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 one-half. 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.

It is argued that P-values and the tests based upon them give unsatisfactory results, especially in large samples. It is shown that, in regression, when there are many candidate independent variables, standard variable selection procedures can give very misleading results. Also, by selecting a single model, they ignore model uncertainty and so underestimate the uncertainty about quantities of interest. The Bayesian approach to hypothesis testing, model selection and accounting for model uncertainty is presented. Implementing this is straightforward using the simple and accurate BIC approximation, and can be done using the output from standard software. Specific results are presented for most of the types of model commonly used in sociology. It is shown that this approach overcomes the difficulties with P values and standard model selection procedures based on them. It also allows easy comparison of non-nested models, and permits the quantification of the evidence for a null hypothesis...

Abstract: This paper considers Bayesian counterparts of the classical tests for goodness of fit and their use in judging the fit of a single Bayesian model to the observed data. We focus on posterior predictive assessment, in a framework that also includes conditioning on auxiliary statistics. The Bayesian formulation facilitates the construction and calculation of a meaningful reference distribution not only for any (classical) statistic, but also for any parameter-dependent “statistic ” or discrepancy. The latter allows us to propose the realized discrepancy assessment of model fitness, which directly measures the true discrepancy between data and the posited model, for any aspect of the model which we want to explore. The computation required for the realized discrepancy assessment is a straightforward byproduct of the posterior simulation used for the original Bayesian analysis. We illustrate with three applied examples. The first example, which serves mainly to motivate the work, illustrates the difficulty of classical tests in assessing the fitness of a Poisson model to a positron emission tomography image that is constrained to be nonnegative. The second and third examples illustrate the details of the posterior predictive approach in two problems: estimation in a model with inequality constraints on the parameters, and estimation in a mixture model. In all three examples, standard test statistics (either a χ 2 or a likelihood ratio) are not pivotal: the difficulty is not just how to compute the reference distribution for the test, but that in the classical framework no such distribution exists, independent of the unknown model parameters. Key words and phrases: Bayesian p-value, χ 2 test, discrepancy, graphical assessment, mixture model, model criticism, posterior predictive p-value, prior predictive

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 one-half. 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. 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 "non-standard " statistical models that do not satisfy common regularity conditions, it can be technically simpler to calculate Bayes factors than to derive non-Bayesian significance

Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling strategies can be used to simulate hidden Markov model (HMM) parameters from their posterior distribution given observed data. Some MCMC methods (for computing likelihood, conditional probabilities of hidden states, and the most likely sequence of states) used in practice can be improved by incorporating established recursive algorithms. The most important is a set of forward-backward recursions calculating conditional distributions of the hidden states given observed data and model parameters. We show how to use the recursive algorithms in an MCMC context and demonstrate mathematical and empirical results showing a Gibbs sampler using the forward-backward recursions mixes more rapidly than another sampler often used for HMM's. We introduce an augmented variables technique for obtaining unique state labels in HMM's and finite mixture models. We show how recursive computing allows statistically efficient use of MCMC output when estimating the hidden states. We directly calculate the posterior distribution of the hidden chain's state space size by MCMC, circumventing asymptotic arguments underlying the Bayesian information criterion, which is shown to be inappropriate for a frequently analyzed data set in the HMM literature. The use of log-likelihood for assessing MCMC convergence is illustrated, and posterior predictive checks are used to investigate application specific questions of model adequacy.

e wrong, which is even worse. Please let us know of any successes or failures. Beware - Gibbs sampling can be dangerous!. BUGS c flcopyright MRC Biostatistics Unit 1995. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (UK) is gratefully acknowledged. The work was funded in part by ESRC (UK) Award Number H519 25 5023. 1 2 Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 What is BUGS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2 For what kind of problems is BUGS best suited? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3 Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.4 A simple example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.5 Hardware platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.6 Software . . .

Statistical inference in long-horizon event studies has been hