SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2203.09782

Modularized Bayesian analyses and cutting feedback in likelihood-free inference

Abstract

There has been much recent interest in modifying Bayesian inference for misspecified models so that it is useful for specific purposes. One popular modified Bayesian inference method is "cutting feedback" which can be used when the model consists of a number of coupled modules, with only some of the modules being misspecified. Cutting feedback methods represent the full posterior distribution in terms of conditional and sequential components, and then modify some terms in such a representation based on the modular structure for specification or computation of a modified posterior distribution. The main goal of this is to avoid contamination of inferences for parameters of interest by misspecified modules. Computation for cut posterior distributions is challenging, and here we consider cutting feedback for likelihood-free inference based on Gaussian mixture approximations to the joint distribution of parameters and data summary statistics. We exploit the fact that marginal and conditional distributions of a Gaussian mixture are Gaussian mixtures to give explicit approximations to marginal or conditional posterior distributions so that we can easily approximate cut posterior analyses. The mixture approach allows repeated approximation of posterior distributions for different data based on a single mixture fit, which is important for model checks which aid in the decision of whether to "cut". A semi-modular approach to likelihood-free inference where feedback is partially cut is also developed. The benefits of the method are illustrated in two challenging examples, a collective cell spreading model and a continuous time model for asset returns with jumps.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Atlanta Chakraborty, David J. Nott, Christopher Drovandi, David T. Frazier, Scott A. Sisson. 2022-03-18. Modularized Bayesian analyses and cutting feedback in likelihood-free inference. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.09782

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME