Your SlideShare is downloading.
×

×

Saving this for later?
Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Like this presentation? Why not share!

- Montpellier Math Colloquium by Christian Robert 814 views
- Ab cancun by Christian Robert 3986 views
- [A]BCel : a presentation at ABC in ... by Christian Robert 2003 views
- MCMC and likelihood-free methods by Christian Robert 4057 views
- Course on Bayesian computational me... by Christian Robert 1577 views
- Bayesian Core: Chapter 3 by Christian Robert 1170 views
- Bayesian Data Analysis for Ecology by Christian Robert 2781 views
- Bayesian Core: Chapter 4 by Christian Robert 1614 views
- Bayesian Core: Chapter 2 by Christian Robert 1713 views
- Rimini discussion by Christian Robert 2251 views
- Yes III: Computational methods for ... by Christian Robert 725 views
- WSC 2011, advanced tutorial on simu... by Christian Robert 2656 views

Like this? Share it with your network
Share

4,811

views

views

Published on

This is the short course I gave in San Antonio, UTSA campus, as part of the conference in honour of Jim Berger, March 17-20, 2010.

This is the short course I gave in San Antonio, UTSA campus, as part of the conference in honour of Jim Berger, March 17-20, 2010.

No Downloads

Total Views

4,811

On Slideshare

0

From Embeds

0

Number of Embeds

1

Shares

0

Downloads

0

Comments

0

Likes

1

No embeds

No notes for slide

- 1. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational Bayesian Statistics Christian P. Robert, Universit´ Paris Dauphine e Frontiers of Statistical Decision Making and Bayesian Analysis, In honour of Jim Berger, 17th of March, 2010 1 / 143
- 2. Computational Bayesian Statistics Outline 1 Computational basics 2 Regression and variable selection 3 Generalized linear models 2 / 143
- 3. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Computational basics 1 Computational basics The Bayesian toolbox Improper prior distribution Testing Monte Carlo integration Bayes factor approximations in perspective 3 / 143
- 4. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics The Bayesian toolbox The Bayesian toolbox Bayes theorem = Inversion of probabilities If A and E are events such that P (E) = 0, P (A|E) and P (E|A) are related by P (E|A)P (A) P (A|E) = P (E|A)P (A) + P (E|Ac )P (Ac ) P (E|A)P (A) = P (E) 4 / 143
- 5. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics The Bayesian toolbox New perspective Uncertainty on the parameters θ of a model modeled through a probability distribution π on Θ, called prior distribution Inference based on the distribution of θ conditional on x, π(θ|x), called posterior distribution f (x|θ)π(θ) π(θ|x) = . f (x|θ)π(θ) dθ 5 / 143
- 6. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics The Bayesian toolbox Bayesian model A Bayesian statistical model is made of 1 a likelihood f (x|θ), and of 2 a prior distribution on the parameters, π(θ) . 6 / 143
- 7. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics The Bayesian toolbox Posterior distribution center of Bayesian inference π(θ|x) ∝ f (x|θ) π(θ) Operates conditional upon the observations Integrate simultaneously prior information/knowledge and information brought by x Avoids averaging over the unobserved values of x Coherent updating of the information available on θ, independent of the order in which i.i.d. observations are collected Provides a complete inferential scope and an unique motor of inference 7 / 143
- 8. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics The Bayesian toolbox Improper prior distribution Extension from a prior distribution to a prior σ-ﬁnite measure π such that π(θ) dθ = +∞ Θ Formal extension: π cannot be interpreted as a probability any longer 8 / 143
- 9. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics The Bayesian toolbox Validation Extension of the posterior distribution π(θ|x) associated with an improper prior π given by Bayes’s formula f (x|θ)π(θ) π(θ|x) = , Θ f (x|θ)π(θ) dθ when f (x|θ)π(θ) dθ < ∞ Θ 9 / 143
- 10. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Testing Testing hypotheses Deciding about validity of assumptions or restrictions on the parameter θ from the data, represented as H0 : θ ∈ Θ0 versus H1 : θ ∈ Θ0 Binary outcome of the decision process: accept [coded by 1] or reject [coded by 0] D = {0, 1} Bayesian solution formally very close from a likelihood ratio test statistic, but numerical values often strongly diﬀer from classical solutions 10 / 143
- 11. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Testing Bayes factor Bayesian testing procedure depends on P π (θ ∈ Θ0 |x) or alternatively on the Bayes factor π {P π (θ ∈ Θ1 |x)/P π (θ ∈ Θ0 |x)} B10 = {P π (θ ∈ Θ1 )/P π (θ ∈ Θ0 )} = f (x|θ1 )π1 (θ1 )dθ1 f (x|θ0 )π0 (θ0 )dθ0 = m1 (x)/m0 (x) [Akin to likelihood ratio] 11 / 143
- 12. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Testing Banning improper priors Impossibility of using improper priors for testing! Reason: When using the representation π(θ) = P π (θ ∈ Θ1 ) × π1 (θ) + P π (θ ∈ Θ0 ) × π0 (θ) π1 and π0 must be normalised 12 / 143
- 13. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Fundamental integration issue Generic problem of evaluating an integral I = Ef [h(X)] = h(x) f (x) dx X where X is uni- or multidimensional, f is a closed form, partly closed form, or implicit density, and h is a function 13 / 143
- 14. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Monte Carlo Principle Use a sample (x1 , . . . , xm ) from the density f to approximate the integral I by the empirical average m 1 hm = h(xj ) m j=1 Convergence of the average hm −→ Ef [h(X)] by the Strong Law of Large Numbers 14 / 143
- 15. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration e.g., Bayes factor approximation For the normal case x1 , . . . , xn ∼ N (µ + ξ, σ 2 ) y1 , . . . , yn ∼ N (µ − ξ, σ 2 ) and H0 : ξ = 0 under prior π(µ, σ 2 ) = 1/σ 2 and ξ ∼ N (0, 1) −n+1/2 π (¯ − y )2 + S 2 x ¯ B01 = √ [(2ξ − x − y )2 + S 2 ] e−ξ2 /2 dξ/ 2π −n+1/2 ¯ ¯ 15 / 143
- 16. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Example CMBdata π Simulate ξ1 , . . . , ξ1000 ∼ N (0, 1) and approximate B01 with −n+1/2 π (¯ − y )2 + S 2 x ¯ B01 = 1000 = 89.9 1 [(2ξi − x − y )2 + S 2 ] −n+1/2 1000 i=1 ¯ ¯ when x = 0.0888 , ¯ y = 0.1078 , ¯ S 2 = 0.00875 16 / 143
- 17. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Precision evaluation Estimate the variance with m 1 1 vm = [h(xj ) − hm ]2 , mm−1 j=1 and for m large, √ hm − Ef [h(X)] / vm ≈ N (0, 1). Note 0.05 Construction of a convergence 0.04 0.03 test and of conﬁdence bounds on 0.02 the approximation of Ef [h(X)] 0.01 0.00 0 50 100 150 1B10 17 / 143
- 18. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Example (Cauchy-normal) For estimating a normal mean, a robust prior is a Cauchy prior x ∼ N (θ, 1), θ ∼ C(0, 1). Under squared error loss, posterior mean ∞ θ 2 e−(x−θ) /2 dθ −∞ 1 + θ2 δ π (x) = ∞ 1 2 2 e−(x−θ) /2 dθ −∞ 1+θ 18 / 143
