## Student Perspectives: Strategies for variational inference in non-conjugate problems

A post by Qi Chen, PhD student on the Compass programme.

# Introduction

Variational inference is a method to approximate posterior distributions. In Bayesian statistics context, we would like to get access to the posterior distribution $p(\theta|x) = \frac{p(x|\theta)p(\theta)}{\int_\mathcal{\theta} p(x|\theta)p(\theta) d\theta}$
In most cases the denominator $p(D)$ is intractable, that is we can not compute it analytically. How should we proceed? There are two broad ways:

• Using MCMC to simulate samples from the posterior distribution $p(\theta|D)$ to approximate the true posterior and get statistics of interest(mean, variance, etc.).
• Approximate $p({\theta}|{x})\approx q(\theta)\in\mathcal{Q}$.

The former method is unbiased and the convergence is guaranteed by the law of large numbers. But it requires a large number of samples and is quite computational demanding if the dimension of parameters/dataset is large. The later one, called variational inference,is biased depends on the choice of $\mathcal{Q}$ but is much faster and more scalable.

We call $q$ the variational distributions. The idea behind variational inference, is to approximate the posterior $p({\theta}|{x})$ using $q({\theta})\in\mathcal{Q}$ by minimizing the KL divergence between $q({\theta})$ and the true posterior $p({\theta}|{x})$, with the following formal expression:$q^*({\theta}) = argmin_{q\in\mathcal{Q}}\;KL(q({\theta})||p({\theta}|{x})) = \int_{\Theta} q({\theta})\log\left(\frac{q({\theta})}{p({\theta}|{x})}\right)d{\theta}$
This is a traditional measure of distribution mismatch over the same domain, and it is easy to see that $q = p$ is equivalent to $KL(q||p)=0$.

• How do we minimize $q$ over the space with the true posterior unknown?
• How do choose the variational family $q$?

We now answer the first question:
Notice that \begin{align*}
\log p({x}) &= \int q({\theta})\log\left(\frac{p({x},\theta)q({\theta})}{p({\theta}|{x})q({\theta})}\right) d{\theta}\\
&= \int q({\theta}) \log\left(\frac{p({x},{\theta})}{q({\theta})}\right) d{\theta} + \int q({\theta})\log\left(\frac{q({\theta})}{p({\theta}|{x})}\right)d{\theta}
\end{align*}
From the above derivation, we see that the second part is simply just the KL divergence we wish to minimize. As $\log(p({x}))$ is fixed, minimizing KL divergence is equivalent to maximizing the first part. This answers the first question. The first part is called \textbf{evidence lower bound(ELBO)}, written in $\mathcal{L}(q({\theta}))$.

For the second question, in theory, suppose the variational distribution is parametrized by variational parameters ${\phi}$, we can start with any variaitonal distributions we like, following the basic criterion:
Supp($q({\theta};{\phi})\subseteq$Supp($p({\theta}|{x})$).
We also need Supp($p({\theta}|{x})\subseteq$Supp($p({\theta})$) which is guaranteed in most cases.

But randomly choosing some variational distributions with any model won’t make the algorithm always feasible. Indeed, all VI methods centered around the goal of optimizing the ELBO $\phi^* = argmin_{{\phi}}\mathbb{E}_q\left[\log \frac{p({x},{\theta})}{q({\theta})}\right]$

Traditional methods set the mean-field assumptions that all parameters are independent. This breaks down the objective and a local optimum could be achieved via a coordinate ascent algorithm. Some methods enlarge the mean-field space to some specific conditional dependences between parameters according to graphical models with conjugate exponential relationship between parent-child pairs[1]. This is further extended to non-conjugate pairs with custom approximations.

Some modern methods have been developed in the last decade based on the idea that the gradient of the ELBO could be expressed in the from of $\mathbb{E}_q(\cdot)$. This immediately brings attention to a combination of MC algorithms(for sampling from $q$) and stochastic gradient descent(for efficiency in the optimization). These methods benefits from the simplicity that there’s no need to analytically compute the gradients based on conditional dependence specifications for each model: it is an automatic algorithm, for a greater domain of models. But it is worth noting that even those methods are theoretically sound, they still face practical issue which I will show in the later sections.

In this post I will briefly go through some of these methods, specifically coordinate ascent variational inference, black-box variational inference and automatic differentiation variational inference.

# Conjugate models: Coordinate Ascent Variational Inference

There are various assumptions we can make on $\mathcal{Q}$ . We start with the mean-field assumptions of the parameters [2] This is to assume the joint prior distributions of all parameters could be factorized completely. That is:$q({\theta}) = \prod_{j=1}^m q_j({\theta}_j)$
We now write ${\theta}_{-j}$ denote all the other latent variables except for ${\theta}_j$, with distribution $q_{-j}$.
If we only minimize $\mathcal{L}(q)$ against $q_j({\theta}_j)$, we are minimizing $\mathbb{E}_{q_j}[\mathbb{E}_{q_{-j}}[\log p({\theta},{x})]] – \mathbb{E}_{q_j}[\log q_j({\theta}_j)]$

Further write $r_j({\theta}_j) = \frac{1}{Z_j}\exp\{\mathbb{E}_{q_{-j}}[\log p({x},{\theta})]\}$ where $Z_j$ is some normalizing constant so that $r_j$ is a probability distribution. Then substitute in, we get $\mathcal{L}(q_j) \propto \mathbb{E}_{q_j}[\log \frac{r_j({\theta}_j)}{q_j({\theta}_j)}] = -KL(q_j({\theta}_j)||r_j({\theta}_j))$

Thus maximizing ELBO against $q_j$ is equivalent to set $q_j = r_j$, which is $q_j({\theta}_j)\propto \exp\{\mathbb{E}_{q_{-j}}[\log p({x},{\theta})]\}\propto \exp\{\mathbb{E}_{q_{-j}}[\log p({\theta}_j|{\theta}_{-j},{x})]\}$

Since we assume $q$ factorizes, maximizing $\mathcal{L}(q)$ is split into $m$ steps of maximizing $\mathcal{L}(q_j)$. This algorithm is called \textbf{coordinate ascent variational inference}(CAVI) or \textbf{block-coordinate assent}.

A algorithmic view is

1.  Initialize $q({\theta}) = \prod_{j=1}^m q_j({\theta}_j)$
2. Iterate until convergence:
Update for each $q_j$ by $q_j = \frac{1}{Z_j}\exp(\mathbb{E}_{q_{-j}}[\log(p({\theta},{x}))])$This algorithm is guarantee to convergence since each iteration the ELBO increases.

This is not directly feasible for all cases, since we assume we can compute $r_j$ analytically. In case where there’s conditional conjugacy of likelihood and the prior on each $\theta_j$ conditioned on all other ${\theta}_{i\neq j}$. That is $p(\theta_j|{\theta}_{i\neq j})\in \mathcal{A}(\alpha),\,p({x}|\theta_j, \theta_{i\neq j})\in \mathcal{B}(\theta_j)\rightarrow p(\theta_j|{x},{\theta}_{i\neq j})\in A(\alpha’)$
this will be feasible. One particular family is that all complete conditionals lie in exponential family.

A distribution $p({\theta})$ is in exponential family if $p(\theta) = h({\theta})\exp\{{\eta}^Tt({\theta}) – A({\eta})\}$
Here $\eta$ is called natural parameter, and $A({\theta})$ satisfies $A({\eta}) = \log \int h({\theta}) \exp \eta^Tt(\theta)d{\theta}$
such that it integrates to 1.

Now assume that all the complete conditionals belong to an exponential family distribution, that is $p({\theta}_j|{\theta}_{-j},{x}) = h({\theta}_j)\exp \{{\eta}_j^T({\theta}_{-j},{x}){\theta}_j – A({\eta}_j({\theta}_{-j},{x}))\}$
where we assume that ${\theta}_j$ is already transformed to its appropriate sufficient statistic. We see now the CAVI becomes \begin{align*}
q_j({\theta}_j)&\propto \exp\{\log h({\theta}_j) + \mathbb{E}_{q_{-j}}[{\eta}_j({\theta}_{-j},{x})]^T{\theta}_j – \mathbb{E}_{q_{-j}}[A({\eta}_j({\theta}_{-j},{x}))]\}\\
&\propto h({\theta}_j)\exp\{\mathbb{E}_{q_{-j}}[{\eta}_j({\theta}_{-j},{x})]^T{\theta}_j\}
\end{align*}
where we see that the variational factors are in the same exponential family(due to conjugacy) as the complete conditionals, with the natural parameter updated to $\phi_j = \mathbb{E}_{q_{-j}}[{\eta}_j({\theta}_{-j},{x})]$

But in most cases, for example Bayesian logistic regression, we do not have conditional conjugacy in our model. In this blog post, we introduce two methods which are developed in the last decade tackling the lack of conjugacy. Notice that variational inference is indeed an optimization problem, and these methods are derived from expressing the derivatives of the ELBO in terms of expectation over the vatiational distributions q: $\frac{\partial ELBO}{\partial {\phi}} = \mathbb{E}_{q({\theta};{\phi})}[\cdot]$
\section{Evaluable Models: Black Box Variational Inference}

We want to optimize $\mathcal{L}({\phi}) = \mathbb{E}_{q}[\log p({\theta},{x})] – \mathbb{E}_q[\log q({\theta};{\phi})]$
and we notice that
\begin{align*}
\triangledown_{{\phi}}\mathcal{L}({\phi}) &= \triangledown_{{\phi}}\int q({\theta};{\phi})\log \frac{p({\theta},{x})}{q(\theta;{\phi})} d{\theta}\\
&= \int q({\theta};{\phi})\triangledown_{{\phi}} \log q({\theta};{\phi})\log \frac{p({\theta},{x})}{q({\theta};{\phi})} + q({\theta};{\phi})\triangledown_{{\phi}}\log \frac{p({\theta},{x})}{q({\theta};{\phi})} d{\theta}\\
&= \mathbb{E}_{q}[\triangledown_{{\phi}}\log q({\theta};{\phi})(\log p({\theta},{x})-\log q({\theta};{\phi}))]
\end{align*}
This is proposed in [3]. We see this is an expectation under the variational distributions, and we only need

• simulate from $q$.
• evaluate the derivatives of $q$.
• evaluate the model $p({\theta},{x})$.

This significantly relaxes the constraint of CAVI and enlarges the domain of models applicable.
In practice, we will use stochastic gradient descent to derive a noisy unbiased estimator of the gradient and adapt some step functions satisfying some conditions, for example $\sum_j \rho_j =\infty\;\;\;\;\sum_j \rho_j^2 < \infty$
A naive algorithm is as follows:

• $t \gets 0$, $\delta \gets \infty$
• While{$\delta > \tau$}{
• $t \gets t+1$
• ${\theta}^1,…,{\theta}^S\sim q({\theta},{\phi}_{t-1})$
• $\hat{\triangledown}_{{\phi}}\mathcal{L}({\phi}_{t-1})\gets \frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^S \triangledown_{{\phi}}\log q({\theta}^s;{\phi}_{t-1})(\log p({\theta}^s,{x})-\log q({\theta}^s;{\phi}_{t-1}))$
• ${\phi}_t\gets{\phi}_{t-1} + \rho_t\hat{\triangledown}_{{\phi}}\mathcal{L}({\phi}_{t-1})$
• $\delta \gets \frac{||{\phi}_t – {\phi}_{t-1}||}{||{\phi}_{t-1}||}$

}
Output{${\phi}^* = {\phi}^t$}

However, in practice, this algorithm does not produce meaningful result for non-trivial model, since the variance of this estimates grows linearly with the number of parameters in the model ${\theta}$. Due to the high variance, we need some variance reduction technique.

## Rao-Blackwellization

Rao-Blackwellization reduces the variance of some estimator $J(X,Y)$ by defining another estimator $\hat{J}(X) = \mathbb{E}[J(X,Y)|X]$
It is clear that the expectation is preserved:$\mathbb{E}[\hat{J}(X)] = \mathbb{E}[J(X,Y)]$by tower law. The variance of this estimator is $Var(\hat{J}(X)) = Var(J(X,Y)) + \mathbb{E}[\hat{J}(X)^2] – \mathbb{E}[J(X,Y)^2] = Var(J(X,Y)) – \mathbb{E}[(J(X,Y)-\hat{J}(X))^2]$

Thus this new estimator always has less variance compared to $J(X,Y)$ unless $\hat{J}(X) = J(X,Y)$.

We now apply this to BBVI. Assume the approximating family follows the mean-field assumption, and let $p({x},{\theta}) = p_i({x},{\theta}_{(i)})p_{-i}({x},{\theta}_{-i})$
where $p_i$ are all the terms containing $\theta_i$, and $\theta_{(i)}$ is the collection of all latent variables that appear in $p_i$.
We can thus rewrite the derivatives of ELBO respect to $\theta_i$ as $\hat{\triangledown}_{\phi_i}^{RB}\mathcal{L}(\phi_i) = \mathbb{E}_{q_{(i)}}[\triangledown_{\phi_i}[\log q_i(z_i;\phi_i)(\log p_i({x},\theta_{(i)})-\log q_i(\theta_i;\phi_i))]]$
This is a Rao-Blackwellized $\triangledown_{\phi_i}\mathcal{L}({\phi})$ as $\mathbb{E}_q[\hat{\triangledown}_{\phi_i}\mathcal{L}({\phi}) – \hat{\triangledown}_{\phi_i}^{RB}\mathcal{L}(\phi_i)] = C\mathbb{E}_{q_i}[\triangledown_{\phi_i}[\log q_i(\theta_i;\phi_i)]] = 0$
with $C = \mathbb{E}_{q_{-i}}[\log p_{-i}({x},{\theta}_{-i})] – \mathbb{E}_{q_{-i}}[\sum_{j\neq i}\log q_j(\theta_j;\phi_j)]$
The detailed derivation could be found in [3].

## Control variates

We now introduce another method using regression estimator. Suppose we want to estimate some parameter $\mu$ and we have an estimator $f$ with $\mathbb{E}[f(u)] = \mu$, u is a random variable. Furthermore, if we have a “similar” function $h$ such that $\mathbb{E}[h(u)] = \nu$ is known. Then we define a new estimator of $\mu$:$g(u) = f(u)-\beta(h(u)-\nu)$

This is clearly an unbiased estimator and for the variance term$Var(g(u)) = Var(f(u)) + \beta^2 Var(h(u)) – 2\beta Cov(f(u),h(u))$

In order to minimize this variance, we choose $\hat{\beta} = \frac{Cov(h(u),f(u))}{Var(h(u))}$

This is also the OLS estimator for the linear regression:$f(u) = \mu + \beta(h(u)-\nu)$ Now plugging in this $\hat{\beta}$ we have $Var(g(u)) = Var(f(u))(1-\rho^2_{fh})$ where $\rho^2_{fh}$ is the correlation between $f(u)$ and $h(u)$. Such $h$ is called the control variate.

## Improved BBVI

The original author in [3] combined these two methods and choose $\triangledown_{\phi_i}\log q_i(\theta_i;\phi_i)$ as the control variate for $\hat{\triangledown}_{\phi_i}^{RB}\mathcal{L}(\phi_i)$, which is shown below:

• $t \gets 0$, $\delta \gets \infty$\
• While{$\delta > \tau$}{
• t \gets t+1$•${\theta}^1,…,{\theta}^S\sim q({\theta},{\phi}_{t-1})$• For{$i\gets 1$to$n$}{ •$f_i \gets \frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^S \triangledown_{\phi_i}\log q(\theta_i^s;{\phi}^{t-1}_{i})(\log p_i({\theta}_{(i)}^s,{x})-\log q_i(\theta_i^s;{\phi}_i^{t-1}))$•$h_i\gets \frac{1}{S}\sum_{s} \triangledown_{\phi_i}[\log q_i(\theta_i^s;{\phi}_i^{t-1}))]$•$\hat{\beta}_i \gets \frac{\hat{Cov}(f_i,h_i)}{\hat{Var}(h_i)}$•$g_i \gets f_i-\hat{\beta}h_i$•$\phi_i^t\gets \phi_i^{t-1} + \rho_tg_i$} •$\delta \gets \frac{||{\phi}_t – \phi_{t-1}||}{||{\phi}_{t-1}||}$} • Output{${\phi}^* = {\phi}^t$} ## Final Conclusion for BBVI According to the same authors in [4], they pointed out the limitation of BBVI. They found that the gradient can be very unstable for large values of their inputs, and adaptive step-size like AdaGrad needs extra tunning. Also, they found that, in the case of linear mixed effects model, it under-performs MH-Gibbs sampler. Also, they did experiment in LDA(Latent Dirichlet allocation), Gibbs sampler converged in couple of minutes for 20 topics but BBVI does not produce any reasonable results after hours of iterations for 2 topics. Thus, it requires more experiments and BBVI still has practical limitations. # Differentiable Models: Automatic Differentiation Variational Inference The idea behind Automatic Differentiation Variational Inference(ADVI) is as follows • Transform the parameter space to real space:$T:Supp({\theta})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^k$by a one-to-one mapping. • Let${\psi} = T({\theta})$a joint normal distribution. That is $q({\psi}|{\phi}) \sim \mathcal{N}({\mu},\Sigma)$ Notice that we need to ensure$\Sigma$to be full rank. One way to do that is using Cholesky factorization:$\Sigma = LL^T$where$L$is a lower triangular matrix with dimension$(k+1)k/2$. Overall,${\phi}$lives in$\mathbb{R}^{(k+1)k/2+k}$where$k$is the dimension of parameters in our model. This comes with computational cost, so we may wish to make a mean-field assumption to${\psi}$• Finally we make the standardization${\eta} = S_{{\phi}}({\psi}) = L^{-1}({\psi}-{\mu})$. This makes$q({\eta}) = \mathcal{N}({\eta};{0},{I})$. Following the above recipe, we can rewrite the ELBO as ${\phi}^* = argmin_{\phi} \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{N}({\eta};{0},{I})}\left[\log p\left({x},T^{-1}(S^{-1}_{{\phi}}({\eta}))\right) + \log |detJ_{T^{-1}}(S_{{\phi}}^{-1}({\eta}))|\right] + \mathbb{H}[q({\psi};{\phi})]$ In this case, the variational parameters are contained in the transformation$S$. We now give the gradients:$\triangledown_{{\mu}}\mathcal{L} = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{N}({\eta})}[\triangledown_{{\theta}}\log p({x},{\theta})\triangledown_{{\psi}}T^{-1}({\psi}) + \triangledown_{{\psi}}\log|detJ_{T^{-1}}({\psi})|]$ and $\triangledown_{L}\mathcal{L} =\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{N}({\eta})}[\left(\triangledown_{{\theta}}\log p({x},{\theta})\triangledown_{{\psi}}T^{-1}({\psi}) + \triangledown_{{\psi}}\log|detJ_{T^{-1}}({\psi})|\right){\eta}^T] + (L^{-1})^T$ Now similar to BBVI, we can use MC algorithm and SGD to get an approximate gradient and do gradient descent. In [5] they propose a gradient of the form $\rho_k^i = \eta\times i^{-1/2+\epsilon}\times\left(\tau + \sqrt{s_k^i}\right)^{-1}$ where $s_k^i = \alpha (g_k^i)^2 + (1-\alpha)s_k^{i-1}$ Here$k$is the kth element and$i$is the ith iteration.$g_k^i$is the gradient vector at iteration i, and$s_k^1 = (g_k^1)^2$Notice that here$\eta$is another variable controls the scale of the step size sequence, it could be searched among$\{0.001,0.1,1,10,100\}$.$\epsilon$is set to be small, for example$\epsilon = 10^{-6}$, to satisfy the Robbins and Monro conditions. The last term is to keep the memory of the past gradients. More details could be found in [5]. It is shown that in ADVI, variance of estimates of the gradients is controled better compared to BBVI. The performance is also compared to those famous MC methods, result is also displayed below. [1] John Winn and Christopher M. Bishop. Variational message passing. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6(23):661–694, 2005. [2] David M. Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D. McAuliffe. Variational inference: A review for statisticians. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(518):859–877, apr 2017. [3] Rajesh Ranganath, Sean Gerrish, and David M. Blei. Black box variational inference, 2013. [4] Rajesh Ranganath, Sean Gerrish, and David Blei. Black Box Variational Inference. In Samuel Kaski and Jukka Corander, editors, Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 33 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 814–822, Reykjavik, Iceland, 22–25 Apr 2014. PMLR. [5] Alp Kucukelbir, Dustin Tran, Rajesh Ranganath, Andrew Gelman, and David M. Blei. Automatic differentiation variational inference. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 18(1):430–474, jan 2017. ## Microsoft Research: DataScience@work seminar ### Microsoft Research: DataScience@work seminar 31st May 2024 14:00 - 16:00 ## Advai: DataScience@work seminar ### Advai: DataScience@work seminar 17th May 2024 14:00 - 16:00 ## Student Perspectives: What is Confounding? A post by Emma Tarmey, PhD student on the Compass programme. This blog post serves as an introduction to the problem of confounder handling within the broader topic of covariate selection and model selection for causal inference purposes. In this post, we begin with a motivating example, describe the problem of confounding, describe current solutions to the problem and how statistical solution methods compare to knowledge-based solution methods. It is intended that readers come away from this article understanding which use cases each of the solution methods are intended for, as well as what advantages and disadvantages each method provides. ## Introduction There exists a common saying, “correlation does not imply causation”. This phrase is often used when discussing statistical analyses to describe the idea that just because two phenomena or patterns often appear together, does not automatically mean that one necessarily causes the other. There are a number of reasons why two events, A and B, may occur together, with “A causes B” being only one of several explanations for the observed correlation. In epidemiology, substantiating a causal claim, “causal inference”, can be highly valuable towards determining medical best practice and testing the effectiveness of medical treatments and interventions. A correlation between two events, A and B, may be distorted or even fabricated whole-cloth by the influence of an outside event C, which mutually causes both. As such, particularly in the context of clinical trials for medical treatments, verifying that no such outside influences are distorting our results is essential for producing valid causal inferences. ## Yellow Fingers and Lung Cancer To motivate the idea of a distorted correlation from the introduction, we look to a famous example: the association between the yellowing at the tip’s of ones fingers and incidence of lung cancer.[1][2] We observe from the literature that, when attempting to predict incidence of lung cancer, the yellowing of ones finger tips makes an excellent predictor variable.[1] However, there is no causal link between these two events, instead, both the yellowing and lung cancer are mutually caused by smoking.[2] This, in turn, creates an unhelpful statistical association between the two variables, one which is then correctly estimated in modelling but no longer corresponds just to our causal pathway. As such, when attempting to understand causal factors to lung cancer, it becomes important not to declare yellowing as a cause despite the fact that yellowing may “look like a cause” based on the data itself. One can imagine, in an isolated example like this, it can be straight-forward to detect this from first principles using the existing causal knowledge we have. But, if for example a given study has not recorded smoking as a variable, we become unable to identify the phenomenon and thus unable to correctly attribute the source of our statistical associations. The phenomenon within causal structures of a common cause is referred to as “confounding”, thus giving us the sub-problem of “confounder handling” when attempting to use our statistical models for causal inference. Notably, causal pathways can be more complex than the above example. If we have a longer pathway by which we add to the statistical association between X and Y, any such covariate on that pathway is a potential confounder, whose adjustment will solve our problem. We define our problem formally as follows: ## Problem: Confounder Handling Confounding is defined as the phenomenon within any causal structure wherein both an exposure (input variable) and outcome (output variable) are mutually caused by a third outside variable (the confounder). This in turn creates a statistical association between the two covariates which is not attributable to a causal pathway from X to Y. This phenomenon takes the following general shape: It can be helpful to think of confounder-handling as containing two sub-problems which we solve together: 1. Confounder Identification: Identifying the set of all covariates which act as confounders within a given causal structure 2. Control-Set Selection: Selecting an optimal (by some criterion) subset of these identified confounders to include in the model to best control for confounding This problem can be though of in the following way: We may control for a variable by means of including it within our regression or remove the influence of a variable altogether by stratifying our data. These, in turn, both remove the statistical association attributable to confounding. However, when the causal structure is larger and more complex, correctly handling confounding becomes trickier. Firstly, we risk inducing “selection”, and thus creating more confounding pathways, if we adjust for covariate which confounds the X-Y relationship but is itself also caused by other covariates. Secondly, if we adjust for an “instrument” of X, that being a covariate Z which is a cause of X but not of Y, then we risk amplifying bias from unseen confounding. Thirdly, further issues arise if many covariates within the model are correlated with each other, as then estimating a given causal effect becomes much more difficult, even for an unconfounded model. Additionally, though this may seem to go without saying, we only have the variables that we have. Unmeasured confounding, from a covariate not within our dataset, can very much produce the same distortions but also be impossible to control for. With all this in mind, we look to the existing solutions to these above problems. ## Solution: Confounder-Handling There exist two broad solution types to the problem of confounder-handling, those being: 1. A direct approach working from causal knowledge 2. An indirect approach working from observed data Existing knowledge-based solutions include: • Back-door path criterion: [3] • The back-door path criterion states that the causal effect is identifiable if there does not exist any “back door path” connecting the exposure X and outcome Y within the causal structure. • As such, we may prevent confounding by controlling a variable present on any such existing path to “block” this path and thus prevent confounding via that path. • Front-door path criterion: [3] • The front-door path criterion states that the causal effect is identifiable (our statistical association is still a consistent estimator of the causal effect), even if the backdoor path criterion isn’t strictly satisfied. If we have a “mediator” covariate M, a covariate which sits between two covariates creating a direct path via itself, between X and Y, the the X-Y causal effect remains identifiable if we satisfy all of the following: 1. M intercepts all causal pathways from X to Y 2. There does not exist any backdoor path between X and M 3. X blocks every backdoor path from M to Y • Pre-treatment criterion: [4] • The pre-treatment criterion states that, if we control for all covariates which occur prior to the exposure X in time, then we must necessarily have controlled for all confounders, and thus our causal effect is identifiable. • Common-cause criterion : [4] • The common-cause criterion states that, if we control for any and all covariates who mutually cause both the exposure X and outcome Y, then we must necessarily have controlled for all confounders. • (Twice-modified) Disjunctive-cause criterion: [4] • The (twice-modified) disjunctive cause criterion states that we can construct a sufficient adjustment set S in the following way: 1. Add to our set S any pre-exposure covariate which is a cause of X, Y or both 2. Remove from S any covariate Z which acts as an instrument of X 3. Add to S any covariate which, though not satisfying condition 1, can act as a good proxy for unmeasured confounders of the X-Y relationship • District criterion (iterative graph expansion): [5] • The district criterion states that we have controlled for confounding if we our adjustment set S does indeed leave covariates X and Y in separate “districts” of a specially defined sub-graph of our wider causal structure, the setup of which is beyond the scope of this blog article. • This criterion forms the theoretical justification to the method of iterative graph expansion proposed in the same paper, which readers are encouraged to find from the references if they would like to learn more. Existing statistically-based solutions include: • Step-wise regression: [6] • Stepwise regression is a variable selection and model fitting procedure, which works by means of iteratively adding and removing explanatory variables (covariates other than X and Y) to form an optimal model where all explanatory variables are considered significant by some outside significance criterion (such as AIC). • LASSO (Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator): [7] • LASSO is a parameter estimation procedure typically employed for variable selection, which can be employed similarly for confounder identification. More bespoke statistical solutions include: • Change-in-estimate approach: [8] • The change in estimate approach detects confounding via statistical significance testing, iteratively as covariates are added and removed. The idea, intuitively, is that if removing an outside variable as explanatory has a significant impact on the X-Y relationship, then it was likely confounding the two, and is identified as such. • Targeted maximum likelihood estimators: [9] • Targeted maximum likelihood estimators (TMLEs) are doubly-robust parameter estimators, which can be used for determining regression coefficients for statistical models while optimizing the bias-variance trade-off. This is used for confounder identification similarly to LASSO. We have seen many approaches to the problem, but which is best? In thinking this through, we conclude that which approach is best depends on one’s intended use case. Specifically: 1. Whether or not causal knowledge is available, with causal methods preferred as these provide guarantees of unconfoundedness in the result 2. If causal knowledge is available, how much? Are we able to fully enumerate our problem? Since different knowledge-based methods require different amounts of causal knowledge and provide stronger and weaker results correspondingly, it makes sense to select the approach most suited to the DAG we’re presently examining. However, knowledge-based methods scale poorly to larger causal structures, both in terms of running their algorithms and of enumerating the DAG to begin with – they quickly become intractable. Hence – statistical approaches, which provide weaker results with regards to unconfoundedness, but scale much better to larger causal scenarios and in principle require no causal knowledge to execute. ## Conclusion In conclusion, there exists a problem of confounding within the field of causal inference, and different solutions to this problem offer different advantages and disadvantages. Which solution is necessarily “best” depends upon your use case, specifically size of use-case and amount of causal knowledge available. ## Contact Details Miss Emma Jane Tarmey (she/her), University of Bristol, emma.tarmey@bristol.ac.uk ## References 1. Smith, George Davey and Phillips, Andrew N. Confounding in epidemiological studies: why ”independent” effects may not be all they seem. British Medical Journal, 305(6856):757–759, September 1992. 2. Rothman, Kenneth J. et al. Serum Beta-Carotene: A Mechanism or ”Yellow Finger”? Epidemiology, 3(4):277–279, July 1992. 3. Pearl, Judea. Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika, 82(4):669–710, 1995. 4. VanderWeele, Tyler J. Principles of Confounder Selection. European Journal of Epidemiology, 34:211–219, 2019, Section 4 5. F. Richard Guo and Qingyuan Zhao. Confounder Selection via Iterative Graph Expansion. arXiv, October 2023 6. VanderWeele, Tyler J. Principles of Confounder Selection. European Journal of Epidemiology, 34:211–219, 2019, Section 5 7. Susan M. Shortreed and Ashkan Ertefaie. Outcome-Adaptive Lasso: Variable Selection for Causal Inference. Biometrics, 73:1111–1122, 2017. Publisher: Wiley. 8. Talbot, Denis and Diop, Awa and Lavigne-Robichaud, Mathilde and Brisson, Chantal. The change in estimate method for selecting confounders: A simulation study. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 30(9):2032–2044, 2021. 9. Schuler, Megan S. and Rose, Sherri. Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Causal Inference in Observational Studies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 185(1):65–73, January 2017. ## Student Perspectives: Are larger models always better? A post by Emma Ceccherini, PhD student on the Compass programme. In December 2023, I attended NeurIPS, a machine learning conference, with some COMPASS colleagues. There, I attended a tutorial titled “Reconsidering Overfitting in the Age of Overparameterized Models”. The findings the speakers presented overturn some traditional statistical concepts, so I’d like to share some of these innovative ideas with the COMPASS blog readers. Classical statistician vs deep learning practitioners Classical statisticians argue that small models have high bias but large variance (Figure 1 (left)) and large models have low bias but high variance (Figure 1 (right)). This is called the bias-variance trade-off and is a crucial notion that can be found in all traditional statistic textbooks. Large, over-parameterised models perfectly interpolate the data points by fitting noise and they have a near-zero training error, but an increasing test error. This phenomenon is called overfitting and causes poor performances on unseen data. Overfitting implies low generalisation, which can be thought of as the model’s performance on newly generated data at test time. Therefore, statistics textbooks recommend avoiding overfitting and improving generalization by finding a balance in the bias-variance trade-off, either by reducing the number of parameters or using regularisation (Figure 1 (centre)). However, as available computational power has increased, practitioners have made larger and larger models. For example, neural networks have millions of parameters, more than enough to fit noise, but they generalize very well in practice, performing significantly better than small models. These large over-parametrised models exceed the so-called interpolation threshold that is when the training error is approximately zero. Several theoretical statisticians are trying to infer what happens after this threshold. While we now have some answers, many questions are still up for debate! The double descent Nakkiran et al. [2019] show that in the under-parameterised regime, neural networks test errors exhibit the classical u-shape from the bias-variance trade-off, while in the over-parameterised regime, after the interpolation threshold, the test error decreases again creating the so-called double descent (see Figure 3). Figure 4 shows the test error of a neural network classifier on CIFAR-10, a standard image data set. The plot shows a double descent in the test error for neural networks trained until convergence (purple line). The authors make two more innovative observations: harmless interpolation and good generalisation for large models. It can be observed from Figure 4 that regularisation, equivalent to early stopping (red line), is substantially beneficial around the interpolation threshold. However, as the model size grows the test error for optimal early stopped neural networks (red line) and the one of neural networks trained until convergence test (purple line) overlap. Therefore, For large models, interpolation (trained until convergence) is not worse than regularisation (optimal early stopped), that is interpolation is harmless. Finally, Figure 4 shows that the test error is low as the size of the model grows. Hence, for large models, we can achieve reasonably good test accuracy, namely as a result of good generalisation. Simple maths for linear models Given these groundbreaking experimental results, statisticians seek to use theoretical analysis to understand when these three phenomena occur. Although neural networks were the initial motivation of this work, they are hard to analyse even for shallow networks. And so statisticians resorted to understanding these phenomena starting from the well-known linear models. Over-parameterisation in linear models of the form$\mathbf{Y} = \mathbf{X}\theta^* + \mathbf{W}$means there are more features$d$than number of samples$n$, i.e.$d >n$for an input matrix$\mathbf{X}$of dimension$n \times d$. Then the system$\mathbf{X}\hat{\theta} = \mathbf{Y}$has infinite solutions, thus consider the solution with minimum norm$\hat{\theta} = \text{arg min}||\hat{\theta}||_2$. After the interpolation threshold, the variance is dominating (see Figure 3) so it needs to go down for the test error to go down. Indeed, Bartlett et al. [2020] show that in this setup the variance decreases as$d \gg n$, precisely $$\text{variance} \asymp \frac{\sigma^2n}{d}.$$ It can be shown that data is approximately orthogonal when$d \gg n$, namely$<X_i, X_j> \approx 0$for$i \neq 0$, so the noise “energy” is spread out along the$d$dimensions, hence as$d$grows the noise contribution decreases. However, Bartlett et al. [2020] also show that the bias increases with$d$, precisely $$\text{bias} \asymp (1-\frac{n}{d})||\theta^*||_2^2.$$ This is because the signal “energy” as well is spread out along$d$dimensions. Eventually, the bias will dominate and the test error will increase again, see Figure 5 (left). Therefore under this framework, the double descent and harmless interpolation can be achieved but good generalisation cannot. Finally, Bartlett et al. [2020] show that in the special case where the$k$features are “upweighted”, all three phenomena are observed. Assuming a spiked covariance $$\Sigma = \mathbb{E}[\mathbf{X}\mathbf{X}^T] = \begin{bmatrix} R\mathbf{I}_k & \mathbf{0} \\ \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{I}_{d-k} \end{bmatrix},$$ it can be shown that the variance and the bias will go to zero as$d \rightarrow \infty$provided that$R \gg \frac{d}{n}$, therefore the double descent, harmless interpolation and good generalization are achieved (see Figure 5 (right)). Many unanswered questions remain Similar results to the ones described for linear models have been obtained for linear classification [Muthukumar et al., 2021]. While these types of results for neural networks [Frei et al., 2022] are still limited. Moreover, there are still many open questions on benign overfitting for neural networks. For example, the existing result focuses on$d \gg n$regimes for neural networks, but there are no results on neural networks over-parameterised in low dimensions by increasing their width. Theoretical statisticians still have plenty of work to do to fully understand these phenomena! References Peter L. Bartlett, Philip M. Long, G´abor Lugosi, and Alexander Tsigler. Benign overfitting in linear regression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30063–30070, April 2020. ISSN 1091-6490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1907378117. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907378117. Spencer Frei, Gal Vardi, Peter L. Bartlett, Nathan Srebro, and Wei Hu. Implicit bias in leaky relu networks trained on high-dimensional data, 2022. Vidya Muthukumar, Adhyyan Narang, Vignesh Subramanian, Mikhail Belkin, Daniel Hsu, and Anant Sahai. Classification vs regression in overparameterized regimes: Does the loss function matter?, 2021. Preetum Nakkiran, Gal Kaplun, Yamini Bansal, Tristan Yang, Boaz Barak, and Ilya Sutskever. Deep double descent: Where bigger models and more data hurt, 2019. ## Compass students at ICLR 2024 ## Congratulations to Compass students Edward Milsom and Ben Anson who, along with their supervisor, had their paper accepted for a poster at ICLR 2024. ### Convolutional Deep Kernel Machines Edward Milsom, Ben Anson, Laurence Aitchison Ed and Ben: In this paper we explore the importance of representation learning in convolutional neural networks, specifically in the context of an infinite-width limit called the Neural Network Gaussian Process (NNGP) that is often used by theorists. Representation learning refers to the ability of models to learn a transformation of the data that is tailored to the task at hand. This is in contrast to algorithms that use a fixed transformation of the data, e.g. a support vector machine with a fixed kernel function like the RBF kernel. Representation learning is thought to be critical to the success of convolutional neural networks in vision tasks, but networks in the NNGP limit do not perform representation learning, instead transforming the data with a fixed kernel function. A recent modification to the NNGP limit, called the Deep Kernel Machine (DKM), allows one to gradually “add representation learning back in” to the NNGP, using a single hyperparameter that controls the amount of flexibility in the kernel. We extend this algorithm to convolutional architectures, which required us to develop a new sparse inducing point approximation scheme. This allowed us to test on the full CIFAR-10 image classification dataset, where we achieved state-of-the-art test accuracy for kernel methods, with 92.7%. In the plot below, we see how changing the hyperparameter (x-axis) to reduce flexibility too much harms the performance on unseen data. ## Student Perspectives: Group Testing A post by Rahil Morjaria, PhD student on the Compass programme. ### What is Group Testing? Group Testing was first introduced in the 1940s as a way to test military recruits for syphilis during World War II. By combining blood samples, they hoped to reduce the total number of tests needed to detect the diseased individuals (compared to testing each recruit individually). Example of pooling blood samples, where red and green depicts diseased and not diseased respectively. Since then, there have been many advances in Group Testing with applications not just in detecting diseased individuals but also in communications, cybersecurity and data storage. In essence, whenever we have a situation where we need to detect a proportionally rare occurrence, Group Testing is probably applicable. More formally, if we have some diseased set of individuals of size$k$of a total population$n$, it might be considered (instead of testing each individual separately) to pool people together into groups (with replacement) and test