Successfully reported this slideshow.
Upcoming SlideShare
×

# seminar at Princeton University

Dept of Economics, April 03, 2012

• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No

### seminar at Princeton University

1. 1. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Christian P. Robert Universit´ Paris-Dauphine, IuF, & CREST e http://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/~xian Princeton University, April 03, 2012 Joint work with J.-M. Cornuet, A. Grelaud, J.-M. Marin, N. Pillai, & J. Rousseau
2. 2. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model ChoiceOutline Approximate Bayesian computation ABC for model choice Model choice consistency
3. 3. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computationApproximate Bayesian computation Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basics Alphabet soup simulation-based methods in Econometrics ABC for model choice Model choice consistency
4. 4. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsRegular Bayesian computation issues When faced with a non-standard posterior distribution π(θ|y) ∝ π(θ)L(θ|y) the standard solution is to use simulation (Monte Carlo) to produce a sample θ1 , . . . , θ T from π(θ|y) (or approximately by Markov chain Monte Carlo methods) [Robert & Casella, 2004]
5. 5. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsUntractable likelihoods Cases when the likelihood function f (y|θ) is unavailable and when the completion step f (y|θ) = f (y, z|θ) dz Z is impossible or too costly because of the dimension of z c MCMC cannot be implemented!
6. 6. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsIllustration Example Coalescence tree: in population genetics, reconstitution of a common ancestor from a sample of genes via a phylogenetic tree that is close to impossible to integrate out [100 processor days with 4 parameters] [Cornuet et al., 2009, Bioinformatics]
7. 7. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsThe ABC method Bayesian setting: target is π(θ)f (x|θ)
8. 8. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsThe ABC method Bayesian setting: target is π(θ)f (x|θ) When likelihood f (x|θ) not in closed form, likelihood-free rejection technique:
9. 9. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsThe ABC method Bayesian setting: target is π(θ)f (x|θ) When likelihood f (x|θ) not in closed form, likelihood-free rejection technique: ABC algorithm For an observation y ∼ f (y|θ), under the prior π(θ), keep jointly simulating θ ∼ π(θ) , z ∼ f (z|θ ) , until the auxiliary variable z is equal to the observed value, z = y. [Tavar´ et al., 1997] e
10. 10. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsWhy does it work?! The proof is trivial: f (θi ) ∝ π(θi )f (z|θi )Iy (z) z∈D ∝ π(θi )f (y|θi ) = π(θi |y) . [Accept–Reject 101]
11. 11. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsEarlier occurrence ‘Bayesian statistics and Monte Carlo methods are ideally suited to the task of passing many models over one dataset’ [Don Rubin, Annals of Statistics, 1984] Note Rubin (1984) does not promote this algorithm for likelihood-free simulation but frequentist intuition on posterior distributions: parameters from posteriors are more likely to be those that could have generated the data.
12. 12. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsA as approximative When y is a continuous random variable, equality z = y is replaced with a tolerance condition, (y, z) ≤ where is a distance
13. 13. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsA as approximative When y is a continuous random variable, equality z = y is replaced with a tolerance condition, (y, z) ≤ where is a distance Output distributed from π(θ) Pθ { (y, z) < } ∝ π(θ| (y, z) < )
14. 14. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsABC algorithm Algorithm 1 Likelihood-free rejection sampler for i = 1 to N do repeat generate θ from the prior distribution π(·) generate z from the likelihood f (·|θ ) until ρ{η(z), η(y)} ≤ set θi = θ end for where η(y) deﬁnes a (maybe in-suﬃcient) statistic
15. 15. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsOutput The likelihood-free algorithm samples from the marginal in z of: π(θ)f (z|θ)IA ,y (z) π (θ, z|y) = , A ,y ×Θ π(θ)f (z|θ)dzdθ where A ,y = {z ∈ D|ρ(η(z), η(y)) < }.
16. 16. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsOutput The likelihood-free algorithm samples from the marginal in z of: π(θ)f (z|θ)IA ,y (z) π (θ, z|y) = , A ,y ×Θ π(θ)f (z|θ)dzdθ where A ,y = {z ∈ D|ρ(η(z), η(y)) < }. The idea behind ABC is that the summary statistics coupled with a small tolerance should provide a good approximation of the posterior distribution: π (θ|y) = π (θ, z|y)dz ≈ π(θ|y) .
17. 17. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsProbit modelling on Pima Indian women Example (R benchmark) 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
18. 18. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsProbit modelling on Pima Indian women Example (R benchmark) 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 Probability of diabetes function of above variables P(y = 1|x) = Φ(x1 β1 + x2 β2 + x3 β3 ) ,
19. 19. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsProbit modelling on Pima Indian women Example (R benchmark) 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 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
20. 20. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsProbit modelling on Pima Indian women Example (R benchmark) 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 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 Use of importance function inspired from the MLE estimate distribution ˆ ˆ β ∼ N (β, Σ)
21. 21. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsPima Indian benchmark 80 100 1.0 80 60 0.8 60 0.6 Density Density Density 40 40 0.4 20 20 0.2 0.0 0 0 −0.005 0.010 0.020 0.030 −0.05 −0.03 −0.01 −1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Figure: Comparison between density estimates of the marginals on β1 (left), β2 (center) and β3 (right) from ABC rejection samples (red) and MCMC samples (black) .
