Beyond Bayesian Model Averaging over Paths in Probabilistic Programs with Stochastic Support

Overview

• The paper explores issues with the default Bayesian model averaging (BMA) approach used in probabilistic programming with stochastic support.
• It proposes two alternative mechanisms for path weighting: one based on stacking and one based on PAC-Bayes ideas.
• These alternative approaches are shown to be more robust and lead to better predictions compared to the default BMA weights.

Plain English Explanation

Probabilistic programming is a powerful tool for building complex statistical models. In these models, the program can take different paths, each with its own local "posterior" distribution that represents the probability of different outcomes.

The standard approach is to combine these local posteriors into a single overall posterior distribution using Bayesian model averaging (BMA). However, the paper argues that this BMA weighting can be unstable and lead to suboptimal predictions, especially if the underlying models are misspecified or the inference is approximate.

To address this issue, the paper proposes two alternative methods for determining the weights:

1. Stacking: This involves learning the weights in a data-driven way, similar to how ensemble methods combine multiple models.

2. PAC-Bayes: This approach uses theoretical guarantees about the performance of Bayesian models to determine the weights, rather than relying solely on the data.

The key idea is that these alternative weighting schemes can produce more robust and accurate predictions than the standard BMA approach, especially in cases where the underlying models are not perfectly specified.

Technical Explanation

The paper starts by showing that the posterior distribution in probabilistic programs with stochastic support can be decomposed as a weighted sum of the local posterior distributions associated with each possible program path. This weighting is typically done using Bayesian model averaging (BMA), which assigns weights proportional to the marginal likelihood of each path.

However, the authors argue that BMA weights can be unstable due to model misspecification or inference approximations, leading to suboptimal predictions. To address this issue, they propose two alternative path weighting mechanisms:

1. Stacking-based weighting: This approach learns the weights in a data-driven way, similar to ensemble methods that combine multiple models. The weights are chosen to optimize the predictive performance on held-out data.

2. PAC-Bayes-inspired weighting: This method uses theoretical guarantees about the performance of Bayesian models to determine the weights, rather than relying solely on the data. Specifically, it aims to find weights that minimize an upper bound on the true risk, as per PAC-Bayes theory.

The authors show how both of these weighting schemes can be implemented as a cheap post-processing step on top of existing inference engines, such as probabilistic programming frameworks or Bayesian deep learning models.

Through experiments, the authors demonstrate that their proposed weighting methods lead to more robust and accurate predictions compared to the default BMA approach, particularly in cases where the underlying models are misspecified or the inference is approximate.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a useful critique of the standard Bayesian model averaging (BMA) approach used in probabilistic programming and proposes two interesting alternatives. The key strength of the research is that it identifies a potential weakness in a widely used technique and offers concrete solutions that can be readily implemented.

One potential limitation is that the paper does not provide a deep theoretical analysis of the proposed methods. While the authors cite relevant theoretical frameworks like PAC-Bayes, a more rigorous mathematical treatment of the properties and assumptions of their approaches could strengthen the work.

Additionally, the paper's evaluation is limited to a few synthetic and real-world datasets. It would be valuable to see the methods applied to a broader range of problems and domains to further assess their robustness and generalizability.

Finally, the authors acknowledge that their proposed techniques may be computationally more expensive than the default BMA approach. A more detailed analysis of the tradeoffs in terms of computational overhead and practical implementation considerations would help readers better understand the practical implications of adopting these methods.

Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution by identifying an important issue with a widely used technique and proposing promising alternatives. Further research and evaluation could help solidify the benefits and limitations of these approaches.

Conclusion

This paper explores issues with the standard Bayesian model averaging (BMA) approach used in probabilistic programming with stochastic support. It proposes two alternative path weighting mechanisms - one based on stacking and one based on PAC-Bayes ideas - that can lead to more robust and accurate predictions than the default BMA approach, especially when the underlying models are misspecified or the inference is approximate.

The key takeaway is that while BMA is a widely used technique, it can be prone to instability and suboptimal performance in certain scenarios. The proposed alternatives offer promising solutions that can be readily implemented as a post-processing step on top of existing probabilistic programming frameworks and Bayesian deep learning models. Further research and evaluation could help solidify the practical benefits of these approaches and their broader applicability in the field of probabilistic modeling.