Showing 1–15 of 15 results for author: Frazier, D

Sequential Scoring Rule Evaluation for Forecast Method Selection

Authors: David T. Frazier, Donald S. Poskitt

Abstract: This paper shows that sequential statistical analysis techniques can be generalised to the problem of selecting between alternative forecasting methods using scoring rules. A return to basic principles is necessary in order to show that ideas and concepts from sequential statistical methods can be adapted and applied to sequential scoring rule evaluation (SSRE). One key technical contribution of t… ▽ More This paper shows that sequential statistical analysis techniques can be generalised to the problem of selecting between alternative forecasting methods using scoring rules. A return to basic principles is necessary in order to show that ideas and concepts from sequential statistical methods can be adapted and applied to sequential scoring rule evaluation (SSRE). One key technical contribution of this paper is the development of a large deviations type result for SSRE schemes using a change of measure that parallels a traditional exponential tilting form. Further, we also show that SSRE will terminate in finite time with probability one, and that the moments of the SSRE stopping time exist. A second key contribution is to show that the exponential tilting form underlying our large deviations result allows us to cast SSRE within the framework of generalised e-values. Relying on this formulation, we devise sequential testing approaches that are both powerful and maintain control on error probabilities underlying the analysis. Through several simulated examples, we demonstrate that our e-values based SSRE approach delivers reliable results that are more powerful than more commonly applied testing methods precisely in the situations where these commonly applied methods can be expected to fail. △ Less

Submitted 13 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

The Statistical Accuracy of Neural Posterior and Likelihood Estimation

Authors: David T. Frazier, Ryan Kelly, Christopher Drovandi, David J. Warne

Abstract: Neural posterior estimation (NPE) and neural likelihood estimation (NLE) are machine learning approaches that provide accurate posterior, and likelihood, approximations in complex modeling scenarios, and in situations where conducting amortized inference is a necessity. While such methods have shown significant promise across a range of diverse scientific applications, the statistical accuracy of… ▽ More Neural posterior estimation (NPE) and neural likelihood estimation (NLE) are machine learning approaches that provide accurate posterior, and likelihood, approximations in complex modeling scenarios, and in situations where conducting amortized inference is a necessity. While such methods have shown significant promise across a range of diverse scientific applications, the statistical accuracy of these methods is so far unexplored. In this manuscript, we give, for the first time, an in-depth exploration on the statistical behavior of NPE and NLE. We prove that these methods have similar theoretical guarantees to common statistical methods like approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) and Bayesian synthetic likelihood (BSL). While NPE and NLE methods are just as accurate as ABC and BSL, we prove that this accuracy can often be achieved at a vastly reduced computational cost, and will therefore deliver more attractive approximations than ABC and BSL in certain problems. We verify our results theoretically and in several examples from the literature. △ Less

Submitted 18 November, 2024; originally announced November 2024.

Predictive performance of power posteriors

Authors: Yann McLatchie, Edwin Fong, David T. Frazier, Jeremias Knoblauch

Abstract: We analyse the impact of using tempered likelihoods in the production of posterior predictions. While the choice of temperature has an impact on predictive performance in small samples, we formally show that in moderate-to-large samples, tempering does not impact posterior predictions. We analyse the impact of using tempered likelihoods in the production of posterior predictions. While the choice of temperature has an impact on predictive performance in small samples, we formally show that in moderate-to-large samples, tempering does not impact posterior predictions. △ Less

Submitted 13 May, 2025; v1 submitted 16 August, 2024; originally announced August 2024.

Comments: 7 (+17 supplementary) pages (excluding references); 3 (+7 supplementary) figures