22. 22. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsMA example Consider the MA(q) model q xt = t+ ϑi t−i i=1 Simple prior: uniform prior over the identiﬁability zone, e.g. triangle for MA(2)
23. 23. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsMA example (2) ABC algorithm thus made of 1. picking a new value (ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) in the triangle 2. generating an iid sequence ( t )−q<t≤T 3. producing a simulated series (xt )1≤t≤T
24. 24. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsMA example (2) ABC algorithm thus made of 1. picking a new value (ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) in the triangle 2. generating an iid sequence ( t )−q<t≤T 3. producing a simulated series (xt )1≤t≤T Distance: basic distance between the series T ρ((xt )1≤t≤T , (xt )1≤t≤T ) = (xt − xt )2 t=1 or between summary statistics like the ﬁrst q autocorrelations T τj = xt xt−j t=j+1
25. 25. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsComparison of distance impact Evaluation of the tolerance on the ABC sample against both distances ( = 100%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%) for an MA(2) model
26. 26. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsComparison of distance impact 4 1.5 3 1.0 2 0.5 1 0.0 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 −2.0 −1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 θ1 θ2 Evaluation of the tolerance on the ABC sample against both distances ( = 100%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%) for an MA(2) model
27. 27. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsComparison of distance impact 4 1.5 3 1.0 2 0.5 1 0.0 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 −2.0 −1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 θ1 θ2 Evaluation of the tolerance on the ABC sample against both distances ( = 100%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%) for an MA(2) model
28. 28. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsABC advances Simulating from the prior is often poor in eﬃciency
29. 29. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsABC advances Simulating from the prior is often poor in eﬃciency Either modify the proposal distribution on θ to increase the density of x’s within the vicinity of y... [Marjoram et al, 2003; Bortot et al., 2007, Sisson et al., 2007]
30. 30. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsABC advances Simulating from the prior is often poor in eﬃciency Either modify the proposal distribution on θ to increase the density of x’s within the vicinity of y... [Marjoram et al, 2003; Bortot et al., 2007, Sisson et al., 2007] ...or by viewing the problem as a conditional density estimation and by developing techniques to allow for larger [Beaumont et al., 2002]
31. 31. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC basicsABC advances Simulating from the prior is often poor in eﬃciency Either modify the proposal distribution on θ to increase the density of x’s within the vicinity of y... [Marjoram et al, 2003; Bortot et al., 2007, Sisson et al., 2007] ...or by viewing the problem as a conditional density estimation and by developing techniques to allow for larger [Beaumont et al., 2002] .....or even by including in the inferential framework [ABCµ ] [Ratmann et al., 2009]
32. 32. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupABC-MCMC Markov chain (θ(t) ) created via the transition function  θ ∼ Kω (θ |θ(t) ) if x ∼ f (x|θ ) is such that x = y   π(θ )Kω (t) |θ ) θ (t+1) = and u ∼ U(0, 1) ≤ π(θ(t) )K (θ |θ(t) ) ,  ω (θ  (t) θ otherwise,
33. 33. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupABC-MCMC Markov chain (θ(t) ) created via the transition function  θ ∼ Kω (θ |θ(t) ) if x ∼ f (x|θ ) is such that x = y   π(θ )Kω (t) |θ ) θ (t+1) = and u ∼ U(0, 1) ≤ π(θ(t) )K (θ |θ(t) ) ,  ω (θ  (t) θ otherwise, has the posterior π(θ|y) as stationary distribution [Marjoram et al, 2003]
34. 34. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupABC-MCMC (2) Algorithm 2 Likelihood-free MCMC sampler Use Algorithm 1 to get (θ(0) , z(0) ) for t = 1 to N do Generate θ from Kω ·|θ(t−1) , Generate z from the likelihood f (·|θ ), Generate u from U[0,1] , π(θ )Kω (θ(t−1) |θ ) if u ≤ I π(θ(t−1) Kω (θ |θ(t−1) ) A ,y (z ) then set (θ(t) , z(t) ) = (θ , z ) else (θ(t) , z(t) )) = (θ(t−1) , z(t−1) ), end if end for
35. 35. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupWhy does it work? Acceptance probability that does not involve the calculation of the likelihood and π (θ , z |y) Kω (θ(t−1) |θ )f (z(t−1) |θ(t−1) ) × π (θ(t−1) , z(t−1) |y) Kω (θ |θ(t−1) )f (z |θ ) π(θ ) f (z |θ ) IA ,y (z ) = (t−1) ) f (z(t−1) |θ (t−1) )I (t−1) ) π(θ A ,y (z Kω (θ(t−1) |θ ) f (z(t−1) |θ(t−1) ) × Kω (θ |θ(t−1) ) f (z |θ ) π(θ )Kω (θ(t−1) |θ ) = IA (z ) . π(θ(t−1) Kω (θ |θ(t−1) ) ,y
36. 36. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupABCµ Use of a joint density f (θ, |y) ∝ ξ( |y, θ) × πθ (θ) × π ( ) where y is the data, and ξ(·|y, θ) is the prior predictive density of = ρ(η(z), η(y)) given θ and x when z ∼ f (z|θ)
37. 37. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupABCµ Use of a joint density f (θ, |y) ∝ ξ( |y, θ) × πθ (θ) × π ( ) where y is the data, and ξ(·|y, θ) is the prior predictive density of = ρ(η(z), η(y)) given θ and x when z ∼ f (z|θ) Warning! Replacement of ξ( |y, θ) with a non-parametric kernel approximation. [Ratmann, Andrieu, Wiuf and Richardson, 2009, PNAS]
