Results 1  10
of
43
Bayes Factors
, 1995
"... In a 1935 paper, and in his book Theory of Probability, Jeffreys developed a methodology for quantifying the evidence in favor of a scientific theory. The centerpiece was a number, now called the Bayes factor, which is the posterior odds of the null hypothesis when the prior probability on the null ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1012 (70 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In a 1935 paper, and in his book Theory of Probability, Jeffreys developed a methodology for quantifying the evidence in favor of a scientific theory. The centerpiece was a number, now called the Bayes factor, which is the posterior odds of the null hypothesis when the prior probability on the null is onehalf. Although there has been much discussion of Bayesian hypothesis testing in the context of criticism of P values, less attention has been given to the Bayes factor as a practical tool of applied statistics. In this paper we review and discuss the uses of Bayes factors in the context of five scientific applications in genetics, sports, ecology, sociology and psychology.
Model selection and accounting for model uncertainty in graphical models using Occam's window
, 1993
"... We consider the problem of model selection and accounting for model uncertainty in highdimensional contingency tables, motivated by expert system applications. The approach most used currently is a stepwise strategy guided by tests based on approximate asymptotic Pvalues leading to the selection o ..."
Abstract

Cited by 270 (46 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We consider the problem of model selection and accounting for model uncertainty in highdimensional contingency tables, motivated by expert system applications. The approach most used currently is a stepwise strategy guided by tests based on approximate asymptotic Pvalues leading to the selection of a single model; inference is then conditional on the selected model. The sampling properties of such a strategy are complex, and the failure to take account of model uncertainty leads to underestimation of uncertainty about quantities of interest. In principle, a panacea is provided by the standard Bayesian formalism which averages the posterior distributions of the quantity of interest under each of the models, weighted by their posterior model probabilities. Furthermore, this approach is optimal in the sense of maximising predictive ability. However, this has not been used in practice because computing the posterior model probabilities is hard and the number of models is very large (often greater than 1011). We argue that the standard Bayesian formalism is unsatisfactory and we propose an alternative Bayesian approach that, we contend, takes full account of the true model uncertainty byaveraging overamuch smaller set of models. An efficient search algorithm is developed for nding these models. We consider two classes of graphical models that arise in expert systems: the recursive causal models and the decomposable
Assessment and Propagation of Model Uncertainty
, 1995
"... this paper I discuss a Bayesian approach to solving this problem that has long been available in principle but is only now becoming routinely feasible, by virtue of recent computational advances, and examine its implementation in examples that involve forecasting the price of oil and estimating the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 120 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper I discuss a Bayesian approach to solving this problem that has long been available in principle but is only now becoming routinely feasible, by virtue of recent computational advances, and examine its implementation in examples that involve forecasting the price of oil and estimating the chance of catastrophic failure of the U.S. Space Shuttle.
Approximate Bayes Factors and Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Generalized Linear Models
, 1993
"... Ways of obtaining approximate Bayes factors for generalized linear models are described, based on the Laplace method for integrals. I propose a new approximation which uses only the output of standard computer programs such as GUM; this appears to be quite accurate. A reference set of proper priors ..."
Abstract

Cited by 98 (28 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Ways of obtaining approximate Bayes factors for generalized linear models are described, based on the Laplace method for integrals. I propose a new approximation which uses only the output of standard computer programs such as GUM; this appears to be quite accurate. A reference set of proper priors is suggested, both to represent the situation where there is not much prior information, and to assess the sensitivity of the results to the prior distribution. The methods can be used when the dispersion parameter is unknown, when there is overdispersion, to compare link functions, and to compare error distributions and variance functions. The methods can be used to implement the Bayesian approach to accounting for model uncertainty. I describe an application to inference about relative risks in the presence of control factors where model uncertainty is large and important. Software to implement the
Bayes factors and model uncertainty
 DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS, UNIVERSITY OFWASHINGTON
, 1993
"... In a 1935 paper, and in his book Theory of Probability, Jeffreys developed a methodology for quantifying the evidence in favor of a scientific theory. The centerpiece was a number, now called the Bayes factor, which is the posterior odds of the null hypothesis when the prior probability on the null ..."
Abstract

