gibbs
Variational Inference for Bayesian MIDAS Regression
We develop a Coordinate Ascent Variational Inference (CAVI) algorithm for Bayesian Mixed Data Sampling (MIDAS) regression with linear weight parameterizations. The model separates impact coeffcients from weighting function parameters through a normalization constraint, creating a bilinear structure that renders generic Hamiltonian Monte Carlo samplers unreliable while preserving conditional conjugacy exploitable by CAVI. Each variational update admits a closed-form solution: Gaussian for regression coefficients and weight parameters, Inverse-Gamma for the error variance. The algorithm propagates uncertainty across blocks through second moments, distinguishing it from naive plug-in approximations. In a Monte Carlo study spanning 21 data-generating configurations with up to 50 predictors, CAVI produces posterior means nearly identical to a block Gibbs sampler benchmark while achieving speedups of 107x to 1,772x (Table 9). Generic automatic differentiation VI (ADVI), by contrast, produces bias 714 times larger while being orders of magnitude slower, confirming the value of model-specific derivations. Weight function parameters maintain excellent calibration (coverage above 92%) across all configurations. Impact coefficient credible intervals exhibit the underdispersion characteristic of mean-field approximations, with coverage declining from 89% to 55% as the number of predictors grows a documented trade-off between speed and interval calibration that structured variational methods can address. An empirical application to realized volatility forecasting on S&P 500 daily returns cofirms that CAVI and Gibbs sampling yield virtually identical point forecasts, with CAVI completing each monthly estimation in under 10 milliseconds.
Appendix
I{ } is the indicator function. It's sufficient to prove that the denominator converges to that of softmax at each point We have shown that softmax is translational invariant w.r.t. Without the loss of generality, we use τ = 1 in the following proof. To begin with, we prove the first equation and then give the proof of the second part of Theorem 3.3. We introduce some extra notations that are used throughout the proof.
- North America > United States > California > Alameda County > Berkeley (0.05)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Montreal (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks (0.89)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (0.87)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models (0.69)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (0.47)
- Asia > China > Beijing > Beijing (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Japan > Honshū > Chūbu > Aichi Prefecture > Nagoya (0.04)
SLOE: AFasterMethodforStatisticalInferencein High-DimensionalLogisticRegression
Recently, Sur and Candès [2019] showed that these issues can be corrected by applying a new approximation of the MLE's sampling distribution in this highdimensional regime. Unfortunately, these corrections are difficult to implement in practice, because they require an estimate of thesignal strength, which is a function of the underlying parametersβ of the logistic regression.
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Japan > Honshū > Kantō > Kanagawa Prefecture (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (0.84)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania (0.04)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty (0.93)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Optimization (0.93)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (0.68)
- Information Technology > Data Science (0.67)