Exact Sampling of Gibbs Measures with Estimated Losses

Authors: David T. Frazier, Jeremias Knoblauch, Jack Jewson, Christopher Drovandi

Abstract: In recent years, the shortcomings of Bayesian posteriors as inferential devices have received increased attention. A popular strategy for fixing them has been to instead target a Gibbs measure based on losses that connect a parameter of interest to observed data. However, existing theory for such inference procedures assumes these losses are analytically available, while in many situations these l… ▽ More In recent years, the shortcomings of Bayesian posteriors as inferential devices have received increased attention. A popular strategy for fixing them has been to instead target a Gibbs measure based on losses that connect a parameter of interest to observed data. However, existing theory for such inference procedures assumes these losses are analytically available, while in many situations these losses must be stochastically estimated using pseudo-observations. In such cases, we show that when standard Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms are used to produce posterior samples, the resulting posterior exhibits strong dependence on the number of pseudo-observations: unless the number of pseudo-observations diverge sufficiently fast the resulting posterior will concentrate very slowly. However, we show that in many situations it is feasible to alleviate this dependence entirely using a modified piecewise deterministic Markov process (PDMP) sampler, and we formally and empirically show that these samplers produce posterior draws that have no dependence on the number of pseudo-observations used to estimate the loss within the Gibbs Measure. We apply our results to three examples that feature intractable likelihoods and model misspecification. △ Less

Submitted 22 April, 2025; v1 submitted 24 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Comments: This is a substantially updated and expanded version of the previous submission, "The Impact of Loss Estimation on Gibbs Measures". This version contains a new algorithm that delivers unbiased samples from the intractable Gibbs measure and was not considered in the previous version

Cutting Feedback in Misspecified Copula Models

Authors: Michael Stanley Smith, Weichang Yu, David J. Nott, David Frazier

Abstract: In copula models the marginal distributions and copula function are specified separately. We treat these as two modules in a modular Bayesian inference framework, and propose conducting modified Bayesian inference by "cutting feedback". Cutting feedback limits the influence of potentially misspecified modules in posterior inference. We consider two types of cuts. The first limits the influence of… ▽ More In copula models the marginal distributions and copula function are specified separately. We treat these as two modules in a modular Bayesian inference framework, and propose conducting modified Bayesian inference by "cutting feedback". Cutting feedback limits the influence of potentially misspecified modules in posterior inference. We consider two types of cuts. The first limits the influence of a misspecified copula on inference for the marginals, which is a Bayesian analogue of the popular Inference for Margins (IFM) estimator. The second limits the influence of misspecified marginals on inference for the copula parameters by using a pseudo likelihood of the ranks to define the cut model. We establish that if only one of the modules is misspecified, then the appropriate cut posterior gives accurate uncertainty quantification asymptotically for the parameters in the other module. Computation of the cut posteriors is difficult, and new variational inference methods to do so are proposed. The efficacy of the new methodology is demonstrated using both simulated data and a substantive multivariate time series application from macroeconomic forecasting. In the latter, cutting feedback from misspecified marginals to a 1096 dimension copula improves posterior inference and predictive accuracy greatly, compared to conventional Bayesian inference. △ Less

Submitted 27 June, 2024; v1 submitted 5 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Reliable Bayesian Inference in Misspecified Models

Authors: David T. Frazier, Robert Kohn, Christopher Drovandi, David Gunawan

Abstract: We provide a general solution to a fundamental open problem in Bayesian inference, namely poor uncertainty quantification, from a frequency standpoint, of Bayesian methods in misspecified models. While existing solutions are based on explicit Gaussian approximations of the posterior, or computationally onerous post-processing procedures, we demonstrate that correct uncertainty quantification can b… ▽ More We provide a general solution to a fundamental open problem in Bayesian inference, namely poor uncertainty quantification, from a frequency standpoint, of Bayesian methods in misspecified models. While existing solutions are based on explicit Gaussian approximations of the posterior, or computationally onerous post-processing procedures, we demonstrate that correct uncertainty quantification can be achieved by replacing the usual posterior with an intuitive approximate posterior. Critically, our solution is applicable to likelihood-based, and generalized, posteriors as well as cases where the likelihood is intractable and must be estimated. We formally demonstrate the reliable uncertainty quantification of our proposed approach, and show that valid uncertainty quantification is not an asymptotic result but occurs even in small samples. We illustrate this approach through a range of examples, including linear, and generalized, mixed effects models. △ Less

Submitted 12 February, 2023; originally announced February 2023.

Posterior risk of modular and semi-modular Bayesian inference

Authors: David T. Frazier, David J. Nott

Abstract: Modular Bayesian methods perform inference in models that are specified through a collection of coupled sub-models, known as modules. These modules often arise from modelling different data sources or from combining domain knowledge from different disciplines. ``Cutting feedback'' is a Bayesian inference method that ensures misspecification of one module does not affect inferences for parameters i… ▽ More Modular Bayesian methods perform inference in models that are specified through a collection of coupled sub-models, known as modules. These modules often arise from modelling different data sources or from combining domain knowledge from different disciplines. ``Cutting feedback'' is a Bayesian inference method that ensures misspecification of one module does not affect inferences for parameters in other modules, and produces what is known as the cut posterior. However, choosing between the cut posterior and the standard Bayesian posterior is challenging. When misspecification is not severe, cutting feedback can greatly increase posterior uncertainty without a large reduction of estimation bias, leading to a bias-variance trade-off. This trade-off motivates semi-modular posteriors, which interpolate between standard and cut posteriors based on a tuning parameter. In this work, we provide the first precise formulation of the bias-variance trade-off that is present in cutting feedback, and we propose a new semi-modular posterior that takes advantage of it. Under general regularity conditions, we prove that this semi-modular posterior is more accurate than the cut posterior according to a notion of posterior risk. An important implication of this result is that point inferences made under the cut posterior are inadmissable. The new method is demonstrated in a number of examples. △ Less

Submitted 24 November, 2024; v1 submitted 25 January, 2023; originally announced January 2023.

Pooling information in likelihood-free inference

Authors: David T. Frazier, Christopher Drovandi, Lucas Kock, David J. Nott

Abstract: Likelihood-free inference (LFI) methods, such as approximate Bayesian computation, have become commonplace for conducting inference in complex models. Many approaches are based on summary statistics or discrepancies derived from synthetic data. However, determining which summary statistics or discrepancies to use for constructing the posterior remains a challenging question, both practically and t… ▽ More Likelihood-free inference (LFI) methods, such as approximate Bayesian computation, have become commonplace for conducting inference in complex models. Many approaches are based on summary statistics or discrepancies derived from synthetic data. However, determining which summary statistics or discrepancies to use for constructing the posterior remains a challenging question, both practically and theoretically. Instead of relying on a single vector of summaries for inference, we propose a new pooled posterior that optimally combines inferences from multiple LFI posteriors. This pooled approach eliminates the need to select a single vector of summaries or even a specific LFI algorithm. Our approach is straightforward to implement and avoids performing a high-dimensional LFI analysis involving all summary statistics. We give theoretical guarantees for the improved performance of the pooled posterior mean in terms of asymptotic frequentist risk and demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach in a number of benchmark examples. △ Less

Submitted 5 June, 2025; v1 submitted 5 December, 2022; originally announced December 2022.

Cutting feedback and modularized analyses in generalized Bayesian inference

Authors: David T. Frazier, David J. Nott

Abstract: This work considers Bayesian inference under misspecification for complex statistical models comprised of simpler submodels, referred to as modules, that are coupled together. Such ``multi-modular" models often arise when combining information from different data sources, where there is a module for each data source. When some of the modules are misspecified, the challenges of Bayesian inference u… ▽ More This work considers Bayesian inference under misspecification for complex statistical models comprised of simpler submodels, referred to as modules, that are coupled together. Such ``multi-modular" models often arise when combining information from different data sources, where there is a module for each data source. When some of the modules are misspecified, the challenges of Bayesian inference under misspecification can sometimes be addressed by using ``cutting feedback" methods, which modify conventional Bayesian inference by limiting the influence of unreliable modules. Here we investigate cutting feedback methods in the context of generalized posterior distributions, which are built from arbitrary loss functions, and present novel findings on their behaviour. We make three main contributions. First, we describe how cutting feedback methods can be defined in the generalized Bayes setting, and discuss the appropriate scaling of the loss functions for different modules to each other and the prior. Second, we derive a novel result about the large sample behaviour of the posterior for a given module's parameters conditional on the parameters of other modules. This formally justifies the use of conditional Laplace approximations, which provide better approximations of conditional posterior distributions compared to conditional distributions from a Laplace approximation of the joint posterior. Our final contribution leverages the large sample approximations of our second contribution to provide convenient diagnostics for understanding the sensitivity of inference to the coupling of the modules, and to implement a new semi-modular posterior approach for conducting robust Bayesian modular inference. The usefulness of the methodology is illustrated in several benchmark examples from the literature on cut model inference. △ Less

Submitted 1 August, 2023; v1 submitted 20 February, 2022; originally announced February 2022.

Synthetic Likelihood in Misspecified Models: Consequences and Corrections

Authors: David T. Frazier, Christopher Drovandi, David J. Nott

Abstract: We analyse the behaviour of the synthetic likelihood (SL) method when the model generating the simulated data differs from the actual data generating process. One of the most common methods to obtain SL-based inferences is via the Bayesian posterior distribution, with this method often referred to as Bayesian synthetic likelihood (BSL). We demonstrate that when the model is misspecified, the BSL p… ▽ More We analyse the behaviour of the synthetic likelihood (SL) method when the model generating the simulated data differs from the actual data generating process. One of the most common methods to obtain SL-based inferences is via the Bayesian posterior distribution, with this method often referred to as Bayesian synthetic likelihood (BSL). We demonstrate that when the model is misspecified, the BSL posterior can be poorly behaved, placing significant posterior mass on values of the model parameters that do not represent the true features observed in the data. Theoretical results demonstrate that in misspecified models the BSL posterior can display a wide range of behaviours depending on the level of model misspecification, including being asymptotically non-Gaussian. Our results suggest that a recently proposed robust BSL approach can ameliorate this behavior and deliver reliable posterior inference under model misspecification. We document all theoretical results using a simple running example. △ Less

Submitted 7 April, 2021; originally announced April 2021.

Robust and Efficient Approximate Bayesian Computation: A Minimum Distance Approach

Authors: David T. Frazier

Abstract: In many instances, the application of approximate Bayesian methods is hampered by two practical features: 1) the requirement to project the data down to low-dimensional summary, including the choice of this projection, which ultimately yields inefficient inference; 2) a possible lack of robustness to deviations from the underlying model structure. Motivated by these efficiency and robustness conce… ▽ More In many instances, the application of approximate Bayesian methods is hampered by two practical features: 1) the requirement to project the data down to low-dimensional summary, including the choice of this projection, which ultimately yields inefficient inference; 2) a possible lack of robustness to deviations from the underlying model structure. Motivated by these efficiency and robustness concerns, we construct a new Bayesian method that can deliver efficient estimators when the underlying model is well-specified, and which is simultaneously robust to certain forms of model misspecification. This new approach bypasses the calculation of summaries by considering a norm between empirical and simulated probability measures. For specific choices of the norm, we demonstrate that this approach can deliver point estimators that are as efficient as those obtained using exact Bayesian inference, while also simultaneously displaying robustness to deviations from the underlying model assumptions. △ Less

Submitted 24 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Model Misspecification in ABC: Consequences and Diagnostics

Authors: David T. Frazier, Christian P. Robert, Judith Rousseau

Abstract: We analyze the behavior of approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) when the model generating the simulated data differs from the actual data generating process; i.e., when the data simulator in ABC is misspecified. We demonstrate both theoretically and in simple, but practically relevant, examples that when the model is misspecified different versions of ABC can yield substantially different result… ▽ More We analyze the behavior of approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) when the model generating the simulated data differs from the actual data generating process; i.e., when the data simulator in ABC is misspecified. We demonstrate both theoretically and in simple, but practically relevant, examples that when the model is misspecified different versions of ABC can yield substantially different results. Our theoretical results demonstrate that even though the model is misspecified, under regularity conditions, the accept/reject ABC approach concentrates posterior mass on an appropriately defined pseudo-true parameter value. However, under model misspecification the ABC posterior does not yield credible sets with valid frequentist coverage and has non-standard asymptotic behavior. In addition, we examine the theoretical behavior of the popular local regression adjustment to ABC under model misspecification and demonstrate that this approach concentrates posterior mass on a completely different pseudo-true value than accept/reject ABC. Using our theoretical results, we suggest two approaches to diagnose model misspecification in ABC. All theoretical results and diagnostics are illustrated in a simple running example. △ Less

Submitted 9 July, 2019; v1 submitted 6 August, 2017; originally announced August 2017.