- 19. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Example (Cauchy-normal (2)) Form of δ π suggests simulating iid variables θ1 , · · · , θm ∼ N (x, 1) and calculate 10.6 m θi 10.4 i=1 2 ˆπ 1 + θi δm (x) = . 1 10.2 m i=1 2 1 + θi 10.0 LLN implies 9.8 9.6 ˆπ δm (x) −→ δ π (x) as m −→ ∞. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 iterations 19 / 143
- 20. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Importance sampling Simulation from f (the true density) is not necessarily optimal Alternative to direct sampling from f is importance sampling, based on the alternative representation f (x) f (x) Ef [h(x)] = h(x) g(x) dx = Eg h(x) X g(x) g(x) which allows us to use other distributions than f 20 / 143
- 21. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Importance sampling (cont’d) Importance sampling algorithm Evaluation of Ef [h(x)] = h(x) f (x) dx X by 1 Generate a sample x1 , . . . , xm from a distribution g 2 Use the approximation m 1 f (xj ) h(xj ) m g(xj ) j=1 21 / 143
- 22. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Justiﬁcation Convergence of the estimator m 1 f (xj ) h(xj ) −→ Ef [h(x)] m g(xj ) j=1 1 converges for any choice of the distribution g as long as supp(g) ⊃ supp(f ) 2 Instrumental distribution g chosen from distributions easy to simulate 3 Same sample (generated from g) can be used repeatedly, not only for diﬀerent functions h, but also for diﬀerent densities f 22 / 143
- 23. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Choice of importance function g can be any density but some choices better than others 1 Finite variance only when f (x) f 2 (x) Ef h2 (x) = h2 (x) dx < ∞ . g(x) X g(x) 2 Instrumental distributions with tails lighter than those of f (that is, with sup f /g = ∞) not appropriate, because weights f (xj )/g(xj ) vary widely, giving too much importance to a few values xj . 3 If sup f /g = M < ∞, the accept-reject algorithm can be used as well to simulate f directly. 4 IS suﬀers from curse of dimensionality 23 / 143
- 24. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Example (Cauchy target) Case of Cauchy distribution C(0, 1) when importance function is Gaussian N (0, 1). Density ratio 80 p⋆ (x) √ exp x2 /2 = 2π π (1 + x2 ) 60 p0 (x) 40 very badly behaved: e.g., 20 ∞ ̺(x)2 p0 (x)dx = ∞ 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 iterations −∞ Poor performances of the associated importance sampling estimator 24 / 143
- 25. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Monte Carlo integration Practical alternative m m h(xj ) f (xj )/g(xj ) f (xj )/g(xj ) j=1 j=1 where f and g are known up to constants. 1 Also converges to I by the Strong Law of Large Numbers. 2 Biased, but the bias is quite small: may beat the unbiased estimator in squared error loss. 25 / 143
- 26. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Computational alternatives for evidence Bayesian model choice and hypothesis testing relies on a similar quantity, the evidence Zk = πk (θk )Lk (θk ) dθk , k = 1, 2 Θk aka the marginal likelihood. [Jeﬀreys, 1939] 26 / 143
- 27. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Importance sampling When approximating the Bayes factor f0 (x|θ0 )π0 (θ0 )dθ0 Θ0 B01 = f1 (x|θ1 )π1 (θ1 )dθ1 Θ1 simultaneous use of importance functions ̟0 and ̟1 and n0 n−1 0 i i i i=1 f0 (x|θ0 )π0 (θ0 )/̟0 (θ0 ) B01 = n1 n−1 1 i i i i=1 f1 (x|θ1 )π1 (θ1 )/̟1 (θ1 ) 27 / 143
- 28. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Diabetes in Pima Indian women Example (R benchmark) “A population of women who were at least 21 years old, of Pima Indian heritage and living near Phoenix (AZ), was tested for diabetes according to WHO criteria. The data were collected by the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.” 200 Pima Indian women with observed variables plasma glucose concentration in oral glucose tolerance test diastolic blood pressure diabetes pedigree function presence/absence of diabetes 28 / 143
- 29. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Probit modelling on Pima Indian women Probability of diabetes function of above variables P(y = 1|x) = Φ(x1 β1 + x2 β2 + x3 β3 ) , Test of H0 : β3 = 0 for 200 observations of Pima.tr based on a g-prior modelling: β ∼ N3 (0, n XT X)−1 29 / 143
- 30. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Importance sampling for the Pima Indian dataset Use of the importance function inspired from the MLE estimate distribution ˆ ˆ β ∼ N (β, Σ) R Importance sampling code model1=summary(glm(y~-1+X1,family=binomial(link="probit"))) is1=rmvnorm(Niter,mean=model1$coeff[,1],sigma=2*model1$cov.unscaled) is2=rmvnorm(Niter,mean=model2$coeff[,1],sigma=2*model2$cov.unscaled) bfis=mean(exp(probitlpost(is1,y,X1)-dmvlnorm(is1,mean=model1$coeff[,1], sigma=2*model1$cov.unscaled))) / mean(exp(probitlpost(is2,y,X2)- dmvlnorm(is2,mean=model2$coeff[,1],sigma=2*model2$cov.unscaled))) 30 / 143
- 31. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Diabetes in Pima Indian women Comparison of the variation of the Bayes factor approximations based on 100 replicas for 20, 000 simulations from the prior and the above MLE importance sampler 5 4 3 2 Basic Monte Carlo Importance sampling 31 / 143
- 32. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Bridge sampling General identity: π2 (θ|x)α(θ)π1 (θ|x)dθ ˜ B12 = ∀ α(·) π1 (θ|x)α(θ)π2 (θ|x)dθ ˜ n1 1 π2 (θ1i |x)α(θ1i ) ˜ n1 i=1 ≈ n2 θji ∼ πj (θ|x) 1 π1 (θ2i |x)α(θ2i ) ˜ n2 i=1 32 / 143
- 33. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Optimal bridge sampling The optimal choice of auxiliary function α is n1 + n2 α⋆ = n1 π1 (θ|x) + n2 π2 (θ|x) leading to n1 1 π2 (θ1i |x) ˜ n1 n1 π1 (θ1i |x) + n2 π2 (θ1i |x) i=1 B12 ≈ n2 1 π1 (θ2i |x) ˜ n2 n1 π1 (θ2i |x) + n2 π2 (θ2i |x) i=1 Back later! 33 / 143
- 34. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Extension to varying dimensions When dim(Θ1 ) = dim(Θ2 ), e.g. θ2 = (θ1 , ψ), introduction of a pseudo-posterior density, ω(ψ|θ1 , x), augmenting π1 (θ1 |x) into joint distribution π1 (θ1 |x) × ω(ψ|θ1 , x) on Θ2 so that Z π1 (θ1 |x)α(θ1 , ψ)π2 (θ1 , ψ|x)dθ1 ω(ψ|θ1 , x) dψ ˜ B12 = Z π2 (θ1 , ψ|x)α(θ1 , ψ)π1 (θ1 |x)dθ1 ω(ψ|θ1 , x) dψ ˜ " # π1 (θ1 )ω(ψ|θ1 ) ˜ Eϕ [˜ 1 (θ1 )ω(ψ|θ1 )/ϕ(θ1 , ψ)] π = Eπ 2 = π2 (θ1 , ψ) ˜ Eϕ [˜ 2 (θ1 , ψ)/ϕ(θ1 , ψ)] π for any conditional density ω(ψ|θ1 ) and any joint density ϕ. 34 / 143
- 35. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Illustration for the Pima Indian dataset Use of the MLE induced conditional of β3 given (β1 , β2 ) as a pseudo-posterior and mixture of both MLE approximations on β3 in bridge sampling estimate R bridge sampling code cova=model2$cov.unscaled expecta=model2$coeff[,1] covw=cova[3,3]-t(cova[1:2,3])%*%ginv(cova[1:2,1:2])%*%cova[1:2,3] probit1=hmprobit(Niter,y,X1) probit2=hmprobit(Niter,y,X2) pseudo=rnorm(Niter,meanw(probit1),sqrt(covw)) probit1p=cbind(probit1,pseudo) bfbs=mean(exp(probitlpost(probit2[,1:2],y,X1)+dnorm(probit2[,3],meanw(probit2[,1:2]), sqrt(covw),log=T))/ (dmvnorm(probit2,expecta,cova)+dnorm(probit2[,3],expecta[3], cova[3,3])))/ mean(exp(probitlpost(probit1p,y,X2))/(dmvnorm(probit1p,expecta,cova)+ dnorm(pseudo,expecta[3],cova[3,3]))) 35 / 143