38. 38. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupABCµ details Major drift: Multidimensional distances ρk (k = 1, . . . , K) and errors k = ρk (ηk (z), ηk (y)), with ˆ 1 k ∼ ξk ( |y, θ) ≈ ξk ( |y, θ) = K[{ k −ρk (ηk (zb ), ηk (y))}/hk ] Bhk b ˆ then used in replacing ξ( |y, θ) with mink ξk ( |y, θ)
39. 39. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupABCµ details Major drift: Multidimensional distances ρk (k = 1, . . . , K) and errors k = ρk (ηk (z), ηk (y)), with ˆ 1 k ∼ ξk ( |y, θ) ≈ ξk ( |y, θ) = K[{ k −ρk (ηk (zb ), ηk (y))}/hk ] Bhk b ˆ then used in replacing ξ( |y, θ) with mink ξk ( |y, θ) ABCµ involves acceptance probability ˆ π(θ , ) q(θ , θ)q( , ) mink ξk ( |y, θ ) ˆ π(θ, ) q(θ, θ )q( , ) mink ξk ( |y, θ)
40. 40. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupABCµ multiple errors [ c Ratmann et al., PNAS, 2009]
41. 41. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupABCµ for model choice [ c Ratmann et al., PNAS, 2009]
42. 42. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupWhich summary statistics? Fundamental diﬃculty of the choice of the summary statistic when there is no non-trivial suﬃcient statistic [except when done by the experimenters in the ﬁeld]
43. 43. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupWhich summary statistics? Fundamental diﬃculty of the choice of the summary statistic when there is no non-trivial suﬃcient statistic [except when done by the experimenters in the ﬁeld] Starting from a large collection of summary statistics is available, Joyce and Marjoram (2008) consider the sequential inclusion into the ABC target, with a stopping rule based on a likelihood ratio test.
44. 44. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation Alphabet soupWhich summary statistics? Fundamental diﬃculty of the choice of the summary statistic when there is no non-trivial suﬃcient statistic [except when done by the experimenters in the ﬁeld] Based on decision-theoretic principles, Fearnhead and Prangle (2012) end up with E[θ|y] as the optimal summary statistic
45. 45. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation simulation-based methods in EconometricsEcon’ections Similar exploration of simulation-based techniques in Econometrics Simulated method of moments Method of simulated moments Simulated pseudo-maximum-likelihood Indirect inference [Gouri´roux & Monfort, 1996] e
46. 46. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation simulation-based methods in EconometricsSimulated method of moments o Given observations y1:n from a model yt = r(y1:(t−1) , t , θ) , t ∼ g(·) simulate 1:n , derive yt (θ) = r(y1:(t−1) , t , θ) and estimate θ by n arg min (yt − yt (θ))2 o θ t=1
47. 47. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation simulation-based methods in EconometricsSimulated method of moments o Given observations y1:n from a model yt = r(y1:(t−1) , t , θ) , t ∼ g(·) simulate 1:n , derive yt (θ) = r(y1:(t−1) , t , θ) and estimate θ by n n 2 o arg min yt − yt (θ) θ t=1 t=1
48. 48. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation simulation-based methods in EconometricsMethod of simulated moments Given a statistic vector K(y) with Eθ [K(Yt )|y1:(t−1) ] = k(y1:(t−1) ; θ) ﬁnd an unbiased estimator of k(y1:(t−1) ; θ), ˜ k( t , y1:(t−1) ; θ) Estimate θ by n S arg min K(yt ) − ˜ k( s , y1:(t−1) ; θ)/S t θ t=1 s=1 [Pakes & Pollard, 1989]
49. 49. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation simulation-based methods in EconometricsIndirect inference ˆ Minimise (in θ) the distance between estimators β based on pseudo-models for genuine observations and for observations simulated under the true model and the parameter θ. [Gouri´roux, Monfort, & Renault, 1993; e Smith, 1993; Gallant & Tauchen, 1996]
50. 50. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation simulation-based methods in EconometricsIndirect inference (PML vs. PSE) Example of the pseudo-maximum-likelihood (PML) ˆ β(y) = arg max log f (yt |β, y1:(t−1) ) β t leading to ˆ ˆ arg min ||β(yo ) − β(y1 (θ), . . . , yS (θ))||2 θ when ys (θ) ∼ f (y|θ) s = 1, . . . , S
51. 51. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation simulation-based methods in EconometricsIndirect inference (PML vs. PSE) Example of the pseudo-score-estimator (PSE) 2 ˆ ∂ log f β(y) = arg min (yt |β, y1:(t−1) ) β t ∂β leading to ˆ ˆ arg min ||β(yo ) − β(y1 (θ), . . . , yS (θ))||2 θ when ys (θ) ∼ f (y|θ) s = 1, . . . , S
52. 52. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation simulation-based methods in EconometricsABC using indirect inference (1) We present a novel approach for developing summary statistics for use in approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) algorithms by using indirect inference(...) In the indirect inference approach to ABC the parameters of an auxiliary model ﬁtted to the data become the summary statistics. Although applicable to any ABC technique, we embed this approach within a sequential Monte Carlo algorithm that is completely adaptive and requires very little tuning(...) [Drovandi, Pettitt & Faddy, 2011] c Indirect inference provides summary statistics for ABC...
