Empirical Bayes Quantile-Prediction - Statistics

Click here to load reader

  • date post

  • Category


  • view

  • download


Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Empirical Bayes Quantile-Prediction - Statistics

Microsoft Word - Empirical Bayes_Check-loss_BFF4.docxLawrence D. Brown Wharton School, Univ. of Pennsylvania
BFF4, May 2, 2017 Joint work with
Gourab Mukherjee and Paat Rusmevichientong Marshall School, U. S. C.
Preprint available on ArXiv. NOTE: In several places the symbol ν should read ν 2 . This correction should be clear from the context.
Multiple Independent Gaussian Problems • n independent problems, indexed by i =1,..,n
• Observe Xi ∼N θi ,vPi2( )
[ θi unknown; vP , i known] [In applications, Xi might be Xi = Xii with
Xik ∼ iid N θi ,σ i 2( ), k =1,..,Ki , vP ,i
2 =σ i 2 Ki .]
Quantile Prediction • For each i ∃ potential future observation Yi ∼N θi ,νF ,i( ). [Again this might be average of several iid var’s.]
• Note that for each i, the mean θi is same for both Past and Future.
• Fix bi ∈ 0,1( ), i =1,..,n. Goal is to predict the bi -th quantile of dist. of Yi for each index, i. This quantile is
q0,i =θi + vF ,iΦ −1 bi( ).
• The naïve coordinate-wise predictor is q0,i = Xi + vF ,iΦ
−1 bi( ). NOTE: This is formal Bayes for uniform prior
Shrinkage Estimation • Generally beneficial in multi-mean problems (and many other multivariate settings).
• But the shrinkage needs to be properly implemented. • For homoscedastic problems this is well understood. (Stein estimation)
• But the current problem is quite heteroskedastic:
vP ,i , vF ,i , bi can all depend on i. • For such problems minimax shrinkage may dramatically differ from Empirical Bayes shrinkage;
• And, well-implemented E-B shrinkage is usually preferable
See Efron and Morris (1973, 1975) … … and Xie, Kou, Brown (2012, 2015)
Parametric Empirical Bayes • We follow the hierarchical conjugate-prior paradigm
Efron and Morris (op. cit.), Stein (1962), Lindley (1962), Lindley and Smith (1972) … .
• θ1 ,..,θn ∼ iid N η ,τ 2( ) • η ,τ 2 are unknown hyper-parameters to be estimated from the data.
• Let η ,τ 2 denote the estimates.
For simplicity and notational simplicity: • Consider (for the talk) the case where η =0 is known. (Paper allows unknown η and estimates it along with τ .)
• If τ is known then posterior distribution of ! θ known (&
Gaussian) • Yields known, Gaussian predictive distribution for each future Yi : Let α i = τ
2 τ 2 + vP ,i( ), then FYi y τ
2 ,Xi( ) =N α i Xi ,vF ,i +α ivP ,i( ) . So quantile prediction is q Xi ;τ 2( ) =α i Xi + vF ,i +α ivP ,i( )Φ−1 bi( ) .
• The role of the E-B prior structure is only to motivate this family of quantile predictors.
“Direct” E-B quantile prediction • Could use data + any plausible estimate of τ 2, the hyper-parameter(s), and plug in.
• i.e., could use marginal MLE τ 2 and get prediction q Xi ;τ 2( ). • Or could similarly use M of M estimate instead of MLE. • These (and other) plausible estimates of τ 2 are different & give different predictors.
• They’re not “bad”. • BUT none of these needs to be the best choice.
See Xie, Kou, Brown (2012) about the more familiar estimation of means problem.
Formulation with Loss Function
To investigate optimal choice of τ 2 in q Xi ; τ 2( ) impose a
predictive loss function under which qτ = q Xi ;τ 2( ) is the natural predictor of q when τ 2 is known.
Then find ‘best’ (or, just ‘good’) τ 2 = τ 2 "X( ) under this
loss. Use q = q Xi ;
τ 2( ) for each i.
• Check-Loss (aka, pinball loss or quantile loss). Let b,h>0; normalize by b+h=1 (w.l.o.g). i-th component of predictive loss is i Yi ,q( ) = bi q−Yi( )+ +hi Yi −q( )+
Note that bi ,hi are known and allowed to depend on i.
Plot of Check Loss
This loss has been introduced here as a device to evaluate potential Quantile- predictors. But it has motivation in various applications. For example:
! θ , !q( ) = n−1 Eθi
i Yi , qi ! X( )( )( )∑ .
• When using a particular hyper-parameter estimator,
!τ 2 = !τ 2
i Yi , qi Xi ; "τ 2 ! X( )( )( )( )∑ .
• Goal is to create a good/best estimator !τ .
• KEY is to find a good and (nearly) unbiased estimator of n
−1 Eθi i Yi , qi Xi ;τ 2( )( )( )∑ [Note what happened to τ 2 .]
• Call it RE ! "
X ;τ 2( ). [ RE! is a fnct. of ! X , but not of
! Y .]
• Then choose
RE# " X ;τ 2( ){ } .
Why does this yield the best τ 2 (as n→∞)? Because there is a best τ 2 (as n→∞).
Oracle “Predictor”
2 ! X ; ! θ( ) = argminτ 2
R θ ;τ 2( ). • Then show [as n→∞ for every (L1 b’nded) seq
! θ ]
" X ; " θ( ) in prob, &
! θ ;τOR2( ).
Two Major Steps • Step 1: Create the (asymptotic) risk estimator RE
! τ 2( ) to yield a suitable approximation (1).
• Step 2: Prove it has the desired convergence and risk properties (2) and (3).
The two steps are interrelated: • RE ! τ 2( ) needs to produce a satisfactory approximation in (1), and be computationally feasible.
• AND it also needs to enable Step 2.
(1) Eθi
RE! " X ;τ 2( )( )≈n−1 Eθi
i Yi , qi Xi ;τ 2( )( )( )∑ ,
where i is check-loss. • If i were squared error then can use SURE. • But i is not differentiable. So something like SURE
seems a b i g s t r e t c h!
i * θi ,q( )" Eθi
Yi i Yi ,q( )( ) = vF ,i G q−θi vF ,i

