Simulation-Based Inference: estimating posterior distributions without  analytic likelihoods

Seminar at IP2I, Lyon, France

May 24, 2024

Justine Zeghal

credit: Villasenor et al. 2023

Bayesian inference

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

We want to infer the parameters      that generated an observation    

\theta
x_0

And run a MCMC to get the posterior

Bayesian inference

Cosmological context

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

We want to infer the parameters      that generated an observation    

\theta
x_0
\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

Problem:

we do not have an analytic marginal likelihood that maps the cosmological parameters to what we observe

We want to infer the parameters      that generated an observation    

\theta
x_0

Cosmological context

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

\Omega_c\\ \Omega_b\\ \sigma_8\\ n_s\\ w_0\\ h_0
p(
|
)
x

Problem:

we do not have an analytic marginal likelihood that maps the cosmological parameters to what we observe

We want to infer the parameters      that generated an observation    

\theta
x_0
Credit: ESA

Cosmological context

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

\Omega_c\\ \Omega_b\\ \sigma_8\\ n_s\\ w_0\\ h_0
p(
|
)
x

Classical way of performing Bayesian Inference in Cosmology:

We want to infer the parameters      that generated an observation    

\theta
x_0
Credit: ESA

Cosmological context

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

\Omega_c\\ \Omega_b\\ \sigma_8\\ n_s\\ w_0\\ h_0
p(
|
)

We want to infer the parameters      that generated an observation    

\theta
x_0

Classical way of performing Bayesian Inference in Cosmology: 

Power Spectrum

Credit: arxiv.org/abs/1807.06205

Cosmological context

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

\Omega_c\\ \Omega_b\\ \sigma_8\\ n_s\\ w_0\\ h_0
p(
|
)

We want to infer the parameters      that generated an observation    

\theta
x_0

Classical way of performing Bayesian Inference in Cosmology: 

Power Spectrum

 & Gaussian Likelihood

Cosmological context

On large scales, the Universe is close to a Gaussian field and the 2-point function is a near sufficient statistic.

However, on small scales where non-linear evolution gives rise to a highly non-Gaussian field, this summary statistic is not sufficient anymore.

Proof: full-field inference yield tighter constrain.

Cosmological context

How to do full-field inference?

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

How to do full-field inference?

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

We can build a simulator to map the cosmological parameters to the data.

How to do full-field inference?

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

We can build a simulator to map the cosmological parameters to the data.

 Simulator

How to do full-field inference?

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

We can build a simulator to map the cosmological parameters to the data.

\theta

 Simulator

How to do full-field inference?

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

We can build a simulator to map the cosmological parameters to the data.

x
\theta

 Simulator

How to do full-field inference?

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

We can build a simulator to map the cosmological parameters to the data.

Prediction

x
\theta

 Simulator

How to do full-field inference?

\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

Bayes theorem:

We can build a simulator to map the cosmological parameters to the data.

Prediction

x
\theta

 Simulator

Inference

How to do full-field inference?

But we still lack the explicit marginal likelihood

p(x |\theta)
x
\theta

 Simulator

How to do inference?

But we still lack the explicit marginal likelihood

p(x |\theta)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

How to do inference?

But we still lack the explicit marginal likelihood

p(x |\theta)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

How to do inference?

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)

But we still lack the explicit marginal likelihood

p(x |\theta)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

p(x \: | \: \theta) = \int p(x \: | \:\theta, z)p(z \: | \: \theta)dz

How to do inference?

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)

But we still lack the explicit marginal likelihood

p(x |\theta)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

p(x \: | \: \theta) = \int p(x \: | \:\theta, z)p(z \: | \: \theta)dz

Intractable! 

How to do inference?

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)

But we still lack the explicit marginal likelihood

p(x |\theta)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

Two options:

How to do inference?

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)
p(x \: | \: \theta) = \int p(x \: | \:\theta, z)p(z \: | \: \theta)dz

Intractable! 

p(x \: | \: \theta) = \int p(x \: | \:\theta, z)p(z \: | \: \theta)dz

Intractable! 

But we still lack the explicit marginal likelihood

p(x |\theta)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

p(x \: | \: \theta) = \int p(x \: | \:\theta, z)p(z \: | \: \theta)dz

Two options:

  • explicit inference

How to do inference?

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)

Intractable! 