- 36. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Diabetes in Pima Indian women (cont’d) Comparison of the variation of the Bayes factor approximations based on 100 × 20, 000 simulations from the prior (MC), the above bridge sampler and the above importance sampler 36 / 143
- 37. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective The original harmonic mean estimator When θki ∼ πk (θ|x), T 1 1 T L(θkt |x) t=1 is an unbiased estimator of 1/mk (x) [Newton & Raftery, 1994] Highly dangerous: Most often leads to an inﬁnite variance!!! 37 / 143
- 38. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Approximating Zk from a posterior sample Use of the [harmonic mean] identity ϕ(θk ) ϕ(θk ) πk (θk )Lk (θk ) 1 Eπk x = dθk = πk (θk )Lk (θk ) πk (θk )Lk (θk ) Zk Zk which holds no matter what the proposal ϕ(·) is. [Gelfand & Dey, 1994; Bartolucci et al., 2006] Direct exploitation of the Monte Carlo output 38 / 143
- 39. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Comparison with regular importance sampling Harmonic mean: Constraint opposed to usual importance sampling constraints: ϕ(θ) must have lighter (rather than fatter) tails than πk (θk )Lk (θk ) for the approximation T (t) 1 ϕ(θk ) Z1k = 1 (t) (t) T πk (θk )Lk (θk ) t=1 to have a ﬁnite variance. E.g., use ﬁnite support kernels (like Epanechnikov’s kernel) for ϕ 39 / 143
- 40. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective HPD indicator as ϕ Use the convex hull of Monte Carlo simulations corresponding to the 10% HPD region (easily derived!) and ϕ as indicator: 10 ϕ(θ) = Id(θ,θ(t) )≤ǫ T t∈HPD 40 / 143
- 41. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Diabetes in Pima Indian women (cont’d) Comparison of the variation of the Bayes factor approximations based on 100 replicas for 20, 000 simulations for a simulation from the above harmonic mean sampler and importance samplers 3.102 3.104 3.106 3.108 3.110 3.112 3.114 3.116 Harmonic mean Importance sampling 41 / 143
- 42. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Chib’s representation Direct application of Bayes’ theorem: given x ∼ fk (x|θk ) and θk ∼ πk (θk ), fk (x|θk ) πk (θk ) Zk = mk (x) = πk (θk |x) Use of an approximation to the posterior ∗ ∗ fk (x|θk ) πk (θk ) Zk = mk (x) = . ˆ ∗ πk (θk |x) 42 / 143
- 43. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Case of latent variables For missing variable z as in mixture models, natural Rao-Blackwell estimate T ∗ 1 ∗ (t) πk (θk |x) = πk (θk |x, zk ) , T t=1 (t) where the zk ’s are latent variables sampled from π(z|x) (often by Gibbs ) 43 / 143
- 44. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Case of the probit model For the completion by z, hidden normal variable, 1 π (θ|x) = ˆ π(θ|x, z (t) ) T t is a simple average of normal densities R Bridge sampling code gibbs1=gibbsprobit(Niter,y,X1) gibbs2=gibbsprobit(Niter,y,X2) bfchi=mean(exp(dmvlnorm(t(t(gibbs2$mu)-model2$coeff[,1]),mean=rep(0,3), sigma=gibbs2$Sigma2)-probitlpost(model2$coeff[,1],y,X2)))/ mean(exp(dmvlnorm(t(t(gibbs1$mu)-model1$coeff[,1]),mean=rep(0,2), sigma=gibbs1$Sigma2)-probitlpost(model1$coeff[,1],y,X1))) 44 / 143
- 45. Computational Bayesian Statistics Computational basics Bayes factor approximations in perspective Diabetes in Pima Indian women (cont’d) Comparison of the variation of the Bayes factor approximations based on 100 replicas for 20, 000 simulations for a simulation from the above Chib’s and importance samplers 45 / 143
- 46. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Regression and variable selection 2 Regression and variable selection Regression Zellner’s informative G-prior Zellner’s noninformative G-prior Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Variable selection 46 / 143
- 47. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Regression Regressors and response Variable of primary interest, y, called the response or the outcome variable [assumed here to be continuous] E.g., number of Pine processionary caterpillar colonies Covariates x = (x1 , . . . , xk ) called explanatory variables [may be discrete, continuous or both] Distribution of y given x typically studied in the context of a set of units or experimental subjects, i = 1, . . . , n, for instance patients in an hospital ward, on which both yi and xi1 , . . . , xik are measured. 47 / 143
- 48. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Regression Regressors and response cont’d Dataset made of the conjunction of the vector of outcomes y = (y1 , . . . , yn ) and of the n × (k + 1) matrix of explanatory variables 1 x11 x12 . . . x1k 1 x21 x22 . . . x2k x32 . . . x3k X = 1 x31 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 1 xn1 xn2 . . . xnk 48 / 143
- 49. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Regression Linear models Ordinary normal linear regression model such that y|β, σ 2 , X ∼ Nn (Xβ, σ 2 In ) and thus E[yi |β, X] = β0 + β1 xi1 + . . . + βk xik V(yi |σ 2 , X) = σ 2 49 / 143
- 50. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Regression Pine processionary caterpillars Pine processionary caterpillar colony size inﬂuenced by x1 altitude x2 slope (in degrees) x3 number of pines in the area x4 height of the central tree x5 diameter of the central tree x6 index of the settlement density x7 orientation of the area (from 1 [southbound] to 2) x8 height of the dominant tree x9 number of vegetation strata x10 mix settlement index (from 1 if not mixed to 2 if mixed) x1 x2 x3 50 / 143
- 51. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Regression Ibex horn growth Growth of the Ibex horn size S against age A A log(S) = α + β log +ǫ 1+A 6.5 6.0 5.5 log(Size) 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 −0.25 −0.20 −0.15 −0.10 log(1 1 + Age) 51 / 143
- 52. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Regression Likelihood function & estimator The likelihood of the ordinary normal linear model is −n/2 1 ℓ β, σ 2 |y, X = 2πσ 2 exp − (y − Xβ)T (y − Xβ) 2σ 2 The MLE of β is solution of the least squares minimisation problem n 2 min (y − Xβ)T (y − Xβ) = min (yi − β0 − β1 xi1 − . . . − βk xik ) , β β i=1 namely ˆ β = (X T X)−1 X T y 52 / 143
- 53. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Regression lm() for pine processionary caterpillars Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.6989 -0.2731 -0.0003 0.3246 1.7305 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) intercept 10.998412 3.060272 3.594 0.00161 ** XV1 -0.004431 0.001557 -2.846 0.00939 ** XV2 -0.053830 0.021900 -2.458 0.02232 * XV3 0.067939 0.099472 0.683 0.50174 XV4 -1.293636 0.563811 -2.294 0.03168 * XV5 0.231637 0.104378 2.219 0.03709 * XV6 -0.356800 1.566464 -0.228 0.82193 XV7 -0.237469 1.006006 -0.236 0.81558 XV8 0.181060 0.236724 0.765 0.45248 XV9 -1.285316 0.864847 -1.486 0.15142 XV10 -0.433106 0.734869 -0.589 0.56162 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 53 / 143
- 54. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior Zellner’s informative G-prior Constraint Allow the experimenter to introduce information about the location parameter of the regression while bypassing the most diﬃcult aspects of the prior speciﬁcation, namely the derivation of the prior correlation structure. Zellner’s prior corresponds to ˜ β|σ 2 , X ∼ Nk+1 (β, cσ 2 (X T X)−1 ) σ 2 ∼ π(σ 2 |X) ∝ σ −2 . [Special conjugate] 54 / 143
