Computational tools for Bayesian model choice

1. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Christian P. Robert CREST-INSEE and Universit´ Paris Dauphine e http://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/~xian Joint work with Nicolas Chopin and Jean-Michel Marin

2. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Outline Introduction 1 Importance sampling solutions 2 Cross-model solutions 3 Nested sampling 4 Mixture example 5

3. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Introduction Bayes factor Bayes factor Deﬁnition (Bayes factors) For testing hypotheses H0 : θ ∈ Θ0 vs. Ha : θ ∈ Θ0 , under prior π(Θ0 )π0 (θ) + π(Θc )π1 (θ) , 0 central quantity f (x|θ)π0 (θ)dθ π(Θ0 |x) π(Θ0 ) Θ0 B01 = = π(Θc |x) π(Θc ) 0 0 f (x|θ)π1 (θ)dθ Θc 0 [Jeﬀreys, 1939]

4. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Introduction Bayes factor Self-contained concept Outside decision-theoretic environment: eliminates impact of π(Θ0 ) but depends on the choice of (π0 , π1 ) Bayesian/marginal equivalent to the likelihood ratio Jeﬀreys’ scale of evidence: if log10 (B10 ) between 0 and 0.5, evidence against H0 weak, π if log10 (B10 ) 0.5 and 1, evidence substantial, π if log10 (B10 ) 1 and 2, evidence strong and π if log10 (B10 ) above 2, evidence decisive π Requires the computation of the marginal/evidence under both hypotheses/models

5. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Introduction Model choice Model choice and model comparison Choice between models Several models available for the same observation Mi : x ∼ fi (x|θi ), i∈I where I can be ﬁnite or inﬁnite

6. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Introduction Model choice Bayesian resolution Probabilise the entire model/parameter space allocate probabilities pi to all models Mi deﬁne priors πi (θi ) for each parameter space Θi compute pi fi (x|θi )πi (θi )dθi Θi π(Mi |x) = pj fj (x|θj )πj (θj )dθj Θj j take largest π(Mi |x) to determine “best” model, or use averaged predictive fj (x′ |θj )πj (θj |x)dθj π(Mj |x) Θj j

10. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Introduction Evidence Evidence All these problems end up with a similar quantity, the evidence Z= π(θ)L(θ) dθ, aka the marginal likelihood.

14. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Harmonic means Approximating Z from a posterior sample Use of the identity ϕ(θ) ϕ(θ) π(θ)L(θ) 1 Eπ x= dθ = π(θ)L(θ) π(θ)L(θ) Z Z no matter what the proposal ϕ(θ) is. [Gelfand & Dey, 1994; Bartolucci et al., 2006] Direct exploitation of MCMC output RB-RJ

15. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Harmonic means Approximating Z from a posterior sample Use of the identity ϕ(θ) ϕ(θ) π(θ)L(θ) 1 Eπ x= dθ = π(θ)L(θ) π(θ)L(θ) Z Z no matter what the proposal ϕ(θ) is. [Gelfand & Dey, 1994; Bartolucci et al., 2006] Direct exploitation of MCMC output RB-RJ

16. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Harmonic means Comparison with regular importance sampling Harmonic mean: Constraint opposed to usual importance sampling constraints: ϕ(θ) must have lighter (rather than fatter) tails than π(θ)L(θ) for the approximation T ϕ(θ(t) ) 1 Z1 = 1 π(θ(t) )L(θ(t) ) T t=1 to have a ﬁnite variance. E.g., use ﬁnite support kernels (like Epanechnikov’s kernel) for ϕ

17. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Harmonic means Comparison with regular importance sampling Harmonic mean: Constraint opposed to usual importance sampling constraints: ϕ(θ) must have lighter (rather than fatter) tails than π(θ)L(θ) for the approximation T ϕ(θ(t) ) 1 Z1 = 1 π(θ(t) )L(θ(t) ) T t=1 to have a ﬁnite variance. E.g., use ﬁnite support kernels (like Epanechnikov’s kernel) for ϕ

18. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Harmonic means Comparison with regular importance sampling (cont’d) Compare Z1 with a standard importance sampling approximation T π(θ(t) )L(θ(t) ) 1 Z2 = ϕ(θ(t) ) T t=1 where the θ(t) ’s are generated from the density ϕ(θ) (with fatter tails like t’s)

19. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Harmonic means Approximating Z using a mixture representation Bridge sampling redux Design a speciﬁc mixture for simulation [importance sampling] purposes, with density ϕ(θ) ∝ ω1 π(θ)L(θ) + ϕ(θ) , ˜ where ϕ(θ) is arbitrary (but normalised) Note: ω1 is not a probability weight

20. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Harmonic means Approximating Z using a mixture representation Bridge sampling redux Design a speciﬁc mixture for simulation [importance sampling] purposes, with density ϕ(θ) ∝ ω1 π(θ)L(θ) + ϕ(θ) , ˜ where ϕ(θ) is arbitrary (but normalised) Note: ω1 is not a probability weight

21. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Harmonic means Approximating Z using a mixture representation (cont’d) Corresponding MCMC (=Gibbs) sampler At iteration t Take δ (t) = 1 with probability 1 ω1 π(θ(t−1) )L(θ(t−1) ) ω1 π(θ(t−1) )L(θ(t−1) ) + ϕ(θ(t−1) ) and δ (t) = 2 otherwise; If δ (t) = 1, generate θ(t) ∼ MCMC(θ(t−1) , θ(t) ) where 2 MCMC(θ, θ′ ) denotes an arbitrary MCMC kernel associated with the posterior π(θ|x) ∝ π(θ)L(θ); If δ (t) = 2, generate θ(t) ∼ ϕ(θ) independently 3

24. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Harmonic means Evidence approximation by mixtures Rao-Blackwellised estimate T ˆ1 ω1 π(θ(t) )L(θ(t) ) ω1 π(θ(t) )L(θ(t) ) + ϕ(θ(t) ) , ξ= T t=1 converges to ω1 Z/{ω1 Z + 1} ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Deduce Z3 from ω1 Z3 /{ω1 Z3 + 1} = ξ ie T (t) (t) ω1 π(θ(t) )L(θ(t) ) + ϕ(θ(t) ) t=1 ω1 π(θ )L(θ ) ˆ Z3 = T (t) ω1 π(θ(t) )L(θ(t) ) + ϕ(θ(t) ) t=1 ϕ(θ ) [Bridge sampler]

25. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Harmonic means Evidence approximation by mixtures Rao-Blackwellised estimate T ˆ1 ω1 π(θ(t) )L(θ(t) ) ω1 π(θ(t) )L(θ(t) ) + ϕ(θ(t) ) , ξ= T t=1 converges to ω1 Z/{ω1 Z + 1} ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Deduce Z3 from ω1 Z3 /{ω1 Z3 + 1} = ξ ie T (t) (t) ω1 π(θ(t) )L(θ(t) ) + ϕ(θ(t) ) t=1 ω1 π(θ )L(θ ) ˆ Z3 = T (t) ω1 π(θ(t) )L(θ(t) ) + ϕ(θ(t) ) t=1 ϕ(θ ) [Bridge sampler]

26. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Chib’s solution Chib’s representation Direct application of Bayes’ theorem: given x ∼ fk (x|θk ) and θk ∼ πk (θk ), fk (x|θk ) πk (θk ) mk (x) = , πk (θk |x) Use of an approximation to the posterior ∗ ∗ fk (x|θk ) πk (θk ) mk (x) = ˆ . ˆ∗ πk (θk |x)

27. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Chib’s solution Chib’s representation Direct application of Bayes’ theorem: given x ∼ fk (x|θk ) and θk ∼ πk (θk ), fk (x|θk ) πk (θk ) mk (x) = , πk (θk |x) Use of an approximation to the posterior ∗ ∗ fk (x|θk ) πk (θk ) mk (x) = ˆ . ˆ∗ πk (θk |x)

28. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Chib’s solution Case of latent variables For missing variable z as in mixture models, natural Rao-Blackwell estimate T 1 (t) ˆ∗ ∗ πk (θk |x) = πk (θk |x, zk ) , T t=1 (t) where the zk ’s are the latent variables simulated by a Gibbs sampler.

29. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Chib’s solution Compensation for label switching (t) For mixture models, zk usually fails to visit all conﬁgurations in a balanced way, despite the symmetry predicted by the theory 1 πk (θk |x) = πk (σ(θk )|x) = πk (σ(θk )|x) k! σ∈S for all σ’s in Sk , set of all permutations of {1, . . . , k}. Consequences on numerical approximation, biased by an order k! Recover the theoretical symmetry by using T 1 (t) ˜∗ ∗ πk (θk |x) = πk (σ(θk )|x, zk ) . T k! σ∈Sk t=1 [Berkhof, Mechelen, & Gelman, 2003]

30. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Importance sampling solutions Chib’s solution Compensation for label switching (t) For mixture models, zk usually fails to visit all conﬁgurations in a balanced way, despite the symmetry predicted by the theory 1 πk (θk |x) = πk (σ(θk )|x) = πk (σ(θk )|x) k! σ∈S for all σ’s in Sk , set of all permutations of {1, . . . , k}. Consequences on numerical approximation, biased by an order k! Recover the theoretical symmetry by using T 1 (t) ˜∗ ∗ πk (θk |x) = πk (σ(θk )|x, zk ) . T k! σ∈Sk t=1 [Berkhof, Mechelen, & Gelman, 2003]

31. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Reversible jump Reversible jump Idea: Set up a proper measure–theoretic framework for designing moves between models Mk [Green, 1995] Create a reversible kernel K on H = k {k} × Θk such that K(x, dy)π(x)dx = K(y, dx)π(y)dy A B B A for the invariant density π [x is of the form (k, θ(k) )]

32. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Reversible jump Reversible jump Idea: Set up a proper measure–theoretic framework for designing moves between models Mk [Green, 1995] Create a reversible kernel K on H = k {k} × Θk such that K(x, dy)π(x)dx = K(y, dx)π(y)dy A B B A for the invariant density π [x is of the form (k, θ(k) )]

33. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Reversible jump Local moves For a move between two models, M1 and M2 , the Markov chain being in state θ1 ∈ M1 , denote by K1→2 (θ1 , dθ) and K2→1 (θ2 , dθ) the corresponding kernels, under the detailed balance condition π(dθ1 ) K1→2 (θ1 , dθ) = π(dθ2 ) K2→1 (θ2 , dθ) , and take, wlog, dim(M2 ) > dim(M1 ). Proposal expressed as θ2 = Ψ1→2 (θ1 , v1→2 ) where v1→2 is a random variable of dimension dim(M2 ) − dim(M1 ), generated as v1→2 ∼ ϕ1→2 (v1→2 ) .

34. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Reversible jump Local moves For a move between two models, M1 and M2 , the Markov chain being in state θ1 ∈ M1 , denote by K1→2 (θ1 , dθ) and K2→1 (θ2 , dθ) the corresponding kernels, under the detailed balance condition π(dθ1 ) K1→2 (θ1 , dθ) = π(dθ2 ) K2→1 (θ2 , dθ) , and take, wlog, dim(M2 ) > dim(M1 ). Proposal expressed as θ2 = Ψ1→2 (θ1 , v1→2 ) where v1→2 is a random variable of dimension dim(M2 ) − dim(M1 ), generated as v1→2 ∼ ϕ1→2 (v1→2 ) .

35. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Reversible jump Local moves (2) In this case, q1→2 (θ1 , dθ2 ) has density −1 ∂Ψ1→2 (θ1 , v1→2 ) ϕ1→2 (v1→2 ) , ∂(θ1 , v1→2 ) by the Jacobian rule. Reverse importance link If probability ̟1→2 of choosing move to M2 while in M1 , acceptance probability reduces to π(M2 , θ2 ) ̟2→1 ∂Ψ1→2 (θ1 , v1→2 ) α(θ1 , v1→2 ) = 1∧ . π(M1 , θ1 ) ̟1→2 ϕ1→2 (v1→2 ) ∂(θ1 , v1→2 ) c Diﬃcult calibration

38. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Saturation schemes Alternative Saturation of the parameter space H = k {k} × Θk by creating a model index M pseudo-priors πj (θj |M = k) for j = k [Carlin & Chib, 1995] Validation by π(M = k|y) = P (M = k|y, θ)π(θ|y)dθ = Zk where the (marginal) posterior is D π(θ|y) = π(θ, M = k|y) k=1 D ̺k mk (y) πk (θk |y) πj (θj |M = k) . = k=1 j=k

39. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Saturation schemes Alternative Saturation of the parameter space H = k {k} × Θk by creating a model index M pseudo-priors πj (θj |M = k) for j = k [Carlin & Chib, 1995] Validation by π(M = k|y) = P (M = k|y, θ)π(θ|y)dθ = Zk where the (marginal) posterior is D π(θ|y) = π(θ, M = k|y) k=1 D ̺k mk (y) πk (θk |y) πj (θj |M = k) . = k=1 j=k

40. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Saturation schemes MCMC implementation (t) (t) Run a Markov chain (M (t) , θ1 , . . . , θD ) with stationary distribution π(θ, M = k|y) by Pick M (t) = k with probability P (θ(t−1) , M = k|y) 1 (t−1) from the posterior πk (θk |y) [or MCMC step] Generate θk 2 (t−1) (j = k) from the pseudo-prior πj (θj |M = k) Generate θj 3 Approximate π(M = k|y) = Zk by T (t) (t) (t) ̺k (y) ∝ ̺k πj (θj |M = k) ˇ fk (y|θk ) πk (θk ) t=1 j=k D (t) (t) (t) πj (θj |M = ℓ) ̺ℓ fℓ (y|θℓ ) πℓ (θℓ ) ℓ=1 j=ℓ

43. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Implementation error Scott’s (2002) proposal Suggest estimating P (M = k|y) by   T  D (t) (t) ̺k (y) ∝ ̺k ˜ f (y|θk ) ̺j fj (y|θj ) , k  t=1 j=1 based on D simultaneous and independent MCMC chains (t) 1 ≤ k ≤ D, (θk )t , with stationary distributions πk (θk |y) [instead of above joint]

44. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Implementation error Scott’s (2002) proposal Suggest estimating P (M = k|y) by   T  D (t) (t) ̺k (y) ∝ ̺k ˜ f (y|θk ) ̺j fj (y|θj ) , k  t=1 j=1 based on D simultaneous and independent MCMC chains (t) 1 ≤ k ≤ D, (θk )t , with stationary distributions πk (θk |y) [instead of above joint]

45. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Implementation error Congdon’s (2006) extension Selecting ﬂat [prohibited!] pseudo-priors, uses instead   T  D (t) (t) (t) (t) ̺k (y) ∝ ̺k ˆ fk (y|θk )πk (θk ) ̺j fj (y|θj )πj (θj ) ,   t=1 j=1 (t) where again the θk ’s are MCMC chains with stationary distributions πk (θk |y)

46. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Implementation error Examples Example (Model choice) Model M1 : y|θ ∼ U(0, θ) with prior θ ∼ Exp(1) is versus model M2 : y|θ ∼ Exp(θ) with prior θ ∼ Exp(1). Equal prior weights on both models: ̺1 = ̺2 = 0.5. Approximations of π(M = 1|y): Scott’s (2002) (green), and Congdon’s (2006) (brown) (N = 106 simulations).

47. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Implementation error Examples Example (Model choice) Model M1 : y|θ ∼ U(0, θ) with prior θ ∼ Exp(1) is versus model M2 : y|θ ∼ Exp(θ) with prior θ ∼ Exp(1). Equal prior weights on both models: ̺1 = ̺2 = 0.5. Approximations of π(M = 1|y): Scott’s (2002) (green), and Congdon’s (2006) (brown) (N = 106 simulations).

48. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Implementation error Examples (2) Example (Model choice (2)) Normal model M1 : y ∼ N (θ, 1) with θ ∼ N (0, 1) vs. normal model M2 : y ∼ N (θ, 1) with θ ∼ N (5, 1) Comparison of both approximations with π(M = 1|y): Scott’s (2002) (green and mixed dashes) and Congdon’s (2006) (brown and long dashes) (N = 104 simulations).

49. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Cross-model solutions Implementation error Examples (3) Example (Model choice (3)) Model M1 : y ∼ N (0, 1/ω) with ω ∼ Exp(a) vs. M2 : exp(y) ∼ Exp(λ) with λ ∼ Exp(b). Comparison of Congdon’s (2006) (brown and dashed lines) with π(M = 1|y) when (a, b) is equal to (.24, 8.9), (.56, .7), (4.1, .46) and (.98, .081), resp. (N = 104 simulations).

50. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Purpose Nested sampling: Goal Skilling’s (2007) technique using the one-dimensional representation: 1 Z = Eπ [L(θ)] = ϕ(x) dx 0 with ϕ−1 (l) = P π (L(θ) > l). Note; ϕ(·) is intractable in most cases.

51. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Implementation Nested sampling: First approximation Approximate Z by a Riemann sum: j (xi−1 − xi )ϕ(xi ) Z= i=1 where the xi ’s are either: xi = e−i/N deterministic: or random: ti ∼ Be(N, 1) x0 = 0, xi+1 = ti xi , so that E[log xi ] = −i/N .

52. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Implementation Extraneous white noise Take 1 −(1−δ)θ −δθ 1 −(1−δ)θ e−θ dθ = Z= e e = Eδ e δ δ N 1 ˆ δ −1 e−(1−δ)θi (xi−1 − xi ) , θi ∼ E(δ) I(θi ≤ θi−1 ) Z= N i=1 N deterministic random 50 4.64 10.5 4.65 10.5 100 2.47 4.9 Comparison of variances and MSEs 2.48 5.02 500 .549 1.01 .550 1.14

55. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Implementation Nested sampling: Second approximation Replace (intractable) ϕ(xi ) by ϕi , obtained by Nested sampling Start with N values θ1 , . . . , θN sampled from π At iteration i, Take ϕi = L(θk ), where θk is the point with smallest 1 likelihood in the pool of θi ’s Replace θk with a sample from the prior constrained to 2 L(θ) > ϕi : the current N points are sampled from prior constrained to L(θ) > ϕi .

58. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Implementation Nested sampling: Third approximation Iterate the above steps until a given stopping iteration j is reached: e.g., observe very small changes in the approximation Z; reach the maximal value of L(θ) when the likelihood is bounded and its maximum is known; truncate the integral Z at level ǫ, i.e. replace 1 1 ϕ(x) dx with ϕ(x) dx 0 ǫ

59. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Error rates Approximation error Error = Z − Z j 1 ǫ (xi−1 − xi )ϕi − ϕ(x) dx = − = ϕ(x) dx 0 0 i=1 j 1 (xi−1 − xi )ϕ(xi ) − + ϕ(x) dx (Quadrature Error) ǫ i=1 j (xi−1 − xi ) {ϕi − ϕ(xi )} + (Stochastic Error) i=1 [Dominated by Monte Carlo!]

60. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Error rates A CLT for the Stochastic Error The (dominating) stochastic error is OP (N −1/2 ): D N 1/2 {Stochastic Error} → N (0, V ) with sϕ′ (s)tϕ′ (t) log(s ∨ t) ds dt. V =− s,t∈[ǫ,1] [Proof based on Donsker’s theorem] The number of simulated points equals the number of iterations j, and is a multiple of N : if one stops at ﬁrst iteration j such that e−j/N < ǫ, then: j = N ⌈− log ǫ⌉.

61. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Error rates A CLT for the Stochastic Error The (dominating) stochastic error is OP (N −1/2 ): D N 1/2 {Stochastic Error} → N (0, V ) with sϕ′ (s)tϕ′ (t) log(s ∨ t) ds dt. V =− s,t∈[ǫ,1] [Proof based on Donsker’s theorem] The number of simulated points equals the number of iterations j, and is a multiple of N : if one stops at ﬁrst iteration j such that e−j/N < ǫ, then: j = N ⌈− log ǫ⌉.

62. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Impact of dimension Curse of dimension For a simple Gaussian-Gaussian model of dimension dim(θ) = d, the following 3 quantities are O(d): asymptotic variance of the NS estimator; 1 number of iterations (necessary to reach a given truncation 2 error); cost of one simulated sample. 3 Therefore, CPU time necessary for achieving error level e is O(d3 /e2 )

66. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Constraints Sampling from constr’d priors Exact simulation from the constrained prior is intractable in most cases! Skilling (2007) proposes to use MCMC, but: this introduces a bias (stopping rule). if MCMC stationary distribution is unconst’d prior, more and more diﬃcult to sample points such that L(θ) > l as l increases. If implementable, then slice sampler can be devised at the same cost!

69. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Constraints Illustration of MCMC bias Log-relative error against d (left), avg. number of iterations (right) vs dimension d, for a Gaussian-Gaussian model with d parameters, when using T = 10 iterations of the Gibbs sampler.

70. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Importance variant A IS variant of nested sampling ˜ Consider instrumental prior π and likelihood L, weight function π(θ)L(θ) w(θ) = π(θ)L(θ) and weighted NS estimator j (xi−1 − xi )ϕi w(θi ). Z= i=1 Then choose (π, L) so that sampling from π constrained to L(θ) > l is easy; e.g. N (c, Id ) constrained to c − θ < r.

71. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Nested sampling Importance variant A IS variant of nested sampling ˜ Consider instrumental prior π and likelihood L, weight function π(θ)L(θ) w(θ) = π(θ)L(θ) and weighted NS estimator j (xi−1 − xi )ϕi w(θi ). Z= i=1 Then choose (π, L) so that sampling from π constrained to L(θ) > l is easy; e.g. N (c, Id ) constrained to c − θ < r.

72. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Mixture example Benchmark: Target distribution Posterior distribution on (µ, σ) associated with the mixture pN (0, 1) + (1 − p)N (µ, σ) , when p is known

73. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Mixture example Experiment n observations with µ = 2 and σ = 3/2, Use of a uniform prior both on (−2, 6) for µ and on (.001, 16) for log σ 2 . occurrences of posterior bursts for µ = xi computation of the various estimates of Z

74. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Mixture example Experiment (cont’d) Nested sampling sequence MCMC sample for n = 16 with M = 1000 starting points. observations from the mixture.

75. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Mixture example Experiment (cont’d) Nested sampling sequence MCMC sample for n = 50 with M = 1000 starting points. observations from the mixture.

76. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Mixture example Comparison Monte Carlo and MCMC (=Gibbs) outputs based on T = 104 simulations and numerical integration based on a 850 × 950 grid in the (µ, σ) parameter space. Nested sampling approximation based on a starting sample of M = 1000 points followed by at least 103 further simulations from the constr’d prior and a stopping rule at 95% of the observed maximum likelihood. Constr’d prior simulation based on 50 values simulated by random walk accepting only steps leading to a lik’hood higher than the bound

77. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Mixture example Comparison (cont’d) Graph based on a sample of 10 observations for µ = 2 and σ = 3/2 (150 replicas).

80. On some computational methods for Bayesian model choice Mixture example Comparison (cont’d) Nested sampling gets less reliable as sample size increases Most reliable approach is mixture Z3 although harmonic solution Z1 close to Chib’s solution [taken as golden standard] Monte Carlo method Z2 also producing poor approximations to Z (Kernel φ used in Z2 is a t non-parametric kernel estimate with standard bandwidth estimation.)

Computational tools for Bayesian model choice

More Related Content

Computational tools for Bayesian model choice