G w , b( ) = w( )+wΦ w( )−bw . • G is a smooth, C∞ , function. And i
* θi ,q( )≥0 plays the role of a conventional loss function.
• Here’s a picture of G for b=0.7:
Of the loss
Linear Tail approxima)on
Creation of the Asymptotic Risk Estimator ARE! For vP ,i =1 (for simplicity): (a) Approximate G w ,bi( ) by Taylor expansion (“TE”) to
K(i) terms. (b) Substitute qi Xi ;τ( )−θi =w . (c) The resulting expectation is, say, Eθi
TE Xi ,θi( )( ). It includes powers of θi times functions of Xi .
(d) Integrate by parts to create an equivalent expectation that contains only functions of Xi & no terms with θi .
(e) Step (d) could be understood as a version of SURE generalized to higher powers of θi .
(f) Actual computation is greatly facilitated by use of Hermite polynomials.
(g) The resulting expectand is a function of Xi that is an unbiased estimate of the expected Taylor approximation. That’s the core of our ARE! .
(h) There are some additional (clever) steps needed to handle large values of W, for which Taylor expansion is not good.
(i) Just to impress you, here’s the core of ARE! without the additional steps in (h): (In the following Ui τ( ) is a minor truncation/modification of Xi and di τ( ) is a simple rational function of τ ,vP ,i ,bi . This is copied from the paper, which uses the notation “τ ” in place of “ τ 2 ”. )
(j) Choose Kn(i), the number of terms in the Taylor
expansion. This varies with i, but is O logn( ). (k) Then add over i to get ARE! .
(l) Finally, find the desired argminτ ARE!( ) via a discrete
grid search.
Step 2: Prove the desired asymptotic properties
There are some clues in Xie, Kou and Brown (2012). But parts of the proof here differ in key respects from what’s there, and the details here are much more complex.
Simulation #1 Homoscedastic ( σ 2 =1). Two types of θi ,bi( ) pairs: 0.58,0.51( ) with prob 0.9 5.1,0.9( ) with prob 0.1
Comparison of pred. risks of three pred. methods #coord’s→ n=20 n=20 n=50 n=50 Method ↓ Efficiency Ave. of τ 2 Efficiency % Ave. of τ 2 ARE 86% 1.21 99% 0.344 ML/MM 68% 0.037 69% 0.037 Oracle 100% 0.296 0.296 Note: Because model is homoscedastic, MaxLik and MethMom are the same
Simulations #3 This was a set of 6 simulations involving different
scenarios, all with heteroscedastic data and random choices for parameters and bi . e.g., In the first setup (the simplest)
νP 2 ∼U 0.1,0.33( ) ,νF2 =1, θ ∼U 0,1( ), b∼U 0.5,0.99( ), all indep. In these 6 scenarios the efficiency of our ARE predictor
relative to the oracle was For n=20: 88% < Eff. < 98% For n=100: 91% < Eff. < 99%.
[Note: The last scenario involved uniformly distributed observations, rather than normally distributed ones. But it isn’t reported in the manuscript whether the oracle knew and used that fact. I’ll need to ask Gourab and Paat.
Recap • Problem involves multivariate normal means • Goal is quantile predictions of future observations • A shrinkage predictor is produced
o Shrinkage is produced by a hierarchical conjugate setup. o Quality of quantile prediction measured through predictive check-loss, which is the natural loss for quantile prediction.
• Methodology involves creation and use of a complicated but computable Asymptotic Risk Estimate ( ARE! ) involving Hermite polynomials.
• Method is asymptotically justified. And • Appears to work well in simulations for moderate n.
1. Quantile predictor methodology is motivated from a Bayesian hierarchical structure.
2. The form of the predictor then drives the methodology
3. The ARE method is a CONDITIONAL FREQUENTIST notion.
4. BUT: The proposed ARE predictor is NOT BAYESIAN – It doesn’t result from any prior I can think of. not even asymptotically