Two papers of mine were released today on arXiv.

- Operator variational inference, in collaboration with Rajesh Ranganath, Jaan Altosaar, and David Blei.
- Model criticism for Bayesian causal inference, in collaboration with Francisco Ruiz, Susan Athey, and David Blei.

Last week, I gave a talk at OpenAI on operator variational inference and Edward. I can now release those slides online.

## Operator variational inference

Operator VI is a paper I’m really excited about. It is at NIPS this year. Most directly, it’s a continuation of work that Rajesh and I have been developing on the aim for more expressive approximations for variational inference. We’ve seen this with the variational Gaussian process (Tran, Ranganath, & Blei, 2016) and hierarchical variational models (Ranganath, Tran, & Blei, 2016) (and if you’ve read my older work, copula variational inference (Tran, Blei, & Airoldi, 2015)).

More generally, in variational inference, we always make tradeoffs between the statistical efficiency of the approximation and the computational complexity of the algorithm. (This is partly what Andrew Gelman calls the “efficiency frontier”.) However, we don’t quite have a knob for controlling this tradeoff, nor do we have a way of even formalizing these notions.

Operator VI is a proposed solution to this problem. It formalizes these tradeoffs, and it analyzes how we can characterize different approaches to variational inference in order to achieve specific aims. As one example, we show how to develop the most expressive posterior approximations, which we call “variational programs”. Variational programs do not require a tractable density, and they bring variational inference closer to powerful inferential techniques as in generative adversarial networks (Goodfellow et al., 2014).

## Model criticism for Bayesian causal inference

To me, causal inference is one of the most interesting fields in statistics and machine learning, and with the greatest potential for long term impact. It can significantly speed up progress towards something like artificial general intelligence (and is arguably necessary to achieve it). And most immediately, it enables richer data analyses to capture scientific phenomena. In order for our models to truly infer generative processes, they must understand and learn causal notions of the world.

Much of the work in the causal inference community has focused on nonparametric models, which make few modeling assumptions. They satisfy theoretic notions such as asymptotics and can perform well on small-to-medium size data sets (a typical setting setting in applied causal inference). However, in higher-dimensional and massive data settings, we require more complex generative models, as we’ve seen in probabilistic machine learning.

There’s a caveat to this. Before being able to build rich, complex (and possibly deep) causal models, we first need a way of evaluating them. This arXiv paper addresses that issue. It is a foundational question more generally in the area of model criticism, also known as model checking and diagnostics. We ask the question, “To what extent is my model falsified by the empirical data?”. By answering it, we can probe different assumptions in our model and possibly revise them, thus better capturing causal mechanisms.

## References

- Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., … Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial nets. In
*Neural Information Processing Systems*. - Ranganath, R., Tran, D., & Blei, D. M. (2016). Hierarchical variational models. In
*International Conference on Machine Learning*. - Tran, D., Blei, D. M., & Airoldi, E. M. (2015). Copula variational inference. In
*Neural Information Processing Systems*. - Tran, D., Ranganath, R., & Blei, D. M. (2016). The variational Gaussian process. In
*International Conference on Learning Representations*.