Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Expose logp for Bayesian models in brainiak #69

Open
mshvartsman opened this issue Jul 18, 2016 · 4 comments
Open

Expose logp for Bayesian models in brainiak #69

mshvartsman opened this issue Jul 18, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

@mshvartsman
Copy link
Contributor

SRM and (H)TFA, and Bayesian RSA are all Bayesian models. It would be great if they exposed a method that produces a log-likelihood given some data and parameters. This would make easier a number of things:

  • Bayesian model comparison.
  • Decomposing the model structure from the estimation machinery for better reuse of either/both.
@TuKo
Copy link
Contributor

TuKo commented Aug 3, 2016

@mshvartsman , how would a log-likelihood function would help with model comparison here?
Can you give an expected usage example?

@mihaic
Copy link
Member

mihaic commented Aug 12, 2016

@mshvartsman, can you please reply to Javier?

@mshvartsman
Copy link
Contributor Author

For Bayesian model comparison I guess we would need marginal likelihood, not likelihood given data and parameters, so maybe this is not as useful on this front.

For the latter situation I'm imagining something like the following: if I estimate a joint hyperprior over some latent cognitive features of behavioral data and latent factors I could alternate doing MAP estimation on the brain factor model, cognitive features, and the hyper-prior. I would be reusing the factor model likelihood but the rest of the structure would be different.

I'm hoping to put together a simpler version (using PCA instead of a fancy factor model) as a proof of concept, so if you prefer we can close this and wait on it until I have a concrete thing I want to plug one of these factor models into to reopen.

@lcnature
Copy link
Contributor

This is a good idea as I also have plan to offer a model comparison capacity in Bayesian RSA. The simple way is to give BIC or AIC score. Doing cross-validation can be better. But fit() seems to be reserved for giving back labels for testing data instead of giving log-likelihood. What function name would be good?
But anyway I prefer to keep this as lower priority for my code as I have a few other things to add first.

danielsuo pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 16, 2017
* read_bytes: handle EINTR + easier flow

* addressing whitespace + style comments

* handling partial i/o: write_bytes; use [read|write]_bytes in plasma send/receive
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants