# Markov Chain Monte Carlo and Stan

## Today’s Lecture Objectives

1. An Introduction to MCMC
2. An Introduction to Stan
3. Both with Linear Models

## Markov Chain Monte Carlo Estimation

Bayesian analysis is all about estimating the posterior distribution

• Up until now, we have worked with posterior distributions that fairly well-known
• Beta-Binomial had a Beta distribution
• In general, likelihood distributions from the exponential family have conjugate priors
• Conjugate prior: the family of the prior is equivalent to the family of the posterior
• Most of the time, however, posterior distributions are not easily obtainable
• No longer able to use properties of the distribution to estimate parameters
• It is possible to use an optimization algorithm (e.g., Newton-Raphson or Expectation-Maximization) to find maximum value of posterior distribution
• But, such algorithms may take a very long time for high-dimensional problems
• Instead: “sketch” the posterior by sampling from it – then use that sketch to make inferences
• Sampling is done via MCMC

## Markov Chain Monte Carlo Estimation

• MCMC algorithms iteratively sample from the posterior distribution
• For fairly simplistic models, each iteration has independent samples
• Most models have some layers of dependency included
• Can slow down sampling from the posterior
• There are numerous variations of MCMC algorithms
• Most of these specific algorithms use one of two types of sampling:
1. Direct sampling from the posterior distribution (i.e. Gibbs sampling)
• Often used when conjugate priors are specified
2. Indirect (rejection-based) sampling from the posterior distribution (e.g., Metropolis-Hastings, Hamiltonian Monte Carlo)

## MCMC Algorithms

• Efficiency is the main reason for so many algorithms
• Efficiency in this context: How quickly the algorithm converges and provides adequate coverage (“sketching”) of the posterior distribution
• No one algorithm is uniformly most efficient for all models (here model = likelihood $\times$ prior)
• The good news is that many software packages (stan, JAGS, MPlus, especially) don’t make you choose which specific algorithm to use
• The bad news is that sometimes your model may take a large amount of time to reach convergence (think days or weeks)
• You can also code your own custom algorithm to make things run smoother

## Commonalities Across MCMC Algorithms

• Despite having fairly broad differences regarding how algorithms sample from the posterior distribution, there are quite a few things that are similar across algorithms:
1. A period of the Markov chain where sampling is not directly from the posterior
• The burnin period (sometimes coupled with other tuning periods and called warmuup)
2. Methods used to assess convergence of the chain to the posterior distribution
• Often involving the need to use multiple chains with independent and differing starting values
3. Summaries of the posterior distribution
• Further, rejection-based sampling algorithms often need a tuning period to make the sampling more efficient
• The tuning period comes before the algorithm begins its burnin period

## MCMC Demonstration

• To demonstrate each type of algorithm, we will use a model for a normal distribution
• We will investigate each, briefly
• We will then switch over to stan to show the syntax and let stan work
• We will conclude by talking about assessing convergence and how to report parameter estimates.

## Example Data: Post-Diet Weights

• The file DietData.csv contains data from 30 respondents who participated in a study regarding the effectiveness of three types of diets.

• Variables in the data set are:

1. Respondent: Respondent number 1-30
2. DietGroup: A 1, 2, or 3 representing the group to which a respondent was assigned
3. HeightIN: The respondent’s height in inches
4. WeightLB (the Dependent Variable): The respondent’s weight, in pounds, recorded following the study
• The research question: Are there differences in final weights between the three diet groups, and, if so, what are the nature of the differences?

• But first, let’s look at the data

## Visualizing Data: WeightLB Variable

DietData = read.csv(file = "DietData.csv")

ggplot(data = DietData, aes(x = WeightLB)) +
geom_histogram(aes(y = ..density..), position = "identity", binwidth = 10) +
geom_density(alpha=.2) 

## Visualizing Data: HeightIN Variable

ggplot(data = DietData, aes(x = HeightIN)) +
geom_histogram(aes(y = ..density..), position = "identity", binwidth = 1) +
geom_density(alpha=.2) 

## Visualizing Data: WeightLB by Group

ggplot(data = DietData, aes(x = WeightLB, color = factor(DietGroup), fill = factor(DietGroup))) +
geom_histogram(aes(y = ..density..), position = "identity", binwidth = 10) +
geom_density(alpha=.2) 

## Visualizing Data: Weight by Height by Group

ggplot(data = DietData, aes(x = HeightIN, y = WeightLB, shape = factor(DietGroup), color = factor(DietGroup))) +
geom_smooth(method = "lm", se = FALSE) + geom_point()

## Class Discussion: What Do We Do?

1. What type of analysis seems most appropriate for these data?
2. Is the dependent variable (WeightLB) is appropriate as-is for such analysis or does it need transformed?

## Linear Model with Least Squares

Let’s play with models for data…

# center predictors for reasonable numbers
DietData$HeightIN60 = DietData$HeightIN-60

# full analysis model suggested by data:
FullModel = lm(formula = WeightLB ~ 1, data = DietData)

# examining assumptions and leverage of fit
# plot(FullModel)

# looking at ANOVA table
# anova(FullModel)

# looking at parameter summary
summary(FullModel)

Call:
lm(formula = WeightLB ~ 1, data = DietData)

Residuals:
Min     1Q Median     3Q    Max
-62.00 -36.75 -24.00  49.00  98.00

Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept)  171.000      9.041   18.91   <2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Residual standard error: 49.52 on 29 degrees of freedom

## Steps in an MCMC Analysis

1. Specify model
2. Specify prior distributions for all model parameters
3. Build model syntax as needed
4. Run Markov chains (specify warmup/burnin and sampling period lengths)
5. Evaluate chain convergence
6. Interpret/report results

## Specify Model

• To begin, let’s start with an empty model and build up from there
• Let’s examine the linear model we seek to estimate:

$\text{WeightLB}_p = \beta_0 + e_p,$

Where: $e_p \sim N(0, \sigma^2_e)$

Questions:

• What are the variables in this analysis?
• What are the parameters in this analysis?

## Introduction to Stan

• Stan is an MCMC estimation program
• Most recent; has many convenient features
• Actually does severaly methods of estimation (ML, Variational Bayes)
• You create a model using Stan’s syntax
• Stan translates your model to a custom-built C++ syntax
• Stan then compiles your model into its own executable program
• You then run the program to estimate your model
• If you use R, the interface can be seamless

## Stan and RStudio

• Stan has its own syntax which can be built in stand-alone text files
• Rstudio will let you create one of these files in the new file menu
• Rstudio also has syntax highlighting in Stan files
• This is very helpful to learn the syntax
• Stan syntax can also be built from R character strings
• Which is helpful when running more than one model per analysis

## Stan Syntax

data {
int<lower=0> N;
vector[N] y;
}

parameters {
real beta0;
real<lower=0> sigma;
}

model {
beta0 ~ normal(0, 1000); // prior for beta0
sigma ~ uniform(0, 100000); // prior for sigma
y ~ normal(beta0, sigma); // model for observed data
}
• Above is the syntax for our model
• Each line ends with a semi colon
• Comments are put in with //
• Three blocks of syntax needed
• Data: What Stan expects you will send to it for the analysis (using R lists)
• Parameters: Where you specify what the parameters of the model are
• Model: Where you specify the distributions of the priors and data

## Stan Data and Parameter Delcaration

Like many compiled languages, Stan expects you to declare what type of data/parameters you are defining:

• int: Integer values (no decimals)
• real: Floating point numbers
• vector: A one-dimensional set of real valued numbers

Sometimes, additional definitions are provided giving the range of the variable (or restricting the set of starting values):

• real<lower=0> sigma;