- 55. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior Prior selection ˜ Experimental prior determination restricted to the choices of β and of the constant c. Note c can be interpreted as a measure of the amount of information available in the prior relative to the sample. For instance, setting 1/c = 0.5 gives the prior the same weight as 50% of the sample. There still is a lasting inﬂuence of the factor c 55 / 143
- 56. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior Posterior structure With this prior model, the posterior simpliﬁes into π(β, σ 2 |y, X) ∝ f (y|β, σ 2 , X)π(β, σ 2 |X) 1 ˆ ˆ ∝ σ2 exp − 2 (y − X β)T (y − X β) −(n/2+1) 2σ 1 ˆ ˆ − 2 (β − β)T X T X(β − β) σ 2 −k/2 2σ 1 ˜ ˜ × exp − (β − β)X T X(β − β) , 2cσ 2 because X T X used in both prior and likelihood [G-prior trick] 56 / 143
- 57. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior Posterior structure (cont’d) Therefore, c 2 β|σ 2 , y, X ∼ Nk+1 ˜ ˆ σ c (X T X)−1 (β/c + β), c+1 c+1 n s 2 1 σ 2 |y, X ∼ IG , + ˜ ˆ ˜ ˆ (β − β)T X T X(β − β) 2 2 2(c + 1) and c ˜ β β|y, X ∼ Tk+1 n, ˆ +β , c+1 c ˜ ˆ ˜ ˆ c(s2 + (β − β)T X T X(β − β)/(c + 1)) T −1 (X X) . n(c + 1) 57 / 143
- 58. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior Pine processionary caterpillars βi Eπ (βi |y, X) Vπ (βi |y, X) β0 10.8895 6.4094 β1 -0.0044 2e-06 β2 -0.0533 0.0003 β3 0.0673 0.0068 β4 -1.2808 0.2175 β5 0.2293 0.0075 β6 -0.3532 1.6793 β7 -0.2351 0.6926 β8 0.1793 0.0383 β9 -1.2726 0.5119 β10 -0.4288 0.3696 c = 100 58 / 143
- 59. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior Pine processionary caterpillars (2) βi Eπ (βi |y, X) Vπ (βi |y, X) β0 10.9874 6.2604 β1 -0.0044 2e-06 β2 -0.0538 0.0003 β3 0.0679 0.0066 β4 -1.2923 0.2125 β5 0.2314 0.0073 β6 -0.3564 1.6403 β7 -0.2372 0.6765 β8 0.1809 0.0375 β9 -1.2840 0.5100 β10 -0.4327 0.3670 c = 1, 000 59 / 143
- 60. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior Credible regions Highest posterior density (HPD) regions on subvectors of the parameter β derived from the marginal posterior distribution of β. For a single parameter, c ˜ βi βi |y, X ∼ T1 n, ˆ + βi , c+1 c ˜ ˆ ˜ ˆ c(s2 + (β − β)T X T X(β − β)/(c + 1)) ω(i,i) , n(c + 1) where ω(i,i) is the (i, i)-th element of the matrix (X T X)−1 . 60 / 143
- 61. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior Pine processionary caterpillars βi HPD interval β0 [5.7435, 16.2533] β1 [−0.0071, −0.0018] β2 [−0.0914, −0.0162] β3 [−0.1029, 0.2387] β4 [−2.2618, −0.3255] β5 [0.0524, 0.4109] β6 [−3.0466, 2.3330] β7 [−1.9649, 1.4900] β8 [−0.2254, 0.5875] β9 [−2.7704, 0.1997] β10 [−1.6950, 0.8288] c = 100 61 / 143
- 62. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior T marginal Marginal distribution of y is multivariate t distribution ˜ Proof. Since β|σ 2 , X ∼ Nk+1 (β, cσ 2 (X T X)−1 ), ˜ Xβ|σ 2 , X ∼ N (X β, cσ 2 X(X T X)−1 X T ) , which implies that ˜ y|σ 2 , X ∼ Nn (X β, σ 2 (In + cX(X T X)−1 X T )). Integrating in σ 2 yields f (y|X) = (c + 1)−(k+1)/2 π −n/2 Γ(n/2) −n/2 c 1 ˜T T ˜ × yT y − y T X(X T X)−1 X T y − β X Xβ . c+1 c+1 62 / 143
- 63. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior Point null hypothesis If a null hypothesis is H0 : Rβ = r, the model under H0 can be rewritten as H0 y|β 0 , σ 2 , X0 ∼ Nn X0 β 0 , σ 2 In where β 0 is (k + 1 − q) dimensional. 63 / 143
- 64. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior Point null marginal Under the prior ˜ β 0 |X0 , σ 2 ∼ Nk+1−q β 0 , c0 σ 2 (X0 X0 )−1 , T the marginal distribution of y under H0 is f (y|X0 , H0 ) = (c0 + 1)−(k+1−q)/2 π −n/2 Γ(n/2) c0 × yT y − y T X0 (X0 X0 )−1 X0 y T T c0 + 1 −n/2 1 ˜T T ˜ − β X X0 β0 . c0 + 1 0 0 64 / 143
- 65. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s informative G-prior Bayes factor Therefore the Bayes factor is in closed form: π f (y|X, H1 ) (c0 + 1)(k+1−q)/2 B10 = = f (y|X0 , H0 ) (c + 1)(k+1)/2 1 ˜T T n/2 yT y − c0 T T −1 T − ˜ c0 +1 y X0 (X0 X0 ) X0 y c0 +1 β0 X0 X0 β0 c 1 ˜T T ˜ yT y − c+1 y T X(X T X)−1 X T y − c+1 β X X β Means using the same σ 2 on both models Problem: Still depends on the choice of (c0 , c) 65 / 143
- 66. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s noninformative G-prior Zellner’s noninformative G-prior Diﬀerence with informative G-prior setup is that we now consider c as unknown (relief!) Solution ˜ Use the same G-prior distribution with β = 0k+1 , conditional on c, and introduce a diﬀuse prior on c, π(c) = c−1 IN∗ (c) . 66 / 143
- 67. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s noninformative G-prior Posterior distribution Corresponding marginal posterior on the parameters of interest π(β, σ 2 |y, X) = π(β, σ 2 |y, X, c)π(c|y, X) dc ∞ ∝ π(β, σ 2 |y, X, c)f (y|X, c)π(c) c=1 ∞ ∝ π(β, σ 2 |y, X, c)f (y|X, c) c−1 . c=1 and −n/2 T c T f (y|X, c) ∝ (c+1) −(k+1)/2 y y− y X(X T X)−1 X T y . c+1 67 / 143
- 68. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s noninformative G-prior Posterior means The Bayes estimates of β and σ 2 are given by Eπ [β|y, X] ˆ = Eπ [Eπ (β|y, X, c)|y, X] = Eπ [c/(c + 1)β)|y, X] ∞ c/(c + 1)f (y|X, c)c −1 c=1 = ∞ β ˆ f (y|X, c)c−1 c=1 and ∞ ˆ ˆ s2 + β T X T X β/(c + 1) f (y|X, c)c−1 c=1 n−2 Eπ [σ 2 |y, X] = ∞ . f (y|X, c)c −1 c=1 68 / 143
- 69. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s noninformative G-prior Marginal distribution Important point: the marginal distribution of the dataset is available in closed form ∞ −n/2 c f (y|X) ∝ c−1 (c + 1)−(k+1)/2 y T y − y T X(X T X)−1 X T y i=1 c+1 T -shape means normalising constant can be computed too. 69 / 143
- 70. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s noninformative G-prior Point null hypothesis For null hypothesis H0 : Rβ = r, the model under H0 can be rewritten as H0 y|β 0 , σ 2 , X0 ∼ Nn X0 β 0 , σ 2 In where β 0 is (k + 1 − q) dimensional. 70 / 143
- 71. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s noninformative G-prior Point null marginal Under the prior β 0 |X0 , σ 2 , c ∼ Nk+1−q 0k+1−q , cσ 2 (X0 X0 )−1 T and π(c) = 1/c, the marginal distribution of y under H0 is ∞ −n/2 c f (y|X0 , H0 ) ∝ (c+1)−(k+1−q)/2 y T y − y T X0 (X0 X0 )−1 X0 y T T . c=1 c+1 π Bayes factor B10 = f (y|X)/f (y|X0 , H0 ) can be computed 71 / 143
- 72. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Zellner’s noninformative G-prior Processionary pine caterpillars π For H0 : β8 = β9 = 0, log10 (B10 ) = −0.7884 Estimate Post. Var. log10(BF) (Intercept) 9.2714 9.1164 1.4205 (***) X1 -0.0037 2e-06 0.8502 (**) X2 -0.0454 0.0004 0.5664 (**) X3 0.0573 0.0086 -0.3609 X4 -1.0905 0.2901 0.4520 (*) X5 0.1953 0.0099 0.4007 (*) X6 -0.3008 2.1372 -0.4412 X7 -0.2002 0.8815 -0.4404 X8 0.1526 0.0490 -0.3383 X9 -1.0835 0.6643 -0.0424 X10 -0.3651 0.4716 -0.3838 evidence against H0: (****) decisive, (***) strong, (**) subtantial, (*) poor 72 / 143
- 73. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Complexity of most models encountered in Bayesian modelling Standard simulation methods not good enough a solution New technique at the core of Bayesian computing, based on Markov chains 73 / 143
