By a nice coincidence I noticed this paper on astro ph yesterday by Lee et al. presenting a relatively straightforwards model for photon counting statistics which happens to use the device of generating functions to find analytically the likelihood function as a sum of various component sources—and which in turn might have a natural extension via the Russian Roulette version of pseudo-marginal MCMC (e.g. Lyne et al. 2014) highlighted in my recent talk at the RAS Gravitational Wave meeting (see link to slides below). In the Lee et al. paper the infinite series summation defining their likelihood function is able to be analytically solved for the basic model, but this tractability is not anticipated to hold for more complex versions; hence my expectation is that the Russian Roulette method for creating an unbiased Monte Carlo estimate of the series summation with only a (random) finite number of terms could well provide a solution amenable to posterior sampling with pseudo-marginal MCMC. Anyway, the talk slides:

- Follow Another Astrostatistics Blog on WordPress.com
### View Posts by Category

ABC Astronomy Astrostatistics Bad Science Big Data Bayes Dirichlet Processes Fourier analysis Gaussian Processes Infinite-Dimensional Inference INLA Marginal Likelihood Estimation Measure Theory Non-Parametric Order Statistics Particle MCMC Quantile Regression Rants Semi-Parametric Statistics Uncategorized Zoology, Epidemiology, & Clinical Trials### Archive

- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013

Advertisements

Nice talk, sorry to have missed it, but thanks for posting the slides.

However: “IMHO, 90% of astrostatistics problem can be solved within hours (at most, a day) but writing the model out in hierarchical form and coding it up in STAN/JAGS”

Well, no. The likelihood is typically more complex (often involving numerical simulation and/or computation) than can be built with relatively simple analytical building blocks as available in STAN/JAGS! In some cases it’s non-differentiable and this kills STAN.

JAGS really only works for the simplest astrostats problems, not “most”.