these groups. Matrix Form of Group Testing (each row depicting a test and each column depicting a member of the population) [1]. We often write our test design in matrix form where each row is a group/test and each column indicates a member of the population, where a$1$indicates a individuals inclusion in a test. The relationship between$k$and$n$is quite important, our focus is on the sparse case in which$k = O(n^\alpha)$where$\alpha \in (0,1)$. Often we assume our test apparatus is sensitive enough where a single diseased individual in the test will give us a positive result (as shown in the image above) this is known as the noiseless case (there is vast amounts of work done for different types of noise, for more information check out [1]). ### Adaptive vs Non-Adaptive Group Testing Adaptive Group Testing (as the name suggests) allows us to adapt our subsequent tests by the results of the previous. If we compare this to Non-Adaptive Group Testing, in which we have to define our tests (and thus our groups) before we obtain any results, we can expect stronger results. As our tests have binary outputs, we can obtain at most$1$bit of information per test. As there are$\binom{n}{k}$possible defective sets, we would need$\log_2\binom{n}{k}$bits to uniquely represent each possible set. This gives us the limit of$\log_2\binom{n}{k}$tests needed, this is known as a converse result, a fundamental limit which we are unable to overcome. In the noiseless case, Adaptive Group Testing is able to achieve this fundamental limit. First we split our total items$n$into$k$(the number of defective items) subsets of length$n/k$without replacement, and then perform Binary Splitting. Binary Splitting Adaptive Algorithm. While Adaptive Group Testing is able to reach fundamental limits, our main focus is on Non-Adaptive Group Testing. Non-Adaptive Group Testing has many applications due to it’s ability to be ran in parallel (and other ease of use situations). Non-Adaptive Group Testing procedures are often designed randomly (in which each items inclusion in a test is$Bern(v)$for some$v$) or with near constant column weight (each item is in ‘nearly’ the same amount of tests). Out of these 2 designs near constant column weight gives stronger results. A graph comparing different group testing designs, where the$\text{Rate} = \log_2\binom{n}{k}/T$where$T$is the number of tests needed to recover all the defective items (with high probability for the red lines and with certainty for the purple line). [1] ### Goals While there are many strong results in Group Testing, there is still much to explore. From looking at List Decoding (in which we allow a list of possible defective sets to be outputted), other forms of noise and our efficient algorithms still not being able to match up to our theoretical achievable methods, there is work to be done in all aspects. With improvements in technology, combined with the myriad of applications, the future of Group Testing definitely looks bright! ### References: [1] M. Aldridge, O. Johnson, and J. Scarlett. Group testing: an information theory perspective. CoRR, abs/1902.06002, 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.06002. ## Student Perspectives: Machine Learning Models for Probability Distributions A post by Tennessee Hickling, PhD student on the Compass programme. Introduction Probabilistic modelling provides a consistent way to deal with uncertainty in data. The central tool in this methodology is the probability distribution, which describes the randomness of observations. To create effective models of reality, we need to be able to specify probability distributions that are flexible enough to capture real phenomena whilst remaining feasible to estimate. In the past decade machine learning (ML) has developed many new and exciting ways to represent and learn potentially complex probability distributions. ML has provided significant advances in modelling of high dimensional and highly structured data such as images or text. Many of these modern approaches are applied as “generative models”. The goal of such approaches is to sample new synthetic observations from an approximate distribution which closely matches the target distribution. For example, we may use many images of cats to learn an approximate distribution, from which we can sample new images of cats that appear realistic. Usually, a “generative model” indicates the requirement to sample from the model, but not necessarily assign probabilities to observed data. In this case, the model captures uncertainty by imitating the structure and randomness of the data. Many of these modern methods work by transforming simple randomness (such as a Normal distribution) into the target complex randomness. In my own research, I work on a known limitation of such approaches to replicate a particular aspect of randomness – the tails of probability distributions [1, 11]. In this post, I wanted to take a step back and provide an overview of and connections between two ML methods that can be used to model probability distributions – Normalising Flows (NFs) and Variational Autoencoders (VAEs). Figure 1: Basic illustration of ML learning of a distribution. We optimise the machine learning model to produce a distribution close to our target. This is often conceptualised in the generative direction, such that our ML model moves samples from the simple distribution to more closely match the target observations. Some Background Consider real valued vectors$z \in \mathbb{R}^{d_z}$and$x \in \mathbb{R}^{d_x}$. In this post I mirror notation used in [2], where$p(x)$refers to the density and distribution of$x$and$x \sim p(x)$indicates samples according to that distribution. The generic set up I am considering is that of density estimation – trying to model the distribution$p(x)$of some observed data$\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{N}$. I use a semicolon to denote parameters, so$p(x; \beta)$is a distribution over$x$with parameters$\beta$. I also make use of different letters to distinguish different distributions, for example using$q(x)$to denote an approximation to$p(x)$. The notation$\mathbb{E}_p[f(x)]$refers to the standard expectation of$f(x)$over the distribution$p$. The discussed methods introduce some simple source of randomness arising from a known, simple latent distribution$p(z)$. This is also referred to in some literature as the prior, though the usage is not straightforwardly relatable to traditional Bayesian concepts. The goal is then to fit an approximate$q(x|z; \theta)$, that is a conditional distribution, such that $$q(x; \theta) = \int q(x|z; \theta)p(z)dz \approx p(x),$$in words, the marginal density over$x$implied by the conditional density, is close to our target distribution$p(x)$. In general, we can’t compute$q(x)$, as we can’t solve the above integral for very flexible$q(x | z; \theta)$. Variational Inference We commonly make use of the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence, which can be interpreted as measuring the difference between two probability distributions. It is a useful practical tool, since we can compute and optimise the quantity in a wide variety of situations. Techniques which optimise a probability distribution using such divergences are known as variational methods. There are other choices of divergence, but KL is the most standard. Important properties of KL are that the quantity$KL(p|| q)$is non-negative and non-symmetric i.e.$KL(p|| q) \neq KL(q || p)$. Given this, we can see that a natural objective is to minimise the difference between distributions, as measured by the KL, $$KL(p(x) || q(x; \theta)) = \int p(x) \log \frac{p(x)}{q(x; \theta)} dx.$$Advances in this area have mostly developed new ways to make this optimisation tractable for flexible$q(x | z; \theta)$. Normalising Flow A normalising flow is a parameterised transformation of a random variable. The key simplifying assumption is that the forward generation is deterministic. That is, for$d_x = d_z$, that $$x = T(z; \theta),$$for some transformation function$T$. We additionally require that$T$is a differentiable bijection. Given these requirements, we can express the approximate density of$x$exactly as $$q_x(x; \theta) = p_z(T^{-1}(x; \theta))\big|\text{det } J_{T^{-1}}(x; \theta)\big|.$$Here,$\text{det }J_{T^{-1}}$is the determinant of the Jacobian of the inverse transformation. Research on NFs has developed numerous ways to make the computation of the Jacobian term tractable. The standard approach is to use neural networks to produce$\theta$(the parameters of the transformation), with numerous ways of configuring the model to capture dependency between dimensions. Additionally, we often stack many layers to provide more flexibility. See [10] and the review [2] for more details on how this is achieved. As we have access to an analytic approximate density, we can minimise the negative log-likelihood of our model, $$\mathcal{J}(\theta) = -\sum_{i=1}^{N} \log q(x_i; \theta),$$which is the Monte-Carlo approximation of the KL loss (up to an additive constant). This is straightforward to optimise using stochastic gradient descent [9] and automatic differentiation. Figure 2: Schematic of NF model. The ML model produces the parameters of our transformation, which are identical in the forward and backwards directions. We choose the transformation such that we can express an analytic density function for our approximate distribution. Variational Autoencoder In the Variational Autoencoder (VAE) [3] the conditional distribution$q(x| z; \theta)$is known as the decoder. VAEs consider the marginal in terms of the posterior, that is $$q(x; \theta) = \frac{q(x | z; \theta)p(z)}{q(z | x; \theta)}.$$The posterior$q(z | x; \theta)$is itself not generally tractable. VAEs proceed by introducing an encoder, which approximates$q(z | x; \theta)$. This is itself simply a conditional distribution$e(z | x; \psi)$. We use this approximation to express the log marginal over$xas below. \begin{align} \log q(x; \theta) &= \mathbb{E}_{e}\bigg[\log q(x; \theta)\frac{e(z | x; \psi)}{e(z | x; \psi)}\bigg] \\ &= \mathbb{E}_{e}\bigg[\log\frac{q(x | z; \theta)p(z)}{q(z | x; \theta)}\frac{e(z | x; \psi)}{e(z | x; \psi)}\bigg] \\ &= \mathbb{E}_{e}\bigg[\log\frac{q(x | z; \theta)p(z)}{e(z | x; \psi)}\bigg] + KL(e(z | x; \psi) || q(z | x; \theta)) \\ &= \mathcal{J}_{\theta,\psi} + KL(e(z | x; \psi) || q(z | x; \theta)) \end{align} The additional approximation gives a more complex expression and does not provide an analytical approximate density. However, asKL(e(z | x; \psi) || q(z | x; \theta))$is positive,$\mathcal{J}_{\theta,\psi}$forms a lower bound on$\log q(x; \theta)$. This expression is commonly referred to as the Evidence Lower Bound (or ELBO). The second term, the divergence between our encoder and the implied posterior will be minimised as we increase$\mathcal{J}_{\theta,\psi}$in$\psi$. As we increase$\mathcal{J}_{\theta,\psi}$, we will either be increasing$\log q(x; \theta)$or reducing$KL(e(z | x; \psi) || q(z | x; \theta))$. The goal is to increase$\log q(x; \theta)$, which we hope occurs as we optimise over both parameters. This ambiguity in optimisation results in well known issues, such as posterior collapse [12] and can result in some counter-intuitive behaviour [4]. Despite this, VAEs remain a powerful and popular approach. An important benefit is that we no longer require$d_x = d_z$, which means we can map high dimensional$x$to low dimensional$z$to perform dimensionality reduction. Figure 3: Schematic of VAE model. We now have a stochastic forward transformation. To optimise this we introduce a decoder model which approximates the posterior implied by the forward transformation. We now have a more flexible transformation, but two models to train and no analytic approximate density. Surjective Flows We can now identify a connection between NFs and VAEs. Recent work has reinterpreted NFs within the VAE framework, permitting a broader class of transitions whilst retaining analytic tractability of NFs [5]. Considering our decoding conditional as $$q(x|z; \theta) = \delta(x – T(z; \theta)),$$ we have the posterior exactly as $$q(z|x; \theta) = \delta(z – T^{-1}(x; \theta)),$$ where$\delta$is the dirac delta function. This provides a view of a NF as a special case of a VAE, where we don’t need to approximate the posterior. Considering our VAE approximation, $$\log q(x; \theta) = \mathbb{E}_e\big[\log p(z) + \log\frac{q(x | z; \theta)}{e(z | x; \psi)}\big] + KL(e(z | x; \psi) || q(z | x; \theta)),$$and taking$e(z | x; \psi) = q(z | x; \theta)$, then the final KL term is 0 by definition. In that case, we recover our analytic density for NFs (see [5] for details). Note that accessing an analytic density depends on having$e(z | x; \psi) = q(z | x; \theta)$and computing $$\mathbb{E}_e\big[\log p(z) + \log\frac{q(x | z; \theta)}{e(z | x; \psi)}\big].$$These requirements are actually weaker than those we apply in the case of standard NFs. Consider a deterministic transformation$T^{-1}(x)$which is surjective, crucially we can have many$x$which map to the same$z$, so no longer have an analytic inverse. However we can still choose a$q(x | z)$which is stochastic inverse of$T^{-1}$. For example, consider an absolute value surjection,$q(z | x) = \delta(z – |x|)$, to invert this transformation we can choose$q(x | z) = \frac{1}{2}\delta(x – z) + \frac{1}{2}\delta(x + z)$, which we can sample from straight-forwardly. This transformation enforces symmetry across the origin in the approximate distribution, a potentially useful inductive bias. In this example, and many others, we can also compute the density exactly. This has led to a number of interesting extensions to NFs, such as “funnel flows” which have$d_z < d_x\$ but retain an analytic approximate density [6]. As we retain an analytic approximate density, we can optimise them in the same way as NFs.