- 74. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Markov chains Markov chain A process (θ(t) )t∈N is an homogeneous Markov chain if the distribution of θ(t) given the past (θ(0) , . . . , θ(t−1) ) 1 only depends on θ(t−1) 2 is the same for all t ∈ N∗ . 74 / 143
- 75. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Algorithms based on Markov chains Idea: simulate from a posterior density π(·|x) [or any density] by producing a Markov chain (θ(t) )t∈N whose stationary distribution is π(·|x) Translation For t large enough, θ(t) is approximately distributed from π(θ|x), no matter what the starting value θ(0) is [Ergodicity]. 75 / 143
- 76. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Convergence If an algorithm that generates such a chain can be constructed, the ergodic theorem guarantees that, in almost all settings, the average T 1 g(θ(t) ) T t=1 converges to Eπ [g(θ)|x], for (almost) any starting value 76 / 143
- 77. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods More convergence If the produced Markov chains are irreducible [can reach any region in a ﬁnite number of steps], then they are both positive recurrent with stationary distribution π(·|x) and ergodic [asymptotically independent from the starting value θ(0) ] While, for t large enough, θ(t) is approximately distributed from π(θ|x) and can thus be used like the output from a more standard simulation algorithm, one must take care of the correlations between the θ(t) ’s 77 / 143
- 78. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Demarginalising Takes advantage of hierarchical structures: if π(θ|x) = π1 (θ|x, λ)π2 (λ|x) dλ , simulating from π(θ|x) comes from simulating from the joint distribution π1 (θ|x, λ) π2 (λ|x) 78 / 143
- 79. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Two-stage Gibbs sampler Usually π2 (λ|x) not available/simulable More often, both conditional posterior distributions, π1 (θ|x, λ) and π2 (λ|x, θ) can be simulated. Idea: Create a Markov chain based on those conditionals Example of latent variables! 79 / 143
- 80. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Two-stage Gibbs sampler (cont’d) Initialization: Start with an arbitrary value λ(0) Iteration t: Given λ(t−1) , generate 1 θ(t) according to π1 (θ|x, λ(t−1) ) 2 λ(t) according to π2 (λ|x, θ(t) ) J.W. Gibbs (1839-1903) π(θ, λ|x) is a stationary distribution for this transition 80 / 143
- 81. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Implementation 1 Derive eﬃcient decomposition of the joint distribution into simulable conditionals (mixing behavior, acf(), blocking, &tc.) 2 Find when to stop the algorithm (mode chasing, missing mass, shortcuts, &tc.) 81 / 143
- 82. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Simple Example: iid N (µ, σ 2 ) Observations iid When y1 , . . . , yn ∼ N (µ, σ 2 ) with both µ and σ unknown, the posterior in (µ, σ 2 ) is conjugate outside a standard family But... 1 n σ2 µ|y, σ 2 ∼ N µ n i=1 yi , n ) σ 2 |y, µ ∼ I G σ 2 n − 1, 2 n (yi 2 1 i=1 − µ)2 assuming constant (improper) priors on both µ and σ 2 Hence we may use the Gibbs sampler for simulating from the posterior of (µ, σ 2 ) 82 / 143
- 83. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Gibbs output analysis Example (Cauchy posterior) 2 e−µ /20 π(µ|D) ∝ (1 + (x1 − µ)2 )(1 + (x2 − µ)2 ) is marginal of 2 −µ2 /20 2 π(µ, ω|D) ∝ e × e−ωi [1+(xi −µ) ] . i=1 Corresponding conditionals (ω1 , ω2 )|µ ∼ E xp(1 + (x1 − µ)2 ) ⊗ E xp(1 + (x2 − µ))2 ) µ|ω ∼ N ωi xi /( ωi + 1/20), 1/(2 ωi + 1/10) i i i 83 / 143
- 84. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Gibbs output analysis (cont’d) 4 2 0 µ −2 −4 −6 9900 9920 9940 9960 9980 10000 n 0.15 Density 0.10 0.05 0.00 −10 −5 0 5 10 µ 84 / 143
- 85. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Generalisation Consider several groups of parameters, θ, λ1 , . . . , λp , such that π(θ|x) = ... π(θ, λ1 , . . . , λp |x) dλ1 · · · dλp or simply divide θ in (θ1 , . . . , θp ) 85 / 143
- 86. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods The general Gibbs sampler For a joint distribution π(θ) with full conditionals π1 , . . . , πp , (t) (t) Given (θ1 , . . . , θp ), simulate (t+1) (t) (t) 1. θ1 ∼ π1 (θ1 |θ2 , . . . , θp ), (t+1) (t+1) (t) (t) 2. θ2 ∼ π2 (θ2 |θ1 , θ3 , . . . , θp ), . . . (t+1) (t+1) (t+1) p. θp ∼ πp (θp |θ1 , . . . , θp−1 ). Then θ(t) → θ ∼ π 86 / 143
- 87. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Variable selection Back to regression: one dependent random variable y and a set {x1 , . . . , xk } of k explanatory variables. Question: Are all xi ’s involved in the regression? Assumption: every subset {i1 , . . . , iq } of q (0 ≤ q ≤ k) explanatory variables, {1n , xi1 , . . . , xiq }, is a proper set of explanatory variables for the regression of y [intercept included in every corresponding model] Computational issue 2k models in competition... 87 / 143
- 88. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Model notations 1 X = 1n x1 · · · xk is the matrix containing 1n and all the k potential predictor variables 2 Each model Mγ associated with binary indicator vector γ ∈ Γ = {0, 1}k where γi = 1 means that the variable xi is included in the model Mγ 3 qγ = 1T γ number of variables included in the model Mγ n 4 t1 (γ) and t0 (γ) indices of variables included in the model and indices of variables not included in the model 88 / 143
- 89. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Model indicators For β ∈ Rk+1 and X, we deﬁne βγ as the subvector βγ = β0 , (βi )i∈t1 (γ) and Xγ as the submatrix of X where only the column 1n and the columns in t1 (γ) have been left. 89 / 143
- 90. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Models in competition The model Mγ is thus deﬁned as y|γ, βγ , σ 2 , X ∼ Nn Xγ βγ , σ 2 In where βγ ∈ Rqγ +1 and σ 2 ∈ R∗ are the unknown parameters. + Warning σ 2 is common to all models and thus uses the same prior for all models 90 / 143
- 91. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Informative G-prior Many (2k ) models in competition: we cannot expect a practitioner to specify a prior on every Mγ in a completely subjective and autonomous manner. Shortcut: We derive all priors from a single global prior associated with the so-called full model that corresponds to γ = (1, . . . , 1). 91 / 143
- 92. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Prior deﬁnitions (i) For the full model, Zellner’s G-prior: ˜ β|σ 2 , X ∼ Nk+1 (β, cσ 2 (X T X)−1 ) and σ 2 ∼ π(σ 2 |X) = σ −2 (ii) For each model Mγ , the prior distribution of βγ conditional on σ 2 is ﬁxed as ˜ −1 βγ |γ, σ 2 ∼ Nqγ +1 βγ , cσ 2 Xγ Xγ T , ˜ T −1 T ˜ where βγ = Xγ Xγ Xγ β and same prior on σ 2 . 92 / 143
- 93. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Prior completion The joint prior for model Mγ is the improper prior −(qγ +1)/2−1 1 ˜ T π(βγ , σ 2 |γ) ∝ σ2 exp − βγ − βγ 2(cσ 2 ) T ˜ (Xγ Xγ ) βγ − βγ . 93 / 143