## Stan Data and Prior Distributions

• In the model section, you define the distributions needed for the model and the priors
• The left-hand side is either defined in data or parameters
• y ~ normal(beta0, sigma); // model for observed data
• sigma ~ uniform(0, 100000); // prior for sigma
• The right-hand side is a distribution included in Stan
• You can also define your own distributions

## From Stan Syntax to Compilation

# compile model -- this method is for stand-alone stan files (uses cmdstanr)
model00.fromFile = cmdstan_model(stan_file = "model00.stan")

# or this method using the string text in R
model00.fromString = cmdstan_model(stan_file = write_stan_file(stanModel))
• Once you have your syntax, next you need to have Stan translate it into C++ and compile an executable
• This is where cmdstanr and rstan differ
• cmdstanr wants you to compile first, then run the Markov chain
• rstan conducts compilation (if needed) then runs the Markov chain

## Building Data for Stan

# build R list containing data for Stan: Must be named what "data" are listed in analysis
stanData = list(
N = nrow(DietData),
y = DietData$WeightLB ) # snippet of Stan syntax: stanSyntaxSnippet = " data { int<lower=0> N; vector[N] y; } " • Stan needs the data you declared in your syntax to be able to run • Within R, we can pass this data to Stan via a list object • The entries in the list should correspond to the data portion of the Stan syntax • In the above syntax, we told Stan to expect a single integer named N and a vector named y • The R list object is the same for cmdstanr and rstan ## Running Markov Chains in cmdstanr # run MCMC chain (sample from posterior) model00.samples = model00.fromFile$sample(
data = stanData,
seed = 1,
chains = 4,
parallel_chains = 4,
iter_warmup = 10000,
iter_sampling = 10000
)
• With the compiled program and the data, the next step is to run the Markov Chain (a process sometimes called sampling as you are sampling from a posterior distribution)
• In cmdstanr, running the chain comes from the $sample() function that is a part of the compiled program object • You must specify: • The data • The random number seed • The number of chains (and parallel chains) • The number of warmup iterations (more detail shortly) • The number of sampling iterations ## Running Markov Chains in rstan rstan_options(auto_write = TRUE) options(mc.cores = parallel::detectCores()) # example MCMC analysis in rstan model00.rstan = stan( model_code = stanModel, model_name = "Empty model", data = stanData, warmup = 10000, iter = 20000, chains = 4, verbose = TRUE ) • Rstan takes the model syntax directly, then compiles and runs the chains • The first two lines of syntax enable running one chain per thread (parallel processing) • As chains are independent, running them simultaneously (parallel) shortens wait time considerably • The verbose option is helpful for detecting when things break • The same R list supplies the data to Stan ## MCMC Process • The MCMC algorithm runs as a series of discrete iterations • Within each iteration, each parameter of a model has an opportunity to change its value • For each parameter, a new parameter is sampled at random from the current belief of posterior distribution • The specifics of the sampling process differ by algorithm type (we’ll have a lecture on this later) • In Stan (Hamiltonian Monte Carlo), for a given iteration, a proposed parameter is generated • The posterior likelihood “values” (more than just density; includes likelihood of proposal) are calculated for the current and proposed values of the parameter • The proposed values are accepted based on the draw of a uniform number compared to a transition probability • If all models are specified correctly, then regardless of starting location, each chain will converge to the posterior if run long enough • But, the chains must be checked for convergence when the algorithm stops ## Example of Bad Convergence ## Examining Chain Convergence • Once Stan stops, the next step is to determine if the chains converged to their posterior distribution • Called convergence diagnosis • Many methods have been developed for diagnosing if Markov chains have converged • Two most common: visual in spection and Gelman-Rubin Potential Scale Reduction Factor (PSRF; quick reference) • Visual inspection • Want no trends in timeseries – should look like a catapillar • Shape of posterior density should be mostly smooth • Gelman-Rubin PSRF (denoted with $\hat{R}$) • For analyses with multiple chains • Ratio of between-chain variance to within-chain variance • Should be near 1 (maximum somewhere under 1.1) ## Setting MCMC Options • As convergence is assessed using multiple chains, more than one should be run • Between-chain variance estimates improve with the number of chains, so I typically use four • Others have two; more than one should work • Warmup/burnin period should be long enough to ensure chains move to center of posterior distribution • Difficult to determine ahead of time • More complex models need more warmup/burnin to converge • Sampling iterations should be long enough to thoroughly sample posterior distribution • Difficulty to determine ahead of time • Need smooth densities across bulk of posterior • Often, multiple analyses (with different settings) is what is needed ## The Markov Chain Timeseries ## The Posterior Distribution ## Assessing Our Chains model00.samples$summary()
# A tibble: 3 × 10
variable   mean median    sd   mad     q5    q95  rhat ess_bulk ess_tail
<chr>     <dbl>  <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>  <dbl>  <dbl> <dbl>    <dbl>    <dbl>
1 lp__     -129.  -128.   1.03 0.737 -131.  -128.   1.00   17204.   21369.
2 beta0     171.   171.   9.52 9.40   155.   187.   1.00   26136.   23619.
3 sigma      51.8   51.0  7.25 6.89    41.5   64.9  1.00   25343.   23597.
• The summary function reports the PSRF (rhat)
• Here we look at our two parameters: $\beta_0$ and $\sigma$
• Both have $\hat{R}=1.00$, so both would be considered converged
• lp__ is posterior log likelihood–does not necessarily need examined
• ess_ columns show effect sample size for chain (factoring in autocorrelation between correlations)
• More is better