But we still lack the explicit marginal likelihood

p(x |\theta)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

p(x \: | \: \theta) = \int p(x \: | \:\theta, z)p(z \: | \: \theta)dz

Two options:

  • explicit inference
  • implicit inference / likelihood-free inference / simulation-based inference

How to do inference?

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)

Intractable! 

But we still lack the explicit marginal likelihood

p(x |\theta)
x
\theta
z
f

Black box simulator

p(x \: | \: \theta) = \int p(x \: | \:\theta, z)p(z \: | \: \theta)dz

Only one option:

  • explicit inference

 Simulator

How to do inference?

  • implicit inference / likelihood-free inference / simulation-based inference

Intractable! 

x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

Explicit joint likelihood

 

Explicit inference

p(x| \theta, z)
p(x| \theta, z)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

Explicit inference

p(\theta, z \: | \: x) \propto
p(z\:|\:\theta) p(\theta)

Sampled the joint posterior through MCMC:

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)
p(x| \theta, z)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

Explicit inference

p(\theta, z \: | \: x) \propto
p(z\:|\:\theta) p(\theta)

Sampled the joint posterior through MCMC:

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)
p(x| \theta, z)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

Explicit inference

p(\theta, z \: | \: x) \propto
p(z\:|\:\theta) p(\theta)

Sampled the joint posterior through MCMC:

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)
p(x| \theta, z)

Drawbacks: 

  • Evaluation of the joint likelihood
  • Large number of (costly) simulations 
  • Challenging to sample (high dimensional, multidimensional...)
  • Usually, the forward model has to be differentiable
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

Implicit inference

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

Implicit inference

x
\theta
z
f

Black box simulator

 Simulator

Or

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit simulator

Implicit inference

x
\theta
z
f

Black box simulator

 Simulator

Or

Because we only need simulations 

(\theta_i, x_i)_{i=1...N}

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)

Implicit inference

From a set of simulations                                we can approximate the

(\theta_i, x_i)_{i=1...N}

thanks to machine learning ..

p(x\:|\:\theta)
p(\theta \:|\:x)
r(x \: | \: \theta_0, \theta_1) = \frac{p(x \: | \theta_0)}{p(x \: | \theta_1)}
\underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
\underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
\underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
\propto

 

  • posterior

 

  • likelihood ratio
  • marginal likelihood                   

Implicit inference

The algorithm is the same for each method:

1) Draw N parameters 

\theta_i \sim p(\theta)

2) Draw N simulations 

x_i \sim p(x\:|\:\theta = \theta_i)

3) Train a neural network on                            to approximate the quantity of interest

(\theta_i, x_i)_{i=1...N}

4) Approximate the posterior from the learned quantity

Implicit inference

The algorithm is the same for each method:

1) Draw N parameters 

\theta_i \sim p(\theta)

2) Draw N simulations 

x_i \sim p(x\:|\:\theta = \theta_i)

3) Train a neural network on                            to approximate the quantity of interest

(\theta_i, x_i)_{i=1...N}

4) Approximate the posterior from the learned quantity

Implicit inference

The algorithm is the same for each method:

1) Draw N parameters 

\theta_i \sim p(\theta)

2) Draw N simulations 

x_i \sim p(x\:|\:\theta = \theta_i)

3) Train a neural network on                            to approximate the quantity of interest

(\theta_i, x_i)_{i=1...N}

4) Approximate the posterior from the learned quantity

We will focus on the Neural Likelihood Estimation and Neural Posterior Estimation methods

Neural Density Estimator

\text{True distribution } p(x)
\text{Sample } x \sim p(x)
\text{Model } p_{\phi}(x)

We need a model that can approximate distributions from its samples.

Easy to evaluate

Neural Density Estimator

We need a model that can approximate distributions from its samples.

\text{True distribution } p(x)
\text{Sample } x \sim p(x)
\text{Model } p_{\phi}(x)

Easy to evaluate

and sample

Neural Density Estimator

We need a model that can approximate distributions from its samples.