Cited by 90 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In a 1935 paper, and in his book Theory of Probability, Jeffreys developed a methodology for quantifying the evidence in favor of a scientific theory. The centerpiece was a number, now called the Bayes factor, which is the posterior odds of the null hypothesis when the prior probability on the null is onehalf. Although there has been much discussion of Bayesian hypothesis testing in the context of criticism of Pvalues, less attention has been given to the Bayes factor as a practical tool of applied statistics. In this paper we review and discuss the uses of Bayes factors in the context of five scientific applications. The points we emphasize are: from Jeffreys's Bayesian point of view, the purpose of hypothesis testing is to evaluate the evidence in favor of a scientific theory; Bayes factors offer a way of evaluating evidence in favor ofa null hypothesis; Bayes factors provide a way of incorporating external information into the evaluation of evidence about a hypothesis; Bayes factors are very general, and do not require alternative models to be nested; several techniques are available for computing Bayes factors, including asymptotic approximations which are easy to compute using the output from standard packages that maximize likelihoods; in "nonstandard " statistical models that do not satisfy common regularity conditions, it can be technically simpler to calculate Bayes factors than to derive nonBayesian significance
Predictive Model Selection
 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B
, 1995
"... this article we propose three criteria that can be used to address model selection. These emphasize observables rather than parameters and are based on a certain Bayesian predictive density. They have a unifying basis that is simple and interpretable,are free of asymptotic de#nitions,and allow the i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 62 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this article we propose three criteria that can be used to address model selection. These emphasize observables rather than parameters and are based on a certain Bayesian predictive density. They have a unifying basis that is simple and interpretable,are free of asymptotic de#nitions,and allow the incorporation of prior information. Moreover,two of these criteria are readily calibrated.
Markov Chain Monte Carlo Model Determination for Hierarchical and Graphical Loglinear Models
 Biometrika
, 1996
"... this paper, we will only consider undirected graphical models. For details of Bayesian model selection for directed graphical models see Madigan et al (1995). An (undirected) graphical model is determined by a set of conditional independence constraints of the form `fl 1 is independent of fl 2 condi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 55 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper, we will only consider undirected graphical models. For details of Bayesian model selection for directed graphical models see Madigan et al (1995). An (undirected) graphical model is determined by a set of conditional independence constraints of the form `fl 1 is independent of fl 2 conditional on all other fl i 2 C'. Graphical models are so called because they can each be represented as a graph with vertex set C and an edge between each pair fl 1 and fl 2 unless fl 1 and fl 2 are conditionally independent as described above. Darroch, Lauritzen and Speed (1980) show that each graphical loglinear model is hierarchical, with generators given by the cliques (complete subgraphs) of the graph. The total number of possible graphical models is clearly given by 2 (
Bayesian comparison of econometric models
, 1994
"... This paper integrates and extends some recent computational advances in Bayesian inference with the objective of more fully realizing the Bayesian promise of coherent inference and model comparison in economics. It combines Markov chain Monte Carlo and independence Monte Carlo with importance sampli ..."
Abstract

Cited by 38 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper integrates and extends some recent computational advances in Bayesian inference with the objective of more fully realizing the Bayesian promise of coherent inference and model comparison in economics. It combines Markov chain Monte Carlo and independence Monte Carlo with importance sampling to provide an efficient and generic method for updating posterior distributions. It exploits the multiplicative decomposition of marginalized likelihood into predictive factors, to compute posterior odds ratios efficiently and with minimal further investment in software. It argues for the use of predictive odds ratios in model comparison in economics. Finally, it suggests procedures for public reporting that will enable remote clients to conveniently modify priors, form posterior expectations of their own functions of interest, and update the posterior distribution with new observations. A series of examples explores the practicality and efficiency of these methods.
A WEAKLY INFORMATIVE DEFAULT PRIOR DISTRIBUTION FOR LOGISTIC AND OTHER REGRESSION MODELS
"... We propose a new prior distribution for classical (nonhierarchical) logistic regression models, constructed by first scaling all nonbinary variables to have mean 0 and standard deviation 0.5, and then placing independent Studentt prior distributions on the coefficients. As a default choice, we reco ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose a new prior distribution for classical (nonhierarchical) logistic regression models, constructed by first scaling all nonbinary variables to have mean 0 and standard deviation 0.5, and then placing independent Studentt prior distributions on the coefficients. As a default choice, we recommend the Cauchy distribution with center 0 and scale 2.5, which in the simplest setting is a longertailed version of the distribution attained by assuming onehalf additional success and onehalf additional failure in a logistic regression. Crossvalidation on a corpus of datasets shows the Cauchy class of prior distributions to outperform existing implementations of Gaussian and Laplace priors. We recommend this prior distribution as a default choice for routine applied use. It has the advantage of always giving answers, even when there is complete separation in logistic regression (a common problem, even when the sample size is large and the number of predictors is small), and also automatically applying more shrinkage to higherorder interactions. This can
Objective Bayesian variable selection
 Journal of the American Statistical Association 2006
, 2002
"... A novel fully automatic Bayesian procedure for variable selection in normal regression model is proposed. The procedure uses the posterior probabilities of the models to drive a stochastic search. The posterior probabilities are computed using intrinsic priors, which can be considered default priors ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A novel fully automatic Bayesian procedure for variable selection in normal regression model is proposed. The procedure uses the posterior probabilities of the models to drive a stochastic search. The posterior probabilities are computed using intrinsic priors, which can be considered default priors for model selection problems. That is, they are derived from the model structure and are free from tuning parameters. Thus, they can be seen as objective priors for variable selection. The stochastic search is based on a MetropolisHastings algorithm with a stationary distribution proportional to the model posterior probabilities. The procedure is illustrated on both simulated and real examples.