- 94. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Prior competition (2) Inﬁnitely many ways of deﬁning a prior on the model index γ: choice of uniform prior π(γ|X) = 2−k . Posterior distribution of γ central to variable selection since proportional to the marginal density of y on Mγ (or evidence of Mγ ) π(γ|y, X) ∝ f (y|γ, X)π(γ|X) ∝ f (y|γ, X) = f (y|γ, β, σ 2 , X)π(β|γ, σ 2 , X) dβ π(σ 2 |X) dσ 2 . 94 / 143
- 95. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection f (y|γ, σ 2 , X) = f (y|γ, β, σ 2 )π(β|γ, σ 2 ) dβ 1 T (c + 1)−(qγ +1)/2 (2π)−n/2 σ 2 −n/2 = exp − y y 2σ 2 1 −1 ˜T T ˜ + cy T Xγ Xγ Xγ T T Xγ y − βγ Xγ Xγ βγ , 2σ 2 (c + 1) this posterior density satisﬁes c T −1 π(γ|y, X) ∝ (c + 1)−(qγ +1)/2 y T y − T y Xγ Xγ Xγ T Xγ y c+1 −n/2 1 ˜T T ˜ − β X Xγ βγ . c+1 γ γ 95 / 143
- 96. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Pine processionary caterpillars t1 (γ) π(γ|y, X) 0,1,2,4,5 0.2316 0,1,2,4,5,9 0.0374 0,1,9 0.0344 0,1,2,4,5,10 0.0328 0,1,4,5 0.0306 0,1,2,9 0.0250 0,1,2,4,5,7 0.0241 0,1,2,4,5,8 0.0238 0,1,2,4,5,6 0.0237 0,1,2,3,4,5 0.0232 0,1,6,9 0.0146 0,1,2,3,9 0.0145 0,9 0.0143 0,1,2,6,9 0.0135 0,1,4,5,9 0.0128 0,1,3,9 0.0117 0,1,2,8 0.0115 96 / 143
- 97. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Pine processionary caterpillars (cont’d) Interpretation Model Mγ with the highest posterior probability is t1 (γ) = (1, 2, 4, 5), which corresponds to the variables - altitude, - slope, - height of the tree sampled in the center of the area, and - diameter of the tree sampled in the center of the area. Corresponds to the ﬁve variables identiﬁed in the R regression output 97 / 143
- 98. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Noninformative extension For Zellner noninformative prior with π(c) = 1/c, we have ∞ π(γ|y, X) ∝ c−1 (c + 1)−(qγ +1)/2 y T y− c=1 −n/2 c T T −1 T y Xγ Xγ Xγ Xγ y . c+1 98 / 143
- 99. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Pine processionary caterpillars t1 (γ) π(γ|y, X) 0,1,2,4,5 0.0929 0,1,2,4,5,9 0.0325 0,1,2,4,5,10 0.0295 0,1,2,4,5,7 0.0231 0,1,2,4,5,8 0.0228 0,1,2,4,5,6 0.0228 0,1,2,3,4,5 0.0224 0,1,2,3,4,5,9 0.0167 0,1,2,4,5,6,9 0.0167 0,1,2,4,5,8,9 0.0137 0,1,4,5 0.0110 0,1,2,4,5,9,10 0.0100 0,1,2,3,9 0.0097 0,1,2,9 0.0093 0,1,2,4,5,7,9 0.0092 0,1,2,6,9 0.0092 99 / 143
- 100. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Stochastic search for the most likely model When k gets large, impossible to compute the posterior probabilities of the 2k models. Need of a tailored algorithm that samples from π(γ|y, X) and selects the most likely models. Can be done by Gibbs sampling , given the availability of the full conditional posterior probabilities of the γi ’s. If γ−i = (γ1 , . . . , γi−1 , γi+1 , . . . , γk ) (1 ≤ i ≤ k) π(γi |y, γ−i , X) ∝ π(γ|y, X) (to be evaluated in both γi = 0 and γi = 1) 100 / 143
- 101. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Gibbs sampling for variable selection Initialization: Draw γ 0 from the uniform distribution on Γ (t−1) (t−1) Iteration t: Given (γ1 , . . . , γk ), generate (t) (t−1) (t−1) 1. γ1 according to π(γ1 |y, γ2 , . . . , γk , X) (t) 2. γ2 according to (t) (t−1) (t−1) π(γ2 |y, γ1 , γ3 , . . . , γk , X) . . . (t) (t) (t) p. γk according to π(γk |y, γ1 , . . . , γk−1 , X) 101 / 143
- 102. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection MCMC interpretation After T ≫ 1 MCMC iterations, output used to approximate the posterior probabilities π(γ|y, X) by empirical averages T 1 π(γ|y, X) = Iγ (t) =γ . T − T0 + 1 t=T0 where the T0 ﬁrst values are eliminated as burnin. And approximation of the probability to include i-th variable, T 1 P π (γi = 1|y, X) = Iγ (t) =1 . T − T0 + 1 i t=T0 102 / 143
- 103. Computational Bayesian Statistics Regression and variable selection Variable selection Pine processionary caterpillars γi P π (γi = 1|y, X) P π (γi = 1|y, X) γ1 0.8624 0.8844 γ2 0.7060 0.7716 γ3 0.1482 0.2978 γ4 0.6671 0.7261 γ5 0.6515 0.7006 γ6 0.1678 0.3115 γ7 0.1371 0.2880 γ8 0.1555 0.2876 γ9 0.4039 0.5168 γ10 0.1151 0.2609 ˜ Probabilities of inclusion with both informative (β = 011 , c = 100) and noninformative Zellner’s priors 103 / 143
- 104. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Generalized linear models 3 Generalized linear models Generalisation of linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms The Probit Model The logit model 104 / 143
- 105. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Generalisation of linear models Generalisation of the linear dependence Broader class of models to cover various dependence structures. Class of generalised linear models (GLM) where y|x, β ∼ f (y|xT β) . i.e., dependence of y on x partly linear 105 / 143
- 106. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Generalisation of linear models Speciﬁcations of GLM’s Deﬁnition (GLM) A GLM is a conditional model speciﬁed by two functions: 1 the density f of y given x parameterised by its expectation parameter µ = µ(x) [and possibly its dispersion parameter ϕ = ϕ(x)] 2 the link g between the mean µ and the explanatory variables, written customarily as g(µ) = xT β or, equivalently, E[y|x, β] = g −1 (xT β). For identiﬁability reasons, g needs to be bijective. 106 / 143
- 107. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Generalisation of linear models Likelihood Obvious representation of the likelihood n ℓ(β, ϕ|y, X) = f yi |xiT β, ϕ i=1 with parameters β ∈ Rk and ϕ > 0. 107 / 143
- 108. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Generalisation of linear models Examples Case of binary and binomial data, when yi |xi ∼ B(ni , p(xi )) with known ni Logit [or logistic regression] model Link is logit transform on probability of success g(pi ) = log(pi /(1 − pi )) , with likelihood Y „ ni « „ exp(xiT β) «yi „ n 1 «ni −yi yi 1 + exp(xiT β) 1 + exp(xiT β) i=1 ( n )ﬃ n X Y“ ”ni −yi ∝ exp yi xiT β 1 + exp(xiT β) i=1 i=1 108 / 143
- 109. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Generalisation of linear models Canonical link Special link function g that appears in the natural exponential family representation of the density g ⋆ (µ) = θ if f (y|µ) ∝ exp{T (y) · θ − Ψ(θ)} Example Logit link is canonical for the binomial model, since ni pi f (yi |pi ) = exp yi log + ni log(1 − pi ) , yi 1 − pi and thus θi = log pi /(1 − pi ) 109 / 143
- 110. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Generalisation of linear models Examples (2) Customary to use the canonical link, but only customary ... Probit model Probit link function given by g(µi ) = Φ−1 (µi ) where Φ standard normal cdf Likelihood n ℓ(β|y, X) ∝ Φ(xiT β)yi (1 − Φ(xiT β))ni −yi . i=1 Full processing 110 / 143
- 111. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Generalisation of linear models Log-linear models Standard approach to describe associations between several categorical variables, i.e, variables with ﬁnite support Suﬃcient statistic: contingency table, made of the cross-classiﬁed counts for the diﬀerent categorical variables. Example (Titanic survivors) Child Adult Survivor Class Male Female Male Female 1st 0 0 118 4 2nd 0 0 154 13 No 3rd 35 17 387 89 Crew 0 0 670 3 1st 5 1 57 140 2nd 11 13 14 80 Yes 3rd 13 14 75 76 Crew 0 0 192 20 111 / 143
