A significant portion of existing variable selection methods are only applicable to linear parametric models. Despite the linearity and additivity assumption, variable selection in linear regression models has been popular since 1970; refer to Akaike information criterion [AIC; Akaike (1973)]; Bayesian information criterion [BIC; Schwarz et al (1978)] and Risk inflation criterion [RIC; Foster and George (1994)]. Popular classical sparse-regression methods such as Least absolute shrinkage operator [LASSO; Tibshirani (1996); Efron et al (2004)], and related penalization methods (Fan and Li, 2001; Zou and Hastie, 2005; Zou, 2006; Zhang, 2010) have gained popularity over the last decade due to their simplicity, computational scalability and efficiency in prediction when the underlying relation between the response and the predictors can be adequately described by parametric models. Bayesian methods (Mitchell and Beauchamp, 1988; George and McCulloch, 1993, 1997) with sparsity inducing priors offers greater applicability beyond parametric models and are a convenient alternative when the underlying goal is in inference and uncertainty quantification. However, there is still a limited amount of literature which seriously considers relaxing the linearity assumption, particularly when the dimension of the predictors is high. Moreover, when the focus is on learning the interactions between the variables, parametric models are often restrictive since they require very many parameters to capture the higher-order interaction terms. 2 Smoothing based non-additive nonparametric regression methods (Lafferty and Wasser-man, 2008; Wahba, 1990; Green and Silverman, 1993; Hastie and Tibshirani, 1990) can accommodate a wide range of relationships between predictors and response leading to excellent predictive performance.

Machine Learning is a hot topic in the science world right now. By combining the powers and capabilities of both computers and humans, perplexing and unimaginable problems are being resolved as we speak. Machines nowadays can more easily handle the ginormous amount of data constantly being produced and decipher the complexity of scientific discoveries. On the other hand, researchers have begun to recognise the potential this science can have in a vast variety of fields and finally it is being put into practice. On researching the topic, many of the techniques and algorithms will seem familiar to a lot of statisticians, engineers, programmers, mathematicians and quants.

A few months ago, I wrote a post about optimization using gradient descent, which involves searching for a model that best meets certain criteria by repeatedly making adjustments that improve things a little bit at a time. In many situations, this works quite well and will always or almost always finds the best solution. But in other cases, it's possible for this approach to fall into a locally optimal solution that isn't the overall best, but is better than any nearby solution. A common way to deal with this sort of situation is to add some randomness into the algorithm, making it possible to jump out of one of these locally optimal solutions into a slightly worse solution that is adjacent to a much better one. In this post, I want to explore one such approach, called a genetic algorithm (or an evolutionary algorithm), which I'll illustrate with a specific type of genetic algorithm called symbolic regression.

When I give talks about probabilistic programming and Bayesian statistics, I usually gloss over the details of how inference is actually performed, treating it as a black box essentially. The beauty of probabilistic programming is that you actually don't have to understand how the inference works in order to build models, but it certainly helps. When I presented a new Bayesian model to Quantopian's CEO, Fawce, who wasn't trained in Bayesian stats but is eager to understand it, he started to ask about the part I usually gloss over: "Thomas, how does the inference actually work? How do we get these magical samples from the posterior?". Now I could have said: "Well that's easy, MCMC generates samples from the posterior distribution by constructing a reversible Markov-chain that has as its equilibrium distribution the target posterior distribution. That statement is correct, but is it useful? My pet peeve with how math and stats are taught is that no one ever tells you about the intuition behind the concepts (which is usually quite simple) but only hands you some scary math. This is certainly the way I was taught and I had to spend countless hours banging my head against the wall until that euraka moment came about. Usually things weren't as scary or seemingly complex once I deciphered what it meant. This blog post is an attempt at trying to explain the intuition behind MCMC sampling (specifically, the Metropolis algorithm). Critically, we'll be using code examples rather than formulas or math-speak. Eventually you'll need that but I personally think it's better to start with the an example and build the intuition before you move on to the math. We have P(\theta x), the probability of our model parameters \theta given the data x and thus our quantity of interest. To compute this we multiply the prior P(\theta) (what we think about \theta before we have seen any data) and the likelihood P(x \theta), i.e. how we think our data is distributed. This nominator is pretty easy to solve for. However, lets take a closer look at the denominator. P(x) which is also called the evidence (i.e. the evidence that the data x was generated by this model). This is the key difficulty with Bayes formula -- while the formula looks innocent enough, for even slightly non-trivial models you just can't compute the posterior in a closed-form way. Now we might say "OK, if we can't solve something, could we try to approximate it?