53. 53. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Approximate Bayesian computation simulation-based methods in EconometricsABC using indirect inference (2) ...the above result shows that, in the limit as h → 0, ABC will be more accurate than an indirect inference method whose auxiliary statistics are the same as the summary statistic that is used for ABC(...) Initial analysis showed that which method is more accurate depends on the true value of θ. [Fearnhead and Prangle, 2012] c Indirect inference provides estimates rather than global inference...
54. 54. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choiceABC for model choice Approximate Bayesian computation ABC for model choice Principle Gibbs random ﬁelds Generic ABC model choice Model choice consistency
55. 55. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice PrincipleBayesian model choice Principle Several models M1 , M2 , . . . are considered simultaneously for dataset y and model index M central to inference. Use of a prior π(M = m), plus a prior distribution on the parameter conditional on the value m of the model index, πm (θ m ) Goal is to derive the posterior distribution of M, π(M = m|data) a challenging computational target when models are complex.
56. 56. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice PrincipleGeneric ABC for model choice Algorithm 3 Likelihood-free model choice sampler (ABC-MC) for t = 1 to T do repeat Generate m from the prior π(M = m) Generate θ m from the prior πm (θ m ) Generate z from the model fm (z|θ m ) until ρ{η(z), η(y)} < Set m(t) = m and θ (t) = θ m end for [Grelaud & al., 2009; Toni & al., 2009]
57. 57. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice PrincipleABC estimates Posterior probability π(M = m|y) approximated by the frequency of acceptances from model m T 1 Im(t) =m . T t=1
58. 58. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice PrincipleABC estimates Posterior probability π(M = m|y) approximated by the frequency of acceptances from model m T 1 Im(t) =m . T t=1 Extension to a weighted polychotomous logistic regression estimate of π(M = m|y), with non-parametric kernel weights [Cornuet et al., DIYABC, 2009]
59. 59. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice PrincipleThe great ABC controversy On-going controvery in phylogeographic genetics about the validity of using ABC for testing Against: Templeton, 2008, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, &tc argues that nested hypotheses cannot have higher probabilities than nesting hypotheses (!)
60. 60. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice PrincipleThe great ABC controversy On-going controvery in phylogeographic genetics about the validity of using ABC for testing Replies: Fagundes et al., 2008, Against: Templeton, 2008, Beaumont et al., 2010, Berger et 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, &tc al., 2010, Csill`ry et al., 2010 e argues that nested hypotheses point out that the criticisms are cannot have higher probabilities addressed at [Bayesian] than nesting hypotheses (!) model-based inference and have nothing to do with ABC...
61. 61. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Gibbs random ﬁeldsPotts model Skip MRFs Potts model Distribution with an energy function of the form θS(y) = θ δyl =yi l∼i where l∼i denotes a neighbourhood structure
62. 62. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Gibbs random ﬁeldsPotts model Skip MRFs Potts model Distribution with an energy function of the form θS(y) = θ δyl =yi l∼i where l∼i denotes a neighbourhood structure In most realistic settings, summation Zθ = exp{θS(x)} x∈X involves too many terms to be manageable and numerical approximations cannot always be trusted
63. 63. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Gibbs random ﬁeldsNeighbourhood relations Setup Choice to be made between M neighbourhood relations m i∼i (0 ≤ m ≤ M − 1) with Sm (x) = I{xi =xi } m i∼i driven by the posterior probabilities of the models.
64. 64. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Gibbs random ﬁeldsModel index Computational target: P(M = m|x) ∝ fm (x|θm )πm (θm ) dθm π(M = m) Θm
65. 65. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Gibbs random ﬁeldsModel index Computational target: P(M = m|x) ∝ fm (x|θm )πm (θm ) dθm π(M = m) Θm If S(x) suﬃcient statistic for the joint parameters (M, θ0 , . . . , θM −1 ), P(M = m|x) = P(M = m|S(x)) .
66. 66. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Gibbs random ﬁeldsSuﬃcient statistics in Gibbs random ﬁelds Each model m has its own suﬃcient statistic Sm (·) and S(·) = (S0 (·), . . . , SM −1 (·)) is also (model-)suﬃcient.