- 112. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Generalisation of linear models Poisson regression model 1 Each count yi is Poisson with mean µi = µ(xi ) 2 Link function connecting R+ with R, e.g. logarithm g(µi ) = log(µi ). Corresponding likelihood n 1 ℓ(β|y, X) = exp yi xiT β − exp(xiT β) . i=1 yi ! 112 / 143
- 113. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Convergence assessment Posterior inference in GLMs harder than for linear models c Working with a GLM requires speciﬁc numerical or simulation tools [E.g., GLIM in classical analyses] Opportunity to introduce universal MCMC method: Metropolis–Hastings algorithm 113 / 143
- 114. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Generic MCMC sampler Metropolis–Hastings algorithms are generic/down-the-shelf MCMC algorithms Only require likelihood up to a constant [diﬀerence with Gibbs sampler] can be tuned with a wide range of possibilities [diﬀerence with Gibbs sampler & blocking] natural extensions of standard simulation algorithms: based on the choice of a proposal distribution [diﬀerence in Markov proposal q(x, y) and acceptance] 114 / 143
- 115. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Why Metropolis? Originally introduced by Metropolis, Rosenbluth, Rosenbluth, Teller and Teller in a setup of optimization on a discrete state-space. All authors involved in Los Alamos during and after WWII: Physicist and mathematician, Nicholas Metropolis is considered (with Stanislaw Ulam) to be the father of Monte Carlo methods. Also a physicist, Marshall Rosenbluth worked on the development of the hydrogen (H) bomb Edward Teller was one of the ﬁrst scientists to work on the Manhattan Project that led to the production of the A bomb. Also managed to design with Ulam the H bomb. 115 / 143
- 116. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Generic Metropolis–Hastings sampler For target π and proposal kernel q(x, y) Initialization: Choose an arbitrary x(0) Iteration t: 1 Given x(t−1) , generate x ∼ q(x(t−1) , x) ˜ 2 Calculate π(˜)/q(x(t−1) , x) x ˜ ρ(x(t−1) , x) = min ˜ (t−1) )/q(˜, x(t−1) ) ,1 π(x x 3 With probability ρ(x(t−1) , x) accept x and set x(t) = x; ˜ ˜ ˜ otherwise reject x and set x(t) = x(t−1) . ˜ 116 / 143
- 117. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Universality Algorithm only needs to simulate from q which can be chosen [almost!] arbitrarily, i.e. unrelated with π [q also called instrumental distribution] Note: π and q known up to proportionality terms ok since proportionality constants cancel in ρ. 117 / 143
- 118. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Validation Markov chain theory Target π is stationary distribution of Markov chain (x(t) )t because probability ρ(x, y) satisﬁes detailed balance equation π(x)q(x, y)ρ(x, y) = π(y)q(y, x)ρ(y, x) [Integrate out x to see that π is stationary] For convergence/ergodicity, Markov chain must be irreducible: q has positive probability of reaching all areas with positive π probability in a ﬁnite number of steps. 118 / 143
- 119. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Choice of proposal Theoretical guarantees of convergence very high, but choice of q is crucial in practice. Poor choice of q may result in very high rejection rates, with very few moves of the Markov chain (x(t) )t hardly moves, or in a myopic exploration of the support of π, that is, in a dependence on the starting value x(0) , with the chain stuck in a neighbourhood mode to x(0) . Note: hybrid MCMC Simultaneous use of diﬀerent kernels valid and recommended 119 / 143
- 120. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms The independence sampler Pick proposal q that is independent of its ﬁrst argument, q(x, y) = q(y) ρ simpliﬁes into π(y)/q(y) ρ(x, y) = min 1, . π(x)/q(x) Special case: q ∝ π Reduces to ρ(x, y) = 1 and iid sampling Analogy with Accept-Reject algorithm where max π/q replaced with the current value π(x(t−1) )/q(x(t−1) ) but sequence of accepted x(t) ’s not i.i.d. 120 / 143
- 121. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Choice of q Convergence properties highly dependent on q. q needs to be positive everywhere on the support of π for a good exploration of this support, π/q needs to be bounded. Otherwise, the chain takes too long to reach regions with low q/π values. 121 / 143
- 122. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms The random walk sampler Independence sampler requires too much global information about π: opt for a local gathering of information Means exploration of the neighbourhood of the current value x(t) in search of other points of interest. Simplest exploration device is based on random walk dynamics. 122 / 143
- 123. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Random walks Proposal is a symmetric transition density q(x, y) = qRW (y − x) = qRW (x − y) Acceptance probability ρ(x, y) reduces to the simpler form π(y) ρ(x, y) = min 1, . π(x) Only depends on the target π [accepts all proposed values that increase π] 123 / 143
- 124. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Choice of qRW Considerable ﬂexibility in the choice of qRW , tails: Normal versus Student’s t scale: size of the neighbourhood Can also be used for restricted support targets [with a waste of simulations near the boundary] Can be tuned towards an acceptance probability of 0.234 at the burnin stage [Magic number!] 124 / 143
- 125. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Convergence assessment Capital question: How many iterations do we need to run??? MCMC debuts Rule # 1 There is no absolute number of simulations, i.e. 1, 000 is neither large, nor small. Rule # 2 It takes [much] longer to check for convergence than for the chain itself to converge. Rule # 3 MCMC is a “what-you-get-is-what-you-see” algorithm: it fails to tell about unexplored parts of the space. Rule # 4 When in doubt, run MCMC chains in parallel and check for consistency. Many “quick-&-dirty” solutions in the literature, but not necessarily trustworthy. [Robert & Casella, 2009, Chapter 8] 125 / 143
- 126. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Prohibited dynamic updating Tuning the proposal in terms of its past performances can only be implemented at burnin, because otherwise this cancels Markovian convergence properties. Use of several MCMC proposals together within a single algorithm using circular or random design is ok. It almost always brings an improvement compared with its individual components (at the cost of increased simulation time) 126 / 143
- 127. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models Metropolis–Hastings algorithms Eﬀective sample size How many iid simulations from π are equivalent to N simulations from the MCMC algorithm? Based on estimated k-th order auto-correlation, ρk = corr x(t) , x(t+k) , eﬀective sample size T0 −1/2 ess N =n 1+2 ρ2 ˆk , k=1 Only partial indicator that fails to signal chains stuck in one mode of the target 127 / 143
