arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2112.08096stat.COmath.STq-bio.QMstat.TH
收藏

测量无似然推理的准确性

Measuring the accuracy of likelihood-free inference

Aden Forrow, Ruth E. Baker

摘要:

无法评估可能性的复杂科学模型对统计推断提出了挑战。在过去的二十年中,已经提出了各种各样的算法,用于以计算上可行的方式学习参数,通常在近似贝叶斯计算或无似然推理的标题下。然而,对于如何严格评估这些算法的性能,还没有达成共识。在这里,我们认为评分算法的均方误差估计的期望函数的后验。我们发现,分数意味着共同的选择,包括接受率和有效的样本量,作为限制的特殊情况。然后,我们分别推导出选择或采样离散或连续模拟参数的渐近最优分布。我们的建议与基于有效性区域之外的替代分数的指南有很大不同。作为一个应用程序,我们表明序贯蒙特卡罗在这种情况下,可以更准确地接受粒子从所有轮没有新的样本。

英文摘要:

Complex scientific models where the likelihood cannot be evaluated present a challenge for statistical inference. Over the past two decades, a wide range of algorithms have been proposed for learning parameters in computationally feasible ways, often under the heading of approximate Bayesian computation or likelihood-free inference. There is, however, no consensus on how to rigorously evaluate the performance of these algorithms. Here, we argue for scoring algorithms by the mean squared error in estimating expectations of functions with respect to the posterior. We show that score implies common alternatives, including the acceptance rate and effective sample size, as limiting special cases. We then derive asymptotically optimal distributions for choosing or sampling discrete or continuous simulation parameters, respectively. Our recommendations differ significantly from guidelines based on alternative scores outside of their region of validity. As an application, we show sequential Monte Carlo in this context can be made more accurate with no new samples by accepting particles from all rounds.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