Figure 4: Schematic of a surjective transformation. We have a stochastic forward transformation, but the inverse is deterministic. This restricts what transformations we can have, but retains an analytic approximate density.

Conclusion
I have presented an overview of two widely-used methods for modelling probability distributions with machine learning techniques. I’ve also highlighted an interesting connection between these methods, an area of research that has led to the development of interesting new models. It’s worth noting that other important classes of ML models such as Generative Adversarial Networks and Diffusion models can also be interpreted as approximate probability distributions. There are many superficial connections between those methods and the ones discussed here. Exploring these theoretical similarities presents an compelling direction of research to sharpen understanding of such models’ relative advantages. Another promising direction is the synthesis of these methods, where researchers aim to harness the strengths of each approach [7,8]. This not only enhances the existing knowledge base but also offers opportunities for innovative applications in the field.

References
[1] Jaini, Priyank, et al. “Tails of Lipschitz triangular flows.” International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2020
[2] Papamakarios, G., et al. “Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference.” Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2021
[3] Kingma, Diederik P., and Max Welling. “Auto-encoding variational bayes.” arXiv:1312.6114, 2013
[4] Rainforth, Tom, et al. “Tighter variational bounds are not necessarily better.” International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2018
[5] Nielsen, Didrik, et al. “Survae flows: Surjections to bridge the gap between vaes and flows.” Advances in Neural Information Processing, 2020
[6] Samuel Klein, et al. “Funnels: Exact maximum likelihood with dimensionality reduction.” arXiv:2112.08069, 2021
[7] Kingma, Durk P., et al. “Improved variational inference with inverse autoregressive flow.” Advances in neural information processing systems , 2016
[8] Zhang, Qinsheng, and Yongxin Chen. “Diffusion normalizing flow.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34, 2021
[10] Daniel Ward “An introduction to normalising flows” https://compass.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2022/07/13/2608/
[11] Tennessee Hickling and Dennis Prangle, “Flexible Tails for Normalising Flows, with Application to the Modelling of Financial Return Data”, 8th MIDAS Workshop, ECML PKDD, 2023
[12] Lucas, James, et al. “Don’t blame the elbo! a linear vae perspective on posterior collapse.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, 2019