67. 67. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Gibbs random ﬁeldsSuﬃcient statistics in Gibbs random ﬁelds Each model m has its own suﬃcient statistic Sm (·) and S(·) = (S0 (·), . . . , SM −1 (·)) is also (model-)suﬃcient. Explanation: For Gibbs random ﬁelds, 1 2 x|M = m ∼ fm (x|θm ) = fm (x|S(x))fm (S(x)|θm ) 1 = f 2 (S(x)|θm ) n(S(x)) m where n(S(x)) = {˜ ∈ X : S(˜ ) = S(x)} x x c S(x) is suﬃcient for the joint parameters
68. 68. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Gibbs random ﬁeldsToy example iid Bernoulli model versus two-state ﬁrst-order Markov chain, i.e. n f0 (x|θ0 ) = exp θ0 I{xi =1} {1 + exp(θ0 )}n , i=1 versus n 1 f1 (x|θ1 ) = exp θ1 I{xi =xi−1 } {1 + exp(θ1 )}n−1 , 2 i=2 with priors θ0 ∼ U(−5, 5) and θ1 ∼ U(0, 6) (inspired by “phase transition” boundaries).
69. 69. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Gibbs random ﬁeldsToy example (2) 10 5 5 BF01 BF01 0 ^ ^ 0 −5 −5 −40 −20 0 10 −10 −40 −20 0 10 BF01 BF01 (left) Comparison of the true BF m0 /m1 (x0 ) with BF m0 /m1 (x0 ) (in logs) over 2, 000 simulations and 4.106 proposals from the prior. (right) Same when using tolerance corresponding to the 1% quantile on the distances.
70. 70. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceMore about suﬃciency If η1 (x) suﬃcient statistic for model m = 1 and parameter θ1 and η2 (x) suﬃcient statistic for model m = 2 and parameter θ2 , (η1 (x), η2 (x)) is not always suﬃcient for (m, θm )
71. 71. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceMore about suﬃciency If η1 (x) suﬃcient statistic for model m = 1 and parameter θ1 and η2 (x) suﬃcient statistic for model m = 2 and parameter θ2 , (η1 (x), η2 (x)) is not always suﬃcient for (m, θm ) c Potential loss of information at the testing level
72. 72. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceLimiting behaviour of B12 (T → ∞) ABC approximation T t=1 Imt =1 Iρ{η(zt ),η(y)}≤ B12 (y) = T , t=1 Imt =2 Iρ{η(zt ),η(y)}≤ where the (mt , z t )’s are simulated from the (joint) prior
73. 73. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceLimiting behaviour of B12 (T → ∞) ABC approximation T t=1 Imt =1 Iρ{η(zt ),η(y)}≤ B12 (y) = T , t=1 Imt =2 Iρ{η(zt ),η(y)}≤ where the (mt , z t )’s are simulated from the (joint) prior As T go to inﬁnity, limit Iρ{η(z),η(y)}≤ π1 (θ 1 )f1 (z|θ 1 ) dz dθ 1 B12 (y) = Iρ{η(z),η(y)}≤ π2 (θ 2 )f2 (z|θ 2 ) dz dθ 2 η Iρ{η,η(y)}≤ π1 (θ 1 )f1 (η|θ 1 ) dη dθ 1 = η , Iρ{η,η(y)}≤ π2 (θ 2 )f2 (η|θ 2 ) dη dθ 2 η η where f1 (η|θ 1 ) and f2 (η|θ 2 ) distributions of η(z)
74. 74. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceLimiting behaviour of B12 ( → 0) When goes to zero, η η π1 (θ 1 )f1 (η(y)|θ 1 ) dθ 1 B12 (y) = η π2 (θ 2 )f2 (η(y)|θ 2 ) dθ 2
75. 75. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceLimiting behaviour of B12 ( → 0) When goes to zero, η η π1 (θ 1 )f1 (η(y)|θ 1 ) dθ 1 B12 (y) = η π2 (θ 2 )f2 (η(y)|θ 2 ) dθ 2 c Bayes factor based on the sole observation of η(y)
76. 76. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceLimiting behaviour of B12 (under suﬃciency) If η(y) suﬃcient statistic in both models, fi (y|θ i ) = gi (y)fiη (η(y)|θ i ) Thus η Θ1 π(θ 1 )g1 (y)f1 (η(y)|θ 1 ) dθ 1 B12 (y) = η Θ2 π(θ 2 )g2 (y)f2 (η(y)|θ 2 ) dθ 2 η g1 (y) π1 (θ 1 )f1 (η(y)|θ 1 ) dθ 1 g1 (y) η = η = B (y) . g2 (y) π2 (θ 2 )f2 (η(y)|θ 2 ) dθ 2 g2 (y) 12 [Didelot, Everitt, Johansen & Lawson, 2011]
77. 77. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceLimiting behaviour of B12 (under suﬃciency) If η(y) suﬃcient statistic in both models, fi (y|θ i ) = gi (y)fiη (η(y)|θ i ) Thus η Θ1 π(θ 1 )g1 (y)f1 (η(y)|θ 1 ) dθ 1 B12 (y) = η Θ2 π(θ 2 )g2 (y)f2 (η(y)|θ 2 ) dθ 2 η g1 (y) π1 (θ 1 )f1 (η(y)|θ 1 ) dθ 1 g1 (y) η = η = B (y) . g2 (y) π2 (θ 2 )f2 (η(y)|θ 2 ) dθ 2 g2 (y) 12 [Didelot, Everitt, Johansen & Lawson, 2011] c No discrepancy only when cross-model suﬃciency
78. 78. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choicePoisson/geometric example Sample x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) from either a Poisson P(λ) or from a geometric G(p) Sum n S= xi = η(x) i=1 suﬃcient statistic for either model but not simultaneously Discrepancy ratio g1 (x) S!n−S / i xi ! = g2 (x) 1 n+S−1 S
79. 79. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choicePoisson/geometric discrepancy η Range of B12 (x) versus B12 (x): The values produced have nothing in common.
