BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Jean-Michel Marin

Jean-Michel Marin contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
ComputationMethodologyApplicationsmath.STStatistics Theorymath.PR

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
11works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

11 published item(s)

preprint2012arXiv

Bounding rare event probabilities in computer experiments

We are interested in bounding probabilities of rare events in the context of computer experiments. These rare events depend on the output of a physical model with random input variables. Since the model is only known through an expensive black box function, standard efficient Monte Carlo methods designed for rare events cannot be used. We then propose a strategy to deal with this difficulty based on importance sampling methods. This proposal relies on Kriging metamodeling and is able to achieve sharp upper confidence bounds on the rare event probabilities. The variability due to the Kriging metamodeling step is properly taken into account. The proposed methodology is applied to a toy example and compared to more standard Bayesian bounds. Finally, a challenging real case study is analyzed. It consists of finding an upper bound of the probability that the trajectory of an airborne load will collide with the aircraft that has released it.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

A new semi-parametric family of probability distributions for survival analysis

In the context of survival analysis, Marshall and Olkin (1997) introduced families of distributions by adding a scalar parameter to a given survival function, parameterized or not. In that paper, we generalize their approach. We show how it is possible to add more than a single parameter to a given distribution. We then introduce very flexible families of distributions for which we calculate some moments. Notably, we give some tractable expressions of these moments when the given baseline distribution is Log-logistic. Finally, we demonstrate how to generate sample from these new families.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Adaptive Multiple Importance Sampling

The Adaptive Multiple Importance Sampling (AMIS) algorithm is aimed at an optimal recycling of past simulations in an iterated importance sampling scheme. The difference with earlier adaptive importance sampling implementations like Population Monte Carlo is that the importance weights of all simulated values, past as well as present, are recomputed at each iteration, following the technique of the deterministic multiple mixture estimator of Owen and Zhou (2000). Although the convergence properties of the algorithm cannot be fully investigated, we demonstrate through a challenging banana shape target distribution and a population genetics example that the improvement brought by this technique is substantial.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Maximin design on non hypercube domain and kernel interpolation

In the paradigm of computer experiments, the choice of an experimental design is an important issue. When no information is available about the black-box function to be approximated, an exploratory design have to be used. In this context, two dispersion criteria are usually considered: the minimax and the maximin ones. In the case of a hypercube domain, a standard strategy consists of taking the maximin design within the class of Latin hypercube designs. However, in a non hypercube context, it does not make sense to use the Latin hypercube strategy. Moreover, whatever the design is, the black-box function is typically approximated thanks to kernel interpolation. Here, we first provide a theoretical justification to the maximin criterion with respect to kernel interpolations. Then, we propose simulated annealing algorithms to determine maximin designs in any bounded connected domain. We prove the convergence of the different schemes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Bayesian Inference

This chapter provides a overview of Bayesian inference, mostly emphasising that it is a universal method for summarising uncertainty and making estimates and predictions using probability statements conditional on observed data and an assumed model (Gelman 2008). The Bayesian perspective is thus applicable to all aspects of statistical inference, while being open to the incorporation of information items resulting from earlier experiments and from expert opinions. We provide here the basic elements of Bayesian analysis when considered for standard models, refering to Marin and Robert (2007) and to Robert (2007) for book-length entries.1 In the following, we refrain from embarking upon philosophical discussions about the nature of knowledge (see, e.g., Robert 2007, Chapter 10), opting instead for a mathematically sound presentation of an eminently practical statistical methodology. We indeed believe that the most convincing arguments for adopting a Bayesian version of data analyses are in the versatility of this tool and in the large range of existing applications, rather than in those polemical arguments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

On computational tools for Bayesian data analysis

While Robert and Rousseau (2010) addressed the foundational aspects of Bayesian analysis, the current chapter details its practical aspects through a review of the computational methods available for approximating Bayesian procedures. Recent innovations like Monte Carlo Markov chain, sequential Monte Carlo methods and more recently Approximate Bayesian Computation techniques have considerably increased the potential for Bayesian applications and they have also opened new avenues for Bayesian inference, first and foremost Bayesian model choice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

On resolving the Savage-Dickey paradox

The Savage-Dickey ratio is known as a specialised representation of the Bayes factor (O'Hagan and Forster, 2004) that allows for a functional plugging approximation of this quantity. We demonstrate here that the Savage-Dickey representation is in fact a generic representation of the Bayes factor that relies on specific measure-theoretic versions of the densities involved in the ratio, instead of a special identity imposing the above constraints on the prior distributions. We completely clarify the measure-theoretic foundations of the representation as well as the generalisation of Verdinelli and Wasserman (1995) and propose a comparison of this new approximation with their version, as well as with bridge sampling and Chib's approaches.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2009arXiv

Adaptive approximate Bayesian computation

Sequential techniques can enhance the efficiency of the approximate Bayesian computation algorithm, as in Sisson et al.'s (2007) partial rejection control version. While this method is based upon the theoretical works of Del Moral et al. (2006), the application to approximate Bayesian computation results in a bias in the approximation to the posterior. An alternative version based on genuine importance sampling arguments bypasses this difficulty, in connection with the population Monte Carlo method of Cappe et al. (2004), and it includes an automatic scaling of the forward kernel. When applied to a population genetics example, it compares favourably with two other versions of the approximate algorithm.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2008arXiv

On some difficulties with a posterior probability approximation technique

In Scott (2002) and Congdon (2006), a new method is advanced to compute posterior probabilities of models under consideration. It is based solely on MCMC outputs restricted to single models, i.e., it is bypassing reversible jump and other model exploration techniques. While it is indeed possible to approximate posterior probabilities based solely on MCMC outputs from single models, as demonstrated by Gelfand and Dey (1994) and Bartolucci et al. (2006), we show that the proposals of Scott (2002) and Congdon (2006) are biased and advance several arguments towards this thesis, the primary one being the confusion between model-based posteriors and joint pseudo-posteriors. From a practical point of view, the bias in Scott's (2002) approximation appears to be much more severe than the one in Congdon's (2006), the later being often of the same magnitude as the posterior probability it approximates, although we also exhibit an example where the divergence from the true posterior probability is extreme.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access