## Student perspectives: Compass Annual Conference 2023

A post by Dominic Broadbent, PhD student on the Compass CDT, and Michael Whitehouse, PhD student of the Compass CDT (recently submitted thesis)

## Introduction

September saw the second annual Compass Conference, hosted in the Fry Building, the home of the School of Mathematics. The event was particularly special as it is the first time that all five Compass cohorts were brought together, and it was a fantastic opportunity to celebrate the achievements and research of the Compass CDT with external partners.  This year the theme was “Communicating Research in Context“, focusing on how research can be better communicated, and the need to highlight the motivation and applications of mathematical research.

## Research talks

The day began with four long form talks touching on the topic of communicating research. Starting with Alessio Zakaria’s talk which delved into Hypothesis tests, commenting on their criticial role as the defacto statistical tool across the sciences, and how p-hacking has led to a replication crisis that undermines public confidence in research. The next talk by Sam Stockman and Emerald Dilworth discussed the challenges they faced, and the key takeaways from their shared experience of communicating mathematics with researchers in the geographical sciences. Following this, Ed Davis’s interactive talk “The Universal Language of Visualisations” explored how effective visualisation techniques should differ by the intended audience, with examples from his research and activities outside of academia. The last talk by Dan Milner explored his research on understanding the effect of environmental factors on outcomes of smallholder farmers in Kenya. He took us through the process of collecting data on the ground, to modelling and communicating results to external partners.  After each talk there was an opportunity to ask questions, allowing for audience participation and the sparking of interesting discussions. The format mirrored that which is most frequently used in external academic conferences, giving the speakers a chance to practice their technique in front of friendly faces.

## Lightning talks

After a short break, we jumped back into the fray with a series of 3-minute fast-paced lightning talks. A huge range of topics were covered, all the way from developing modelling techniques for the electric grid of the future, to predicting the incidence of Cerebral Vasospasm at the Southmead Hospital ICU. With such a short time to present, these talks were a great exercise in distilling research into just the essentials, knowing there is very limited time to garner the audience’s interest and convey an effective message.

## Special guest lecture

After lunch, we reconvened to attend the special guest lecture. The talk, entitled Bridging the gap between research and industry, was delivered by Ruth Voisey, CEO of the Smith institute. It outlined Ruth’s journey from writing her PhD thesis ‘Multiple wave scattering by quasiperiodic structures’, to CEO of the Smith Institute – via an internship with the acoustic research team at Dyson. It was particularly refreshing to hear Ruth’s candid account of her ‘non-linear’ rise to CEO, accrediting her success to strong principles of clear research communication and ‘mathematical evangelicalism’.

As PhD students in the bubble of academia, the path to opportunities in the world of industry can often feel clouded – Ruth’s lecture painted a clear picture of how one can transition from university based research to a rewarding career outside of this bubble, applying such research to tangible problems in the real world.

## Panel discussion and poster session

The special guest lecture was followed by a discussion on communicating research in context, with panel members Ruth Voisey, David Greenwood, Helen Barugh, Oliver Johnson, plus Compass CDT students Ed Davis and Sam Stockman. The panel discussed the difficulty of communicating the nuances of research conclusions with the public, with a particular focus on handling these nuances when talking to journalists – stressing the importance of communicating the limitations of the research in question.

This was followed by a poster session, one enthusiastic student had the following comment “it was great to see of all the Compass students’ hard work being celebrated and shared with the wider data science community”.

## Concluding remarks

To cap off the successful event, Compass students Hannah Sansford and Josh Givens delivered some concluding remarks which were drawn from comments made by students about what key points they’d taken from the day. These focused on the importance of clear communication of research throughout the whole pipeline, from inception in discussion with fellow academics to the dissemination of knowledge to the general population.

The day ended with a walk to Goldney Hall, where students, staff, and attendees enjoyed delicious food, wine, and access to the beautiful Orangery gardens.

## Student Perspectives: Density Ratio Estimation with Missing Data

A post by Josh Givens, PhD student on the Compass programme.

Density ratio estimation is a highly useful field of mathematics with many applications.  This post describes my research undertaken alongside my supervisors Song Liu and Henry Reeve which aims to make density ratio estimation robust to missing data. This work was recently published in proceedings for AISTATS 2023.

## Density Ratio Estimation

### Definition

As the name suggests, density ratio estimation is simply the task of estimating the ratio between two probability densities. More precisely for two RVs (Random Variables) $Z^0, Z^1$ on some space $\mathcal{Z}$ with probability density functions (PDFs) $p_0, p_1$ respectively, the density ratio is the function $r^*:\mathcal{Z}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ defined by

$r^*(z):=\frac{p_0(z)}{p_1(z)}$.