80. 80. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceFormal recovery Creating an encompassing exponential family T T f (x|θ1 , θ2 , α1 , α2 ) ∝ exp{θ1 η1 (x) + θ2 η2 (x) + α1 t1 (x) + α2 t2 (x)} leads to a suﬃcient statistic (η1 (x), η2 (x), t1 (x), t2 (x)) [Didelot, Everitt, Johansen & Lawson, 2011]
81. 81. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceFormal recovery Creating an encompassing exponential family T T f (x|θ1 , θ2 , α1 , α2 ) ∝ exp{θ1 η1 (x) + θ2 η2 (x) + α1 t1 (x) + α2 t2 (x)} leads to a suﬃcient statistic (η1 (x), η2 (x), t1 (x), t2 (x)) [Didelot, Everitt, Johansen & Lawson, 2011] In the Poisson/geometric case, if i xi ! is added to S, no discrepancy
82. 82. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceFormal recovery Creating an encompassing exponential family T T f (x|θ1 , θ2 , α1 , α2 ) ∝ exp{θ1 η1 (x) + θ2 η2 (x) + α1 t1 (x) + α2 t2 (x)} leads to a suﬃcient statistic (η1 (x), η2 (x), t1 (x), t2 (x)) [Didelot, Everitt, Johansen & Lawson, 2011] Only applies in genuine suﬃciency settings... c Inability to evaluate information loss due to summary statistics
83. 83. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceMeaning of the ABC-Bayes factor The ABC approximation to the Bayes Factor is based solely on the summary statistics....
84. 84. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceMeaning of the ABC-Bayes factor The ABC approximation to the Bayes Factor is based solely on the summary statistics.... In the Poisson/geometric case, if E[yi ] = θ0 > 0, η (θ0 + 1)2 −θ0 lim B12 (y) = e n→∞ θ0
85. 85. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceMA example 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Evolution [against ] of ABC Bayes factor, in terms of frequencies of visits to models MA(1) (left) and MA(2) (right) when equal to 10, 1, .1, .01% quantiles on insuﬃcient autocovariance distances. Sample of 50 points from a MA(2) with θ1 = 0.6, θ2 = 0.2. True Bayes factor equal to 17.71.
86. 86. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceMA example 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Evolution [against ] of ABC Bayes factor, in terms of frequencies of visits to models MA(1) (left) and MA(2) (right) when equal to 10, 1, .1, .01% quantiles on insuﬃcient autocovariance distances. Sample of 50 points from a MA(1) model with θ1 = 0.6. True Bayes factor B21 equal to .004.
87. 87. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceA population genetics evaluation Gene free Population genetics example with 3 populations 2 scenari 15 individuals 5 loci single mutation parameter
88. 88. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceA population genetics evaluation Gene free Population genetics example with 3 populations 2 scenari 15 individuals 5 loci single mutation parameter 24 summary statistics 2 million ABC proposal importance [tree] sampling alternative
89. 89. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceStability of importance sampling 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 q q 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 q 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
90. 90. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceComparison with ABC Use of 24 summary statistics and DIY-ABC logistic correction 1.0 qq qq qq qq qqq qq q q qq q q qq q q q q q q q q q q qq q q qq q q q qq qq qq q q q q qq q q q q q q q q q q q qq q q q qq q q 0.8 q q q q q q q q q q q q qq q q q q q q q qq q q q q q qqq q q qq q ABC direct and logistic q q qq q q q q q q q 0.6 q q q qq q q qq q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q qq qq q q qq 0.4 qq q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 0.2 q qq q q q q q q q q q q 0.0 qq 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 importance sampling
91. 91. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceComparison with ABC Use of 15 summary statistics 6 4 q q q q q q q qq 2 q q q q qq ABC direct q q q qq q qq q q q q qq qq q qq q q q q q qq q q q q q qq q q qq q qq q q qq q q q qqq q q q q q q q q 0 qq qq q q q q qq qq q q qq q q q q q q q q −2 −4 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 importance sampling
92. 92. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceComparison with ABC Use of 15 summary statistics and DIY-ABC logistic correction qq 6 q q q q q q q q q q q 4 q qq q qq qq q q q q q q q q q q qq q q q q q q q ABC direct and logistic q q q q q q q qq q q q q q q q qq q 2 q q q q q qq q qq q q q qq qq q qq qq q q q qq q q qq qq qq q q qqqq qq q q q qqqqq qq q q q qq q q q q qq q qq q q qqq q q qqqqq q q qq q q qq q q q qq 0 qq qqq q q qq q qqq q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q qq q q −2 q q q q q −4 q q q −4 −2 0 2 4 6 importance sampling
93. 93. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceThe only safe cases??? Besides speciﬁc models like Gibbs random ﬁelds, using distances over the data itself escapes the discrepancy... [Toni & Stumpf, 2010; Sousa & al., 2009]
94. 94. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice ABC for model choice Generic ABC model choiceThe only safe cases??? Besides speciﬁc models like Gibbs random ﬁelds, using distances over the data itself escapes the discrepancy... [Toni & Stumpf, 2010; Sousa & al., 2009] ...and so does the use of more informal model ﬁtting measures [Ratmann & al., 2009]
95. 95. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistencyABC model choice consistency Approximate Bayesian computation ABC for model choice Model choice consistency Formalised framework Consistency results Summary statistics Conclusions
96. 96. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Formalised frameworkThe starting point Central question to the validation of ABC for model choice: When is a Bayes factor based on an insuﬃcient statistic T (y) consistent?
97. 97. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Formalised frameworkThe starting point Central question to the validation of ABC for model choice: When is a Bayes factor based on an insuﬃcient statistic T (y) consistent? T Note: c drawn on T (y) through B12 (y) necessarily diﬀers from c drawn on y through B12 (y)
98. 98. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Formalised frameworkA benchmark if toy example Comparison suggested by referee of PNAS paper [thanks]: [X, Cornuet, Marin, & Pillai, Aug. 2011] Model M1 : y ∼ N (θ1 , 1) opposed √ to model M2 : y ∼ L(θ√ 1/ 2), Laplace distribution with mean θ2 2, and scale parameter 1/ 2 (variance one).
99. 99. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Formalised frameworkA benchmark if toy example Comparison suggested by referee of PNAS paper [thanks]: [X, Cornuet, Marin, & Pillai, Aug. 2011] Model M1 : y ∼ N (θ1 , 1) opposed √ to model M2 : y ∼ L(θ√ 1/ 2), Laplace distribution with mean θ2 2, and scale parameter 1/ 2 (variance one). Four possible statistics 1. sample mean y (suﬃcient for M1 if not M2 ); 2. sample median med(y) (insuﬃcient); 3. sample variance var(y) (ancillary); 4. median absolute deviation mad(y) = med(y − med(y));
100. 100. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Formalised frameworkA benchmark if toy example Comparison suggested by referee of PNAS paper [thanks]: [X, Cornuet, Marin, & Pillai, Aug. 2011] Model M1 : y ∼ N (θ1 , 1) opposed √ to model M2 : y ∼ L(θ√ 1/ 2), Laplace distribution with mean θ2 2, and scale parameter 1/ 2 (variance one). 6 5 4 Density 3 2 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 posterior probability
101. 101. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Formalised frameworkA benchmark if toy example Comparison suggested by referee of PNAS paper [thanks]: [X, Cornuet, Marin, & Pillai, Aug. 2011] Model M1 : y ∼ N (θ1 , 1) opposed √ to model M2 : y ∼ L(θ√ 1/ 2), Laplace distribution with mean θ2 2, and scale parameter 1/ 2 (variance one). n=100 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 q 0.3 q q q 0.2 0.1 q q q q q 0.0 q q Gauss Laplace
102. 102. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Formalised frameworkA benchmark if toy example Comparison suggested by referee of PNAS paper [thanks]: [X, Cornuet, Marin, & Pillai, Aug. 2011] Model M1 : y ∼ N (θ1 , 1) opposed √ to model M2 : y ∼ L(θ√ 1/ 2), Laplace distribution with mean θ2 2, and scale parameter 1/ 2 (variance one). 6 3 5 4 Density Density 2 3 2 1 1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 posterior probability probability
103. 103. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Formalised frameworkA benchmark if toy example Comparison suggested by referee of PNAS paper [thanks]: [X, Cornuet, Marin, & Pillai, Aug. 2011] Model M1 : y ∼ N (θ1 , 1) opposed √ to model M2 : y ∼ L(θ√ 1/ 2), Laplace distribution with mean θ2 2, and scale parameter 1/ 2 (variance one). n=100 n=100 1.0 0.7 q q 0.6 q 0.8 q q 0.5 q q q 0.6 q 0.4 q q q q 0.3 q q 0.4 q q 0.2 0.2 q 0.1 q q q q q q q 0.0 0.0 q q Gauss Laplace Gauss Laplace
104. 104. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Formalised frameworkFramework Starting from sample y = (y1 , . . . , yn ) the observed sample, not necessarily iid with true distribution y ∼ Pn Summary statistics T (y) = T n = (T1 (y), T2 (y), · · · , Td (y)) ∈ Rd with true distribution T n ∼ Gn .