Asymptotic Properties of Approximate Bayesian Computation

Authors: David T. Frazier, Gael M. Martin, Christian P. Robert, Judith Rousseau

Abstract: Approximate Bayesian computation allows for statistical analysis in models with intractable likelihoods. In this paper we consider the asymptotic behaviour of the posterior distribution obtained by this method. We give general results on the rate at which the posterior distribution concentrates on sets containing the true parameter, its limiting shape, and the asymptotic distribution of the poster… ▽ More Approximate Bayesian computation allows for statistical analysis in models with intractable likelihoods. In this paper we consider the asymptotic behaviour of the posterior distribution obtained by this method. We give general results on the rate at which the posterior distribution concentrates on sets containing the true parameter, its limiting shape, and the asymptotic distribution of the posterior mean. These results hold under given rates for the tolerance used within the method, mild regularity conditions on the summary statistics, and a condition linked to identification of the true parameters. Implications for practitioners are discussed. △ Less

Submitted 8 May, 2018; v1 submitted 23 July, 2016; originally announced July 2016.

Comments: This 31 pages paper is a revised version of the paper, including supplementary material

Indirect Inference With(Out) Constraints

Authors: David T. Frazier, Eric Renault

Abstract: Indirect Inference (I-I) estimation of structural parameters $θ$ {requires matching observed and simulated statistics, which are most often generated using an auxiliary model that depends on instrumental parameters $β$.} {The estimators of the instrumental parameters will encapsulate} the statistical information used for inference about the structural parameters. As such, artificially constraining… ▽ More Indirect Inference (I-I) estimation of structural parameters $θ$ {requires matching observed and simulated statistics, which are most often generated using an auxiliary model that depends on instrumental parameters $β$.} {The estimators of the instrumental parameters will encapsulate} the statistical information used for inference about the structural parameters. As such, artificially constraining these parameters may restrict the ability of the auxiliary model to accurately replicate features in the structural data, which may lead to a range of issues, such as, a loss of identification. However, in certain situations the parameters $β$ naturally come with a set of $q$ restrictions. Examples include settings where $β$ must be estimated subject to $q$ possibly strict inequality constraints $g(β) > 0$, such as, when I-I is based on GARCH auxiliary models. In these settings we propose a novel I-I approach that uses appropriately modified unconstrained auxiliary statistics, which are simple to compute and always exists. We state the relevant asymptotic theory for this I-I approach without constraints and show that it can be reinterpreted as a standard implementation of I-I through a properly modified binding function. Several examples that have featured in the literature illustrate our approach. △ Less

Submitted 20 August, 2019; v1 submitted 20 July, 2016; originally announced July 2016.

Auxiliary Likelihood-Based Approximate Bayesian Computation in State Space Models

Authors: Gael M. Martin, Brendan P. M. McCabe, David T. Frazier, Worapree Maneesoonthorn, Christian P. Robert

Abstract: A computationally simple approach to inference in state space models is proposed, using approximate Bayesian computation (ABC). ABC avoids evaluation of an intractable likelihood by matching summary statistics for the observed data with statistics computed from data simulated from the true process, based on parameter draws from the prior. Draws that produce a 'match' between observed and simulated… ▽ More A computationally simple approach to inference in state space models is proposed, using approximate Bayesian computation (ABC). ABC avoids evaluation of an intractable likelihood by matching summary statistics for the observed data with statistics computed from data simulated from the true process, based on parameter draws from the prior. Draws that produce a 'match' between observed and simulated summaries are retained, and used to estimate the inaccessible posterior. With no reduction to a low-dimensional set of sufficient statistics being possible in the state space setting, we define the summaries as the maximum of an auxiliary likelihood function, and thereby exploit the asymptotic sufficiency of this estimator for the auxiliary parameter vector. We derive conditions under which this approach - including a computationally efficient version based on the auxiliary score - achieves Bayesian consistency. To reduce the well-documented inaccuracy of ABC in multi-parameter settings, we propose the separate treatment of each parameter dimension using an integrated likelihood technique. Three stochastic volatility models for which exact Bayesian inference is either computationally challenging, or infeasible, are used for illustration. We demonstrate that our approach compares favorably against an extensive set of approximate and exact comparators. An empirical illustration completes the paper. △ Less

Submitted 2 December, 2018; v1 submitted 27 April, 2016; originally announced April 2016.

Comments: This paper is forthcoming at the Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics. It also supersedes the earlier arXiv paper "Approximate Bayesian Computation in State Space Models" (arXiv:1409.8363)