Density ratio estimation (DRE) is then the practice of using IID (independent and identically distributed) samples from $Z^0$ and $Z^1$ to estimate $r^*$. What makes DRE so useful is that it gives us a way to characterise the difference between these 2 classes of data using just 1 quantity, $r^*$.

### The Density Ratio in Classification

We now give demonstrate this characterisability in the case of classification. To frame this as a classification problem define $Y\sim\text{Bernoulli}(0.5)$ and $Z$ by $Z|Y=y\sim Z^{y}$. The task of predicting $Y$ given $Z$ using some function $\phi:\mathcal{Z}\rightarrow\{0,1\}$ is then our standard classification problem. In classification a common target is the Bayes Optimal Classifier, the classifier $\phi^*$ which maximises $\mathbb{P}(Y=\phi(Z)).$ We can write this classifier in terms of $r^*$  as we know that $\phi^*(z)=\mathbb{I}\{\mathbb{P}(Y=1|Z=z)>0.5\}$ where $\mathbb{I}$ is the indicator function. Then, by the total law of probability, we have

$\mathbb{P}(Y=1|Z=z)=\frac{p_{Z|Y=1}(z)\mathbb{P}(Y=1)}{p_{Z|Y=1}(z)\mathbb{P}(Y=1)+p_{Z|Y=0}(z)\mathbb{P}(Y=0)}$

$=\frac{p_1(z)\mathbb{P}(Y=1)}{p_1(z)\mathbb{P}(Y=1)+p_0(z)\mathbb{P}(Y=0)} =\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\mathbb{P}(Y=0)}{\mathbb{P}(Y=1)}}.$

Hence to learn the Bayes optimal classifier it is sufficient to learn the density ratio and a constant. This pattern extends well beyond Bayes optimal classification to many other areas such as error controlled classification, GANs, importance sampling, covariate shift, and others.  Generally speaking, if you are in any situation where you need to characterise the difference between two classes of data, it’s likely that the density ratio will make an appearance.

### Estimation Implementation – KLIEP

Now we have properly introduced and motivated DRE, we need to look at how we can go about performing it. We will focus on one popular method called KLIEP here but there are a many different methods out there (see Sugiyama et al 2012 for some additional examples.)

The intuition behind KLIEP is simple: as $r^* \cdot p_0=p_1$, if $\hat r\cdot p_0$ is “close” to $p_1$ then $\hat r$ is a good estimate of $r^*$. To measure this notion of closeness KLIEP uses the KL (Kullback-Liebler) divergence which measures the distance between 2 probability distributions. We can now formulate our ideal KLIEP objective as follows:

$\underset{r}{\text{min}}~ KL(p_1|p_0\cdot r)$

$\text{subject to:}~ \int_{\mathcal{Z}}r(z)p_0(z)\mathrm{d}z=1$

where $KL(p|p')$ represent the KL divergence from $p$ to $p'$. The constraint  ensures that the right hand side of our KL divergence is indeed a PDF. From the definition of the KL-divergence we can rewrite the solution to this as $\hat r:=\frac{\tilde r}{\mathbb{E}[r(X^0)]}$ where $\tilde r$ is the solution to the unconstrained optimisation

$\underset{r}{\text{min}}~\mathbb{E}[\log (r(Z^1))]-\log(\mathbb{E}[r(Z^0)]).$

As this is now just an unconstrained optimisation over expectations of known transformations of $Z^0, Z^1$, we can approximate this using samples. Given samples $z^0_1,\dotsc,z^0_n$ from $Z_0$ and samples $z^1_1,\dotsc,z^1_n$ from $Z_1$ our estimate of the density ratio will be $\hat r:=\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^nr(z_i^0)\right)^{-1}\tilde r$  where $\tilde r$ solves

$\underset{r}{\min}~ \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \log(r(z^1_i))-\log\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n r(z^0_i)\right).$

Despite KLIEP being commonly used, up until now it has not been made robust to missing not at random data. This is what our research aims to do.

## Missing Data

Suppose that instead of observing samples from $Z$, we observe samples from some corrupted version of $Z$, $X$. We assume that $\mathbb{P}(\{X=\varnothing\}\cup \{X=Z\})=1$ so that either $X$ is missing or $X$ takes the value of $Z$. We also assume that whether $X$ is missing depends upon the value of $Z$. Specifically we assume $\mathbb{P}(X=\varnothing|Z=z)=\varphi(z)$ with $\varphi(z)$ not constant and refer to $\varphi$ as the missingness function. This type of missingness is known as missing not at random (MNAR) and when dealt with improperly can lead to biased result. Some examples of MNAR data could be readings take from a medical instrument which is more likely to err when attempting to read extreme values or recording responses to a questionnaire where respondents may be more likely to not answer if the deem their response to be unfavourable. Note that while we do not see what the true response would be, we do at least get a response meaning that we know when an observation is missing.

## Missing Data with DRE

We now go back to density ratio estimation in the case where instead of observing samples from  $Z^0,Z^1$  we observe samples from their corrupted versions $X^0, X^1$. We take their respective missingness functions to be $\varphi_0, \varphi_1$ and assume them to be known. Now let us look at what would happen if we implemented KLIEP with the data naively by simply filtering out the missing-values. In this case, the actual density ratio we would be estimating would be

$r'(z):=\frac{p_{X_1|X_1\neq\varnothing}(z)}{p_{X_0|X_o\neq\varnothing}(z)}\propto\frac{(1-\varphi_1(z))p_1(z)}{(1-\varphi_0(z))p_0(z)}\not{\propto}r^*(z)$

and so we would get inaccurate estimates of the density ratio no matter how many samples are used to estimate it. The image below demonstrates this in the case were samples in class $1$ are more likely to be missing when larger and class $0$ has no missingness.

### Our Solution

Our solution to this problem is to use importance weighting. Using relationships between the densities of $X$ and $Z$ we have that

$\mathbb{E}[g(Z)]=\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{\mathbb{I}\{X\neq\varnothing\}g(X)}{1-\varphi(X)}\right].$

As such we can re-write the KLIEP objective to keep our expectation estimation unbiased even when using these corrupted samples. This gives our modified objective which we call M-KLIEP as follows. Given samples $x^0_1,\dotsc,x^0_n$ from $X_0$ and samples $x^1_1,\dotsc,x^1_n$ from $X_1$ our estimate is $\hat r=\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\mathbb{I}\{x_i^0\neq\varnothing\}r(x_i^0)}{1-\varphi_o(x_i^o)}\right)^{-1}\tilde r$ where $\tilde r$ solves

$\underset{r}{\min}~\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\mathbb{I}\{x_i^1\neq\varnothing\}\log(r(x_i^1))}{1-\varphi_1(x_i^1)}-\log\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\mathbb{I}\{x_i^0\neq\varnothing\}r(x_i^0)}{1-\varphi_0(x_i^0)}\right).$

This objective will now target $r^*$ even when used on MNAR data.

### Application to Classification

We now apply our density ratio estimation on MNAR data to estimate the Bayes optimal classifier. Below shows a plot of samples alongside the true Bayes optimal classifier and estimated classifiers from the samples via our method M-KLIEP and a naive method CC-KLIEP which simply ignores missing points. Missing data points are faded out.

As we can see, due to not accounting for the MNAR nature of the data, CC-KLIEP underestimates the true number of class 1 samples in the top left region and therefore produces a worse classifier than our approach.

As well as this modified objective our paper provides the following additional contributions:

• Theoretical finite sample bounds on the accuracy of our modified procedure.
• Methods for learning the missingness functions $\varphi_1,\varphi_0$.
• Expansions to partial missingness via a Naive-Bayes framework.
• Downstream implementation of our method within Neyman-Pearson classification.
• Adaptations to Neyman-Pearson classification itself making it robust to MNAR data.

For more details see our paper and corresponding github repository. If you have any questions on this work feel free to contact me at josh.givens@bristol.ac.uk.

### References

Givens, J., Liu, S., & Reeve, H. W. J. (2023). Density ratio estimation and neyman pearson classification with missing data. In F. Ruiz, J. Dy, & J.-W. van de Meent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics (Vol. 206, pp. 8645–8681). PMLR.
Sugiyama, M., Suzuki, T., & Kanamori, T. (2012). Density Ratio Estimation in Machine Learning. Cambridge University Press.