105. 105. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Formalised frameworkFramework c Comparison of – under M1 , y ∼ F1,n (·|θ1 ) where θ1 ∈ Θ1 ⊂ Rp1 – under M2 , y ∼ F2,n (·|θ2 ) where θ2 ∈ Θ2 ⊂ Rp2 turned into – under M1 , T (y) ∼ G1,n (·|θ1 ), and θ1 |T (y) ∼ π1 (·|T n ) – under M2 , T (y) ∼ G2,n (·|θ2 ), and θ2 |T (y) ∼ π2 (·|T n )
106. 106. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsAssumptions A collection of asymptotic “standard” assumptions: [A1] is a standard central limit theorem under the true model [A2] controls the large deviations of the estimator T n from the estimand µ(θ) [A3] is the standard prior mass condition found in Bayesian asymptotics (di eﬀective dimension of the parameter) [A4] restricts the behaviour of the model density against the true density
107. 107. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsAssumptions A collection of asymptotic “standard” assumptions: [A1] There exist a sequence {vn } converging to +∞, a distribution Q, a symmetric, d × d positive deﬁnite matrix V0 and a vector µ0 ∈ Rd such that −1/2 n→∞ vn V0 (T n − µ0 ) Q, under Gn
108. 108. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsAssumptions A collection of asymptotic “standard” assumptions: [A2] For i = 1, 2, there exist sets Fn,i ⊂ Θi and constants i , τi , αi >0 such that for all τ > 0, Gi,n |T n − µ(θi )| > τ |µi (θi ) − µ0 | ∧ i |θi sup −αi θi ∈Fn,i (|µi (θi ) − µ0 | ∧ i ) −α vn i with c −τ πi (Fn,i ) = o(vn i ).
109. 109. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsAssumptions A collection of asymptotic “standard” assumptions: [A3] For u > 0 −1 Sn,i (u) = θi ∈ Fn,i ; |µ(θi ) − µ0 | ≤ u vn if inf{|µi (θi ) − µ0 |; θi ∈ Θi } = 0, there exist constants di < τi ∧ αi − 1 such that −d πi (Sn,i (u)) ∼ udi vn i , ∀u vn
110. 110. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsAssumptions A collection of asymptotic “standard” assumptions: [A4] If inf{|µi (θi ) − µ0 |; θi ∈ Θi } = 0, for any > 0, there exist U, δ > 0 and (En ) such that, if θi ∈ Sn,i (U ) c En ⊂ {t; gi (t|θi ) < δgn (t)} and Gn (En ) < .
111. 111. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsAssumptions A collection of asymptotic “standard” assumptions: Again [A1] is a standard central limit theorem under the true model [A2] controls the large deviations of the estimator T n from the estimand µ(θ) [A3] is the standard prior mass condition found in Bayesian asymptotics (di eﬀective dimension of the parameter) [A4] restricts the behaviour of the model density against the true density
112. 112. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsEﬀective dimension Understanding di in [A3]: deﬁned only when µ0 ∈ {µi (θi ), θi ∈ Θi }, πi (θi : |µi (θi ) − µ0 | < n−1/2 ) = O(n−di /2 ) is the eﬀective dimension of the model Θi around µ0
113. 113. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsAsymptotic marginals Asymptotically, under [A1]–[A4] mi (t) = gi (t|θi ) πi (θi ) dθi Θi is such that (i) if inf{|µi (θi ) − µ0 |; θi ∈ Θi } = 0, Cl vn i ≤ mi (T n ) ≤ Cu vn i d−d d−d and (ii) if inf{|µi (θi ) − µ0 |; θi ∈ Θi } > 0 mi (T n ) = oPn [vn i + vn i ]. d−τ d−α
114. 114. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsWithin-model consistency Under same assumptions, if inf{|µi (θi ) − µ0 |; θi ∈ Θi } = 0, the posterior distribution of µi (θi ) given T n is consistent at rate 1/vn provided αi ∧ τi > di .
115. 115. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsWithin-model consistency Under same assumptions, if inf{|µi (θi ) − µ0 |; θi ∈ Θi } = 0, the posterior distribution of µi (θi ) given T n is consistent at rate 1/vn provided αi ∧ τi > di . Note: di can truly be seen as an eﬀective dimension of the model under the posterior πi (.|T n ), since if µ0 ∈ {µi (θi ); θi ∈ Θi }, mi (T n ) ∼ vn i d−d
116. 116. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsBetween-model consistency Consequence of above is that asymptotic behaviour of the Bayes factor is driven by the asymptotic mean value of T n under both models. And only by this mean value!
117. 117. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsBetween-model consistency Consequence of above is that asymptotic behaviour of the Bayes factor is driven by the asymptotic mean value of T n under both models. And only by this mean value! Indeed, if inf{|µ0 − µ2 (θ2 )|; θ2 ∈ Θ2 } = inf{|µ0 − µ1 (θ1 )|; θ1 ∈ Θ1 } = 0 then Cl vn 1 −d2 ) ≤ m1 (T n ) m2 (T n ) ≤ Cu vn 1 −d2 ) , −(d −(d where Cl , Cu = OPn (1), irrespective of the true model. c Only depends on the diﬀerence d1 − d2 : no consistency
118. 118. ABC Methods for Bayesian Model Choice Model choice consistency Consistency resultsBetween-model consistency Consequence of above is that asymptotic behaviour of the Bayes factor is driven by the asymptotic mean value of T n under both models. And only by this mean value! Else, if inf{|µ0 − µ2 (θ2 )|; θ2 ∈ Θ2 } > inf{|µ0 − µ1 (θ1 )|; θ1 ∈ Θ1 } = 0 then m1 (T n ) ≥ Cu min vn 1 −α2 ) , vn 1 −τ2 ) −(d −(d m2 (T n )