## Results Interpretation

• At long last, with a set of converged Markov chains, we can now interpret the results
• Here, we disregard which chain samples came from and pool all sampled values to use for results
• We use summaries of posterior distributions when describing model parameters
• Typical summary: the posterior mean
• The mean of the sampled values in the chain
• Called EAP (Expected a Posteriori) estimates
• Less common: posterior median
• Important point:
• Posterior means are different than what characterizes the ML estimates
• Analogous to ML estimates would be the mode of the posterior distribution
• Especially important if looking at non-symmetric posterior distributions
• Look at posterior for variances

## Results Interpretation

• To summarize the uncertainty in parameters, the posterior standard deviation is used
• The standard deviation of the sampled values in the chain
• This is the analogous to the standard error from ML
• Bayesian credible intervals are formed by taking quantiles of the posterior distribution
• Analogous to confidence intervals
• Interpretation slightly different – the probability the parameter lies within the interval
• 95% credible interval notes that parameter is within interval with 95% confidence
• Additionally, highest density posterior intervals can be formed
• The narrowest range for an interval (for unimodal posterior distributions)

## Our Results

model00.samples$summary() # A tibble: 3 × 10 variable mean median sd mad q5 q95 rhat ess_bulk ess_tail <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> 1 lp__ -129. -128. 1.03 0.737 -131. -128. 1.00 17204. 21369. 2 beta0 171. 171. 9.52 9.40 155. 187. 1.00 26136. 23619. 3 sigma 51.8 51.0 7.25 6.89 41.5 64.9 1.00 25343. 23597. hdi(model00.samples$draws("beta0"), credMass = .9)
  lower   upper
154.917 186.013
attr(,"credMass")
[1] 0.9
hdi(model00.samples\$draws("sigma"), credMass = .9)
  lower   upper
40.3082 63.1433
attr(,"credMass")
[1] 0.9

## Wrapping Up

• This lecture covered the basics of MCMC estimation with Stan
• Next we will use an example to show a full analysis of the data problem we started with today
• The details today are the same for all MCMC analyses, regardless of which algorithm is used
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 3, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 1, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0, "katex": 0, "math-container": 0, "wp-katex-eq": 0, "align": 0, "equation": 0, "x-ck12": 0, "texerror": 0, "math_score": 0.7168437838554382, "perplexity": 5392.020817913646}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "warc_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2023-06/segments/1674764500080.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20230204012622-20230204042622-00746.warc.gz"}