In this work we propose a game theoretic model for document clustering. Each document to be clustered is represented as a player and each cluster as a strategy. The players receive a reward interacting with other players that they try to maximize choosing their best strategies. The geometry of the data is modeled with a weighted graph that encodes the pairwise similarity among documents, so that similar players are constrained to choose similar strategies, updating their strategy preferences at each iteration of the games. We used different approaches to find the prototypical elements of the clusters and with this information we divided the players into two disjoint sets, one collecting players with a definite strategy and the other one collecting players that try to learn from others the correct strategy to play. The latter set of players can be considered as new data points that have to be clustered according to previous information. This representation is useful in scenarios in which the data are streamed continuously. The evaluation of the system was conducted on 13 document datasets using different settings. It shows that the proposed method performs well compared to different document clustering algorithms.

Bayesian inference in the presence of an intractable likelihood function is computationally challenging. When following a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach to approximate the posterior distribution in this context, one typically either uses MCMC schemes which target the joint posterior of the parameters and some auxiliary latent variables or pseudo-marginal Metropolis-Hastings (MH) schemes which mimic a MH algorithm targeting the marginal posterior of the parameters by approximating unbiasedly the intractable likelihood. In scenarios where the parameters and auxiliary variables are strongly correlated under the posterior and/or this posterior is multimodal, Gibbs sampling or Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) will perform poorly and the pseudo-marginal MH algorithm, as any other MH scheme, will be inefficient for high dimensional parameters. We propose here an original MCMC algorithm, termed pseudo-marginal HMC, which approximates the HMC algorithm targeting the marginal posterior of the parameters. We demonstrate through experiments that pseudo-marginal HMC can outperform significantly both standard HMC and pseudo-marginal MH schemes.

We prove statistical rates of convergence for kernel-based least squares regression from i.i.d. data using a conjugate gradient algorithm, where regularization against overfitting is obtained by early stopping. This method is related to Kernel Partial Least Squares, a regression method that combines supervised dimensionality reduction with least squares projection. Following the setting introduced in earlier related literature, we study so-called "fast convergence rates" depending on the regularity of the target regression function (measured by a source condition in terms of the kernel integral operator) and on the effective dimensionality of the data mapped into the kernel space. We obtain upper bounds, essentially matching known minimax lower bounds, for the $\mathcal{L}^2$ (prediction) norm as well as for the stronger Hilbert norm, if the true regression function belongs to the reproducing kernel Hilbert space. If the latter assumption is not fulfilled, we obtain similar convergence rates for appropriate norms, provided additional unlabeled data are available.

This is the third in a series of posts on how to build a Data Science Portfolio. If you like this and want to know when the next post in the series is released, you can subscribe at the bottom of the page. Data science companies are increasingly looking at portfolios when making hiring decisions. One of the reasons for this is that a portfolio is the best way to judge someone's real-world skills. The good news for you is that a portfolio is entirely within your control. If you put some work in, you can make a great portfolio that companies are impressed by. The first step in making a high-quality portfolio is to know what skills to demonstrate. Any good portfolio will be composed of multiple projects, each of which may demonstrate 1-2 of the above points. This is the third post in a series that will cover how to make a well-rounded data science portfolio.

Machine Learning is a subfield within Artificial Intelligence that builds algorithms that allow computers to learn to perform tasks from data instead of being explicitly programmed. We can make machines learn to do things! The first time I heard that, it blew my mind. That means that we can program computers to learn things by themselves! The ability of learning is one of the most important aspects of intelligence. Translating that power to machines, sounds like a huge step towards making them more intelligent. And in fact, Machine Learning is the area that is making most of the progress in Artificial Intelligence today; being a trendy topic right now and pushing the possibility to have more intelligent machines.

The code in this repository provides a framework for solving arbitrary separable convex optimization problems with Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM). Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers. The framework is built over Spark and is generic: to apply it to an arbitrary separable convex problem, a developer needs to implement only three functions (one that reads data from a file, one that evaluates the objective function, and one that solves a local optimization problem with an additional proximal penalty term). An example implementation of logistic regression is included in the code. Updated spark installation instructions can be found here.