\text{True distribution } p(x)
\text{Sample } x \sim p(x)
\text{Model } p_{\phi}(x)

Easy to evaluate

and sample

Normalizing Flows

Normalizing Flows

reference: https://blog.evjang.com/2019/07/nf-jax.html

Normalizing Flows

p_x(x)
p_z(z)
f(z)
\text{sampling}

Normalizing Flows

p_x(x)
p_z(z)

Normalizing Flows

p_x(x)
p_z(z)

Normalizing Flows

p_x(x)
p_z(z)

Normalizing Flows

p_x(x)
p_z(z)
f^{-1}(z)
\text{evaluation}

Normalizing Flows

p_x(x)
p_z(z)
f^{-1}(z)
\text{evaluation}
\log p_x(x) = \log p_z(f^{-1}(x))
+ \log \displaystyle\left\lvert det \frac{\partial f^{-1}(x)}{\partial x}\right\rvert

The complex distribution is linked to the simple one through the

Change of Variable Formula:

Normalizing Flows

p_x(x)
p_z(z)
f^{-1}(z)
\text{evaluation}
f(z)
\text{sampling}
\log p_x(x) = \log p_z(f^{-1}(x))
+ \log \displaystyle\left\lvert det \frac{\partial f^{-1}(x)}{\partial x}\right\rvert

The complex distribution is linked to the simple one through the

Change of Variable Formula:

How to train a Normalizing Flow?

p_x(x)
\text{The goal:}\\ \text{given simulations $x \sim p_x(x)$,}
\text{we would like find the mapping to} \\ \text{approximate $p_x(x)$ by a NF $p^{\phi}_x(x)$.}
\text{ $\to$ we need a tool to compare distributions:}\\ \textbf{the Kullback-Leiber Divergence}

Variational parameters related to the mapping

How to train a Normalizing Flow?

\begin{array}{ll} D_{KL}(p_x(x)||p_x^{\phi}(x)) &= \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\Big[ \log\left(\frac{p_x(x)}{p_x^{\phi}(x)}\right) \Big] \\ \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} = \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x(x)\right) \right] \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} = \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x(x)\right) \right] \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}

How to train a Normalizing Flow?

\begin{array}{ll} D_{KL}(p_x(x)||p_x^{\phi}(x)) &= \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\Big[ \log\left(\frac{p_x(x)}{p_x^{\phi}(x)}\right) \Big] \\ \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} = \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x(x)\right) \right] \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} = \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x(x)\right) \right] \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\text{ We want to minimize the Kullback-Leiber Divergence wrt $\phi$ }

How to train a Normalizing Flow?

\begin{array}{ll} D_{KL}(p_x(x)||p_x^{\phi}(x)) &= \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\Big[ \log\left(\frac{p_x(x)}{p_x^{\phi}(x)}\right) \Big] \\ \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} = \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x(x)\right) \right] \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x(x)\right) \right] \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\text{ We want to minimize the Kullback-Leiber Divergence wrt $\phi$ }

How to train a Normalizing Flow?

\begin{array}{ll} D_{KL}(p_x(x)||p_x^{\phi}(x)) &= \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\Big[ \log\left(\frac{p_x(x)}{p_x^{\phi}(x)}\right) \Big] \\ \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} = \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x(x)\right) \right] \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\text{constant}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\text{ We want to minimize the Kullback-Leiber Divergence wrt $\phi$ }

How to train a Normalizing Flow?

\begin{array}{ll} D_{KL}(p_x(x)||p_x^{\phi}(x)) &= \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\Big[ \log\left(\frac{p_x(x)}{p_x^{\phi}(x)}\right) \Big] \\ \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} = \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x(x)\right) \right] \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\text{ We want to minimize the Kullback-Leiber Divergence wrt $\phi$ }
\begin{array}{ll} \implies Loss = - \mathbb{E}_{x \sim p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\text{constant}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}

How to train a Normalizing Flow?

\begin{array}{ll} D_{KL}(p_x(x)||p_x^{\phi}(x)) &= \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\Big[ \log\left(\frac{p_x(x)}{p_x^{\phi}(x)}\right) \Big] \\ \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} = \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x(x)\right) \right] \end{array}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\text{ We want to minimize the Kullback-Leiber Divergence wrt $\phi$ }

From simulations of the true distribution only!

\begin{array}{ll} \implies Loss = - \mathbb{E}_{x \sim p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\text{constant}
\begin{array}{ll} - \mathbb{E}_{p_x(x)}\left[ \log\left(p_x^{\phi}(x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}

Normalizing Flows for Implicit Inference

\begin{array}{ll} Loss_{NLE} = - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p_{\phi}(x\:|\:\theta)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}
\text{Similarly for NLE or NPE we can train the NF to approximate } p(x\:|\:\theta) \text{ or } p(\theta\:|\:x) \\ \text{ from samples } (\theta_i, x_i)_{i=1...N} \sim p(x, \theta)
\begin{array}{ll} Loss_{NPE} = - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p_{\phi}(\theta\:|\:x)\right) \right]\\ \end{array}

This is super nice, it allows us to approximate the posterior distribution from simulations ONLY!

But simulations can sometimes be very expensive and training a NF requires a lot of simulations..

Neural Posterior Estimation with Differentiable Simulators

ICML 2022 Workshop on Machine Learning for Astrophysics

 

Justine Zeghal, François Lanusse, Alexandre Boucaud,

Benjamin Remy and Eric Aubourg

x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)
p(x| \theta, z)
\nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta, z |x) =
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)
p(x| \theta, z)
\nabla_{\theta} \log p(x| \theta, z)
\nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta, z |x) =
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)
p(x| \theta, z)
+ \nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta)
+ \nabla_{\theta} \log p(z|\theta)
\nabla_{\theta} \log p(x| \theta, z)
\nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta, z |x) =
x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)
p(x| \theta, z)
+ \nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta)
+ \nabla_{\theta} \log p(z|\theta)
\nabla_{\theta} \log p(x| \theta, z)
\nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta, z |x) =

a framework for automatic differentiation following the NumPy API, and using GPU

probabilistic programming library

powered by JAX

x
\theta
z
f
\sigma^2
\mathcal{N}

Explicit joint likelihood

 

p(x| \theta, z)
p(x| \theta, z)

With a few simulations it's hard to approximate the posterior distribution.

→ we need more simulations

BUT if we have a few simulations

and the gradients

 

(also know as the score)

\nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta | x)

then it's possible to have an idea of the shape of the distribution.

How gradients can help Implicit Inference?

How to train NFs with gradients?

How to train NFs with gradients?

Normalizing flows are trained by minimizing the negative log likelihood:

- \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

How to train NFs with gradients?

But to train the NF, we want to use both simulations and gradient

    - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

    Normalizing flows are trained by minimizing the negative log likelihood:

    - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

    How to train NFs with gradients?

    + \: \lambda \: \displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left[ \parallel \nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta, z |x) - \underbrace{\nabla_{\theta} \log p^{\phi}(\theta |x)}\parallel_2^2 \right]
    - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

    But to train the NF, we want to use both simulations and gradient

      Normalizing flows are trained by minimizing the negative log likelihood:

      - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

      How to train NFs with gradients?

      + \: \lambda \: \displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left[ \parallel \nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta, z |x) - \underbrace{\nabla_{\theta} \log p^{\phi}(\theta |x)}\parallel_2^2 \right]
      - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

      But to train the NF, we want to use both simulations and gradient

        Normalizing flows are trained by minimizing the negative log likelihood:

        - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

        How to train NFs with gradients?

        Problem: the gradient of current NFs lack expressivity

        + \: \lambda \: \displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left[ \parallel \nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta, z |x) - \underbrace{\nabla_{\theta} \log p^{\phi}(\theta |x)}\parallel_2^2 \right]
        - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

        But to train the NF, we want to use both simulations and gradient

          Normalizing flows are trained by minimizing the negative log likelihood:

          - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

          How to train NFs with gradients?

          Problem: the gradient of current NFs lack expressivity

          + \: \lambda \: \displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left[ \parallel \nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta, z |x) - \underbrace{\nabla_{\theta} \log p^{\phi}(\theta |x)}\parallel_2^2 \right]
          - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

          But to train the NF, we want to use both simulations and gradient

            Normalizing flows are trained by minimizing the negative log likelihood:

            - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

            How to train NFs with gradients?

            Problem: the gradient of current NFs lack expressivity

            + \: \lambda \: \displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left[ \parallel \nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta, z |x) - \underbrace{\nabla_{\theta} \log p^{\phi}(\theta |x)}\parallel_2^2 \right]
            - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

            But to train the NF, we want to use both simulations and gradient

              Normalizing flows are trained by minimizing the negative log likelihood:

              - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

              How to train NFs with gradients?

