were running it! And then come chapters on roaches and sharks. There is also a frightening flowchart (Fig. 2.1)! And the book ends with an appendix on going through BDA to better understand BaWoFlo

[The usual disclaimer applies, namely that this review is likely to appear later in CHANCE, in my book reviews column.]

Congrats, Dr. Marival!

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 26, 2025 by xi'an

posterior collapse

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , on February 24, 2022 by xi'an

The latest ABC One World webinar was a talk by Yixin Wang about the posterior collapse of auto-encoders, of which I was completely unaware. It is essentially an identifiability issue with auto-encoders, where the latent variable z at the source of the VAE does not impact the likelihood, assumed to be an exponential family with parameter depending on z and on θ, through possibly a neural network construct. The variational part comes from the parameter being estimated as θ⁰, via a variational approximation.

“….the problem of posterior collapse mainly arises from the model and the data, rather than from inference or optimization…”

The collapse means that the posterior for the latent satisfies p(z|θ⁰,x)=p(z), which is not a standard property since θ⁰=θ⁰(x). Which Yixin Wang, David Blei and John Cunningham show is equivalent to p(x|θ⁰,z)=p(x|θ⁰), i.e. z being unidentifiable. The above quote is then both correct and incorrect in that the choice of the inference approach, i.e. of the estimator θ⁰=θ⁰(x) has an impact on whether or not p(z|θ⁰,x)=p(z) holds. As acknowledged by the authors when describing “methods modify the optimization objectives or algorithms of VAE to avoid parameter values θ at which the latent variable is non-identifiable“. They later build a resolution for identifiable VAEs by imposing that the conditional p(x|θ,z) is injective in z for all values of θ. Resulting in a neural network with Brenier maps.

From a Bayesian perspective, I have difficulties to connect to the issue, the folk lore being that selecting a proper prior is a sufficient fix for avoiding non-identifiability, but more fundamentally I wonder at the relevance of inferring about the latent z’s and hence worrying about their identifiability or lack thereof.

variational approximation to empirical likelihood ABC

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2021 by xi'an

Sanjay Chaudhuri and his colleagues from Singapore arXived last year a paper on a novel version of empirical likelihood ABC that I hadn’t yet found time to read. This proposal connects with our own, published with Kerrie Mengersen and Pierre Pudlo in 2013 in PNAS. It is presented as an attempt at approximating the posterior distribution based on a vector of (summary) statistics, the variational approximation (or information projection) appearing in the construction of the sampling distribution of the observed summary. (Along with a weird eyed-g symbol! I checked inside the original LaTeX file and it happens to be a mathbbmtt g, that is, the typewriter version of a blackboard computer modern g…) Which writes as an entropic correction of the true posterior distribution (in Theorem 1).

“First, the true log-joint density of the observed summary, the summaries of the i.i.d. replicates and the parameter have to be estimated. Second, we need to estimate the expectation of the above log-joint density with respect to the distribution of the data generating process. Finally, the differential entropy of the data generating density needs to be estimated from the m replicates…”

The density of the observed summary is estimated by empirical likelihood, but I do not understand the reasoning behind the moment condition used in this empirical likelihood. Indeed the moment made of the difference between the observed summaries and the observed ones is zero iff the true value of the parameter is used in the simulation. I also fail to understand the connection with our SAME procedure (Doucet, Godsill & X, 2002), in that the empirical likelihood is based on a sample made of pairs (observed,generated) where the observed part is repeated m times, indeed, but not with the intent of approximating a marginal likelihood estimator… The notion of using the actual data instead of the true expectation (i.e. as a unbiased estimator) at the true parameter value is appealing as it avoids specifying the exact (or analytical) value of this expectation (as in our approach), but I am missing the justification for the extension to any parameter value. Unless one uses an ancillary statistic, which does not sound pertinent… The differential entropy is estimated by a Kozachenko-Leonenko estimator implying k-nearest neighbours.

“The proposed empirical likelihood estimates weights by matching the moments of g(X¹), …, g(X⁹) with that of
g(X⁰), without requiring a direct relationship with the parameter. (…) the constraints used in the construction of the empirical likelihood are based on the identity in (7), which can only be satisfied when θ = θ⁰. “

Although I am feeling like missing one argument, the later part of the paper seems to comfort my impression, as quoted above. Meaning that the approximation will fare well only in the vicinity of the true parameter. Which makes it untrustworthy for model choice purposes, I believe. (The paper uses the g-and-k benchmark without exploiting Pierre Jacob’s package that allows for exact MCMC implementation.)

approximate Bayesian inference [survey]

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 3, 2021 by xi'an

In connection with the special issue of Entropy I mentioned a while ago, Pierre Alquier (formerly of CREST) has written an introduction to the topic of approximate Bayesian inference that is worth advertising (and freely-available as well). Its reference list is particularly relevant. (The deadline for submissions is 21 June,)