- 128. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model The Probit Model Likelihood Recall Probit n ℓ(β|y, X) ∝ Φ(xiT β)yi (1 − Φ(xiT β))ni −yi . i=1 If no prior information available, resort to the ﬂat prior π(β) ∝ 1 and then obtain the posterior distribution n yi ni −yi π(β|y, X) ∝ Φ xiT β 1 − Φ(xiT β) , i=1 nonstandard and simulated using MCMC techniques. 128 / 143
- 129. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model MCMC resolution Metropolis–Hastings random walk sampler works well for binary regression problems with small number of predictors ˆ Uses the maximum likelihood estimate β as starting value and ˆ asymptotic (Fisher) covariance matrix of the MLE, Σ, as scale 129 / 143
- 130. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model MLE proposal R function glm very useful to get the maximum likelihood estimate ˆ of β and its asymptotic covariance matrix Σ. Terminology used in R program mod=summary(glm(y~X-1,family=binomial(link="probit"))) ˆ ˆ with mod$coeﬀ[,1] denoting β and mod$cov.unscaled Σ. 130 / 143
- 131. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model MCMC algorithm Probit random-walk Metropolis-Hastings ˆ ˆ Initialization: Set β (0) = β and compute Σ Iteration t: 1 ˜ ˆ Generate β ∼ Nk+1 (β (t−1) , τ Σ) 2 Compute ˜ π(β|y) ˜ ρ(β (t−1) , β) = min 1, π(β (t−1) |y) 3 ˜ ˜ With probability ρ(β (t−1) , β) set β (t) = β; (t) (t−1) otherwise set β = β . 131 / 143
- 132. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model banknotes Four measurements on 100 genuine Swiss banknotes and 100 counterfeit ones: x1 length of the bill (in mm), x2 width of the left edge (in mm), x3 width of the right edge (in mm), x4 bottom margin width (in mm). Response variable y: status of the banknote [0 for genuine and 1 for counterfeit] Probabilistic model that predicts counterfeiting based on the four measurements 132 / 143
- 133. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model banknotes (2) 0.8 Probit modelling with −1.0 1.0 0.4 no intercept over the −2.0 0.0 0.0 0 4000 8000 −2.0 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0 200 600 1000 four measurements. 3 Three diﬀerent scales 0.0 0.4 0.8 2 0.4 1 τ = 1, 0.1, 10: best −1 0.0 0 4000 8000 −1 0 1 2 3 0 200 600 1000 mixing behavior is associated with τ = 1. 2.5 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 −0.5 1.0 0.4 Average of the 0.0 parameters over 9, 000 0 4000 8000 −0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 0 200 600 1000 iterations gives plug-in 1.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 2.0 1.2 estimate 1.0 0.0 0.6 0 4000 8000 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 0 200 600 1000 pi = Φ (−1.2193xi1 + 0.9540xi2 + 0.9795xi3 + 1.1481xi4 ) . ˆ 133 / 143
- 134. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model G-priors for probit models Flat prior on β inappropriate for comparison purposes and Bayes factors. Replace the ﬂat prior with a hierarchical prior, β|σ 2 , X ∼ Nk 0k , σ 2 (X T X)−1 and π(σ 2 |X) ∝ σ −3/2 , (almost) as in normal linear regression Warning The matrix X T X is not the Fisher information matrix 134 / 143
- 135. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model G-priors for testing Same argument as before: while π is improper, use of the same variance factor σ 2 in both models means the normalising constant cancels in the Bayes factor. Posterior distribution of β “ ”−(2k−1)/4 π(β|y, X) ∝ |X T X|1/2 Γ((2k − 1)/4) β T (X T X)β π −k/2 n Y h i1−yi × Φ(xiT β)yi 1 − Φ(xiT β) i=1 [where k matters!] 135 / 143
- 136. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model Marginal approximation Marginal Z “ ”−(2k−1)/4 f (y|X) ∝ |X T X|1/2 π −k/2 Γ{(2k − 1)/4} β T (X T X)β n Y h i1−yi × Φ(xiT β)yi 1 − (Φ(xiT β) dβ, i=1 approximated by [e.g.] importance M ˛˛ ˛˛−(2k−1)/2 Yn h i1−yi |X T X|1/2 X ˛˛ (m) ˛˛ ˛˛Xβ ˛˛ Φ(xiT β (m) )yi 1 − Φ(xiT β (m) ) π k/2 M m=1 i=1 (m) b −β)T V −1 (β (m) −β)/4 b b b × Γ{(2k − 1)/4} |V |1/2 (4π)k/2 e+(β , where β (m) ∼ Nk (β, 2 V ) with β MCMC approximation of Eπ [β|y, X] and V MCMC approximation of V(β|y, X). 136 / 143
- 137. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model Linear hypothesis Linear restriction on β H0 : Rβ = r (r ∈ Rq , R q × k matrix) where β 0 is (k − q) dimensional and X0 and x0 are linear transforms of X and of x of dimensions (n, k − q) and (k − q). Likelihood n 0 1−yi ℓ(β |y, X0 ) ∝ Φ(xiT β 0 )yi 1 − Φ(xiT β 0 ) 0 0 , i=1 137 / 143
- 138. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model Linear test Associated [projected] G-prior β 0 |σ 2 , X0 ∼ Nk−q 0k−q , σ 2 (X0 X0 )−1 T and π(σ 2 |X0 ) ∝ σ −3/2 , Marginal distribution of y of the same type ﬀZ (2(k − q) − 1) ˛˛ ˛˛ f (y|X0 ) ∝ T |X0 X0 |1/2 π −(k−q)/2 Γ ˛˛Xβ 0 ˛˛−(2(k−q)−1)/2 4 n Y h i1−yi Φ(xiT β 0 )yi 1 − (Φ(xiT β 0 ) 0 0 dβ 0 . i=1 138 / 143
- 139. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The Probit Model banknote π For H0 : β1 = β2 = 0, B10 = 157.73 [against H0 ] Generic regression-like output: Estimate Post. var. log10(BF) X1 -1.1552 0.0631 4.5844 (****) X2 0.9200 0.3299 -0.2875 X3 0.9121 0.2595 -0.0972 X4 1.0820 0.0287 15.6765 (****) evidence against H0: (****) decisive, (***) strong, (**) subtantial, (*) poor 139 / 143
- 140. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The logit model The logit model Recall that [for ni = 1] exp(µi ) yi |µi ∼ B(1, µi ), ϕ = 1 and g(µi ) = . 1 + exp(µi ) Thus exp(xiT β) P(yi = 1|β) = 1 + exp(xiT β) with likelihood n yi 1−yi exp(xiT β) exp(xiT β) ℓ(β|y, X) = 1− i=1 1 + exp(xiT β) 1 + exp(xiT β) 140 / 143
- 141. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The logit model Links with probit usual vague prior for β, π(β) ∝ 1 Posterior given by n yi 1−yi exp(xiT β) exp(xiT β) π(β|y, X) ∝ 1− 1 + exp(xiT β) 1 + exp(xiT β) i=1 [intractable] Same blackbox likelihood, hence... Same Metropolis–Hastings sampler 141 / 143
- 142. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The logit model bank −1 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.8 −3 0.3 Same scale factor equal to −5 0.0 0 4000 8000 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 200 600 1000 τ = 1: slight increase in 2 4 6 0.0 0.4 0.8 the skewness of the 0.2 histograms of the βi ’s. 0.0 −2 0 4000 8000 −2 0 2 4 6 0 200 600 1000 0.4 2 4 6 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.2 Plug-in estimate of 0.0 −2 predictive probability of a 3.5 0 4000 8000 −2 0 2 4 6 0 200 600 1000 counterfeit 0.0 0.4 0.8 2.5 0.6 1.5 0.0 0 4000 8000 1.5 2.5 3.5 0 200 600 1000 exp (−2.5888xi1 + 1.9967xi2 + 2.1260xi3 + 2.1879xi4 ) pi = ˆ . 1 + exp (−2.5888xi1 + 1.9967xi2 + 2.1260xi3 + 2.1879xi4 ) 142 / 143
- 143. Computational Bayesian Statistics Generalized linear models The logit model G-priors for logit models Same story: Flat prior on β inappropriate for Bayes factors, to be replaced with hierarchical prior, β|σ 2 , X ∼ Nk 0k , σ 2 (X T X)−1 and π(σ 2 |X) ∝ σ −3/2 Example (bank) Estimate Post. var. log10(BF) X1 -2.3970 0.3286 4.8084 (****) X2 1.6978 1.2220 -0.2453 X3 2.1197 1.0094 -0.1529 X4 2.0230 0.1132 15.9530 (****) evidence against H0: (****) decisive, (***) strong, (**) subtantial, (*) poor 143 / 143

Be the first to comment