Recent work has shown that the outputs of convolutional neural networks become Gaussian process (GP) distributed when we take the number of channels to infinity. In principle, these infinite networks should perform very well, both because they allow for exact Bayesian inference, and because widening networks is generally thought to improve (or at least not diminish) performance. However, Bayesian infinite networks perform poorly in comparison to finite networks, and our goal here is to explain this discrepancy. We note that the high-level representation induced by an infinite network has very little flexibility; it depends only on network hyperparameters such as depth, and as such cannot learn a good high-level representation of data. In contrast, finite networks correspond to a rich prior over high-level representations, corresponding to kernel hyperparameters. We analyse this flexibility from the perspective of the prior (looking at the structured prior covariance of the top-level kernel), and from the perspective of the posterior, showing that the representation in a learned, finite deep linear network slowly transitions from the kernel induced by the inputs towards the kernel induced by the outputs, both for gradient descent, and for Langevin sampling. Finally, we explore representation learning in deep, convolutional, nonlinear networks, showing that learned representations differ dramatically from the corresponding infinite network. One approach to understanding and improving neural networks is to perform Bayesian inference in an infinitely wide network, which can be done both for fully connected (Lee et al., 2018; Matthews et al., 2018) and convolutional networks (Garriga-Alonso et al., 2019; Novak et al., 2019).

For complex nonlinear supervised learning models, assessing the relevance of input variables or their interactions is not straightforward due to the lack of a direct measure of relevance, such as the regression coefficients in generalized linear models. One can assess the relevance of input variables locally by using the mean prediction or its derivative, but this disregards the predictive uncertainty. In this work, we present a Bayesian method for identifying relevant input variables with main effects and interactions by differentiating the Kullback-Leibler divergence of predictive distributions. The method averages over local measures of relevance and has a conservative property that takes into account the uncertainty in the predictive distribution. Our empirical results on simulated and real data sets with nonlinearities demonstrate accurate and efficient identification of relevant main effects and interactions compared to alternative methods.

A fundamental problem arising in many areas of machine learning is the evaluation of the likelihood of a given observation under different nominal distributions. Frequently, these nominal distributions are themselves estimated from data, which makes them susceptible to estimation errors. We thus propose to replace each nominal distribution with an ambiguity set containing all distributions in its vicinity and to evaluate an \emph{optimistic likelihood}, that is, the maximum of the likelihood over all distributions in the ambiguity set. When the proximity of distributions is quantified by the Fisher-Rao distance or the Kullback-Leibler divergence, the emerging optimistic likelihoods can be computed efficiently using either geodesic or standard convex optimization techniques. We showcase the advantages of working with optimistic likelihoods on a classification problem using synthetic as well as empirical data.

We elaborate on using importance sampling for causal reasoning, in particular for counterfactual inference. We show how this can be implemented natively in probabilistic programming. By considering the structure of the counterfactual query, one can significantly optimise the inference process. We also consider design choices to enable further optimisations. We introduce MultiVerse, a probabilistic programming prototype engine for approximate causal reasoning. We provide experimental results and compare with Pyro, an existing probabilistic programming framework with some of causal reasoning tools.

Bayesian Analysis with Python – Second Edition is a step-by-step guide to conduct Bayesian data analyses using PyMC3 and ArviZ. Description The second edition of Bayesian Analysis with Python is an introduction to the main concepts of applied Bayesian inference and its practical implementation in Python using PyMC3, a state-of-the-art probabilistic programming library, and ArviZ, a new library for exploratory analysis of Bayesian models.

Probabilistic programming languages (PPLs) are powerful modelling tools which allow to formalise our knowledge about the world and reason about its inherent uncertainty. Inference methods used in PPL can be computationally costly due to significant time burden and/or storage requirements; or they can lack theoretical guarantees of convergence and accuracy when applied to large scale graphical models. To this end, we present the Universal Marginaliser (UM), a novel method for amortised inference, in PPL. We show how combining samples drawn from the original probabilistic program prior with an appropriate augmentation method allows us to train one neural network to approximate any of the corresponding conditional marginal distributions, with any separation into latent and observed variables, and thus amortise the cost of inference. Finally, we benchmark the method on multiple probabilistic programs, in Pyro, with different model structure.