              Problem: the gradient of current NFs lack expressivity

              + \: \lambda \: \displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left[ \parallel \nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta, z |x) - \underbrace{\nabla_{\theta} \log p^{\phi}(\theta |x)}\parallel_2^2 \right]
              - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

              But to train the NF, we want to use both simulations and gradient

                Normalizing flows are trained by minimizing the negative log likelihood:

                - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

                How to train NFs with gradients?

                Problem: the gradient of current NFs lack expressivity

                + \: \lambda \: \displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left[ \parallel \nabla_{\theta} \log p(\theta, z |x) - \underbrace{\nabla_{\theta} \log p^{\phi}(\theta |x)}\parallel_2^2 \right]
                - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

                But to train the NF, we want to use both simulations and gradient

                  Normalizing flows are trained by minimizing the negative log likelihood:

                  - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(\theta | x)\right) \right]

                  Results on a toy model

                  → On a toy Lotka Volterra model, the gradients helps to constrain the distribution shape

                  Results on a toy model

                  Simulation-Based Inference Benchmark for LSST Weak Lensing Cosmology

                  Justine Zeghal, Denise Lanzieri, François Lanusse, Alexandre Boucaud, Gilles Louppe, Eric Aubourg, and

                  The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration (LSST DESC)

                  • do gradients help implicit inference methods?

                  In the case of weak lensing full-field analysis,

                  • which inference method requires the fewest simulations?

                  x
                  \theta
                  z
                  f
                  \sigma^2
                  \mathcal{N}

                  We developed a fast and differentiable (JAX) log-normal mass maps simulator

                  For our benchmark: a Differentiable Mass Maps Simulator

                  sbi_lens

                  • Do gradients help implicit inference methods?               ~ LSST Weak Lensing case

                  - \mathbb{E}_{p(x, \theta)}\left[ \log\left(p^{\phi}(x | \theta)\right) \right]
                  x
                  \theta
                  z
                  f
                  \sigma^2
                  \mathcal{N}

                  Explicit joint likelihood

                   

                  p(x| \theta, z)
                  + \: \lambda \: \displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left[ \parallel \nabla_{\theta} \log p(x, z |\theta) -{\nabla_{\theta} \log p^{\phi}(x|\theta )}\parallel_2^2 \right]

                  Training the NF with simulations and gradients:

                  Loss = 

                  • Do gradients help implicit inference methods?               ~ LSST Weak Lensing case

                  \nabla_{\theta}\log p(x|\theta)
                  \nabla_{\theta}\log p(x,z|\theta)

                  (from the simulator)

                  (requires a lot of additional simulations)

                  → For this particular problem, the gradients from the simulator are too noisy to help.

                  • Do gradients help implicit inference methods?               ~ LSST Weak Lensing case

                  → Implicit inference (NLE) requires 1500 simulations.

                  → Better to use NLE without gradients than NLE with gradients

                   simulations

                   simulations

                  10^5
                  10 ^ 3

                  → Explicit and implicit full-field inference yields the same posterior.

                  → Explicit full-field inference requires 630 000 simulations (HMC in high dimension)

                  → Implicit full-field inference requires 1 500 simulations

                  + a maximum of 100 000 simulations to build

                  sufficient statistics

                  • Which inference method requires the fewest simulations?

                  x
                  \theta
                  z
                  f
                  \sigma^2
                  \mathcal{N}

                  Explicit joint likelihood

                   

                  p(x| \theta, z)

                  • Which inference method requires the fewest simulations?

                   simulations

                   simulations

                  10^5
                  10 ^ 3

                  → Explicit and implicit full-field inference yields the same posterior.

                  → Explicit full-field inference requires 630 000 simulations (HMC in high dimension)

                  → Implicit full-field inference requires 1 500 simulations

                  + a maximum of 100 000 simulations to build

                  sufficient statistics

                  • Which inference method requires the fewest simulations?

                  Optimal Neural Summarisation for Full-Field Weak Lensing Cosmological Implicit Inference

                  Denise Lanzieri, Justine Zeghal, T. Lucas Makinen, François Lanusse, Alexandre Boucaud and Jean-Luc Starck

                  \theta

                  Summary statistics

                  t = f_{\varphi}(x)
                  x
                  p_{\Phi}(\theta | f_{\varphi}(x))

                   Simulator

                  Summary statistics

                  t = f_{\varphi}(x)
                  x
                  p_{\Phi}(\theta | f_{\varphi}(x))
                  \theta

                   Simulator

                  Summary statistics

                  t = f_{\varphi}(x)
                  x
                  p_{\Phi}(\theta | f_{\varphi}(x))
                  \theta

                   Simulator

                  x
                  t = f_{\varphi}(x)
                  \text{A statistic } t \text{ is said to be sufficient for the parameters } \theta \text{ if }
                  \text{Sufficient statistic}
                  p(\theta \: | \: x) = p(\theta \: | \: t) \: \text{ with } \: t=f(x)

                  How to extract all the information?

                  It is only a matter of the loss function you use to train your compressor..

                  How to extract all the information?

                  Regression

                  \hat{\theta} = f(x)

                  How to extract all the information?

                  I(\theta,t)
                  H(\theta)
                  H(t)
                  H(\theta|t)
                  H(t|\theta)

                  Mutual information maximization

                  I(\theta,t) = H(t) - H(t|\theta)

                  Regression

                  \hat{\theta} = f(x)

                  How to extract all the information?

                  I(\theta,t)
                  H(\theta)
                  H(t)
                  H(\theta|t)
                  H(t|\theta)

                  Mutual information maximization

                  I(\theta,t) = H(t) - H(t|\theta)

                  Regression

                  \hat{\theta} = f(x)

                  For our benchmark

                  sbi_lens

                  Log-normal LSST Y10 like

                  differentiable

                  simulator

                  t = f_{\varphi}(x)

                  1. We compress using one of the 4 losses.

                  Benchmark procedure:

                  2. We compare their extraction power by comparing their posteriors.

                  For this, we use a neural-based likelihood-free approach, which is fixed for all the compression strategies.

                  p(\theta \: | \: x) = p(\theta \: | \: t) \: \text{ with } \: t=f(x)

                  Numerical results

                  Summary

                  \underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
                  \underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
                  \underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
                  \propto

                  Summary

                  \underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
                  \underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
                  \underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
                  \propto
                  x
                  \theta
                  z
                  f
                  \sigma^2
                  \mathcal{N}

                  Explicit likelihood

                  Summary

                  \underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
                  \underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
                  \underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
                  \propto
                  x
                  \theta
                  z
                  f
                  \sigma^2
                  \mathcal{N}

                  Explicit likelihood

                  x
                  \theta
                  z
                  f

                   Simulator

                  Implicit likelihood

                  Summary

                  \underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
                  \underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
                  \underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
                  \propto

                  Explicit likelihood

                  Implicit likelihood

                  x
                  \theta
                  f

                   Simulator

                  Explicit inference 

                  or 

                  Implicit inference

                  Summary

                  \underbrace{p(\theta|x=x_0)}_{\text{posterior}}
                  \underbrace{p(\theta)}_{\text{prior}}
                  \underbrace{p(x = x_0|\theta)}_{\text{likelihood}}
                  \propto

                  Explicit likelihood

                  Implicit likelihood

                  Implicit inference

                  Explicit inference 

                  or 

                  Implicit inference

                  Summary

                  Implicit inference

                  Explicit inference

                  Summary

                  Implicit inference

                  Explicit inference

                  • MCMC in high-dimension
                  • Challenging to sample
                  • Needs the gradients
                  •         simulations (on our problem)
                  10^5

                  Summary

                  Implicit inference

                  Explicit inference

                  • MCMC in high-dimension
                  • Challenging to sample
                  • Needs the gradients
                  •         simulations (on our problem)
                  10^5
                  10 ^ 3
                  • Based on machine learning 
                  • Only need simulations 
                  • Gradients can be used but do not help in our problem
                  •         simulations (on our problem)
                  • Better to do one compression step before
                    • ​Mutual information maximization

                  Summary

                  Implicit inference

                  Explicit inference

                  • MCMC in high-dimension
                  • Challenging to sample
                  • Needs the gradients
                  •         simulations (on our problem)
                  10^5
                  • Based on machine learning 
                  • Only need simulations 
                  • Gradients can be used but do not help in our problem
                  •         simulations (on our problem)
                  • Better to do one compression step before
                    • ​Mutual information maximization
                  10 ^ 3
                  \theta
                  f
                  \mathcal{N}

                   Simulator

                  Summary statistics

                  t = f_{\varphi}(x)
                  x
                  p_{\Phi}(\theta | f_{\varphi}(x))

                  Thank you for your attention!