V ariational inference has become an increasingly attractive fast alternative to Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for approximate Bayesian inference. However, a major obstacle to the widespread use of variational methods is the lack of post-hoc accuracy measures that are both theoretically justified and computationally efficient. In this paper, we provide rigorous bounds on the error of posterior mean and uncertainty estimates that arise from full-distribution approximations, as in variational inference. Our bounds are widely applicable as they require only that the approximating and exact posteriors have polynomial moments. Our bounds are computationally efficient for variational inference in that they require only standard values from varia-tional objectives, straightforward analytic calculations, and simple Monte Carlo estimates. We show that our analysis naturally leads to a new and improved workflow for variational inference. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of our proposed workflow and error bounds on a real-data example with a widely used multilevel hierarchical model.

Who has not heard that Bayesian statistics are difficult, computationally slow, cannot scale-up to big data, the results are subjective; and we don't need it at all? Do we really need to learn a lot of math and a lot of classical statistics first before approaching Bayesian techniques. Why do the most popular books about Bayesian statistics have over 500 pages? Bayesian nightmare is real or myth? Someone once compared Bayesian approach to the kitchen of a Michelin star chef with high-quality chef knife, a stockpot and an expensive sautee pan; while Frequentism is like your ordinary kitchen, with banana slicers and pasta pots. People talk about Bayesianism and Frequentism as if they were two different religions. Does Bayes really put more burden on the data scientist to use her brain at the outset because Bayesianism is a religion for the brightest of the brightest?

A plethora of problems in AI, engineering and the sciences are naturally formalized as inference in discrete probabilistic models. Exact inference is often prohibitively expensive, as it may require evaluating the (unnormalized) target density on its entire domain. Here we consider the setting where only a limited budget of calls to the unnormalized density oracle is available, raising the challenge of where in the domain to allocate these function calls in order to construct a good approximate solution. We formulate this problem as an instance of sequential decision-making under uncertainty and leverage methods from reinforcement learning for probabilistic inference with budget constraints. In particular, we propose the TreeSample algorithm, an adaptation of Monte Carlo Tree Search to approximate inference. This algorithm caches all previous queries to the density oracle in an explicit search tree, and dynamically allocates new queries based on a "best-first" heuristic for exploration, using existing upper confidence bound methods. Our non-parametric inference method can be effectively combined with neural networks that compile approximate conditionals of the target, which are then used to guide the inference search and enable generalization across multiple target distributions. We show empirically that TreeSample outperforms standard approximate inference methods on synthetic factor graphs.

Modern applications of machine learning (ML) deal with increasingly heterogeneous datasets comprised of data collected from overlapping latent subpopulations. As a result, traditional models trained over large datasets may fail to recognize highly predictive localized effects in favour of weakly predictive global patterns. This is a problem because localized effects are critical to developing individualized policies and treatment plans in applications ranging from precision medicine to advertising. To address this challenge, we propose to estimate sample-specific models that tailor inference and prediction at the individual level. In contrast to classical ML models that estimate a single, complex model (or only a few complex models), our approach produces a model personalized to each sample. These sample-specific models can be studied to understand subgroup dynamics that go beyond coarse-grained class labels. Crucially, our approach does not assume that relationships between samples (e.g. a similarity network) are known a priori. Instead, we use unmodeled covariates to learn a latent distance metric over the samples. We apply this approach to financial, biomedical, and electoral data as well as simulated data and show that sample-specific models provide fine-grained interpretations of complicated phenomena without sacrificing predictive accuracy compared to state-of-the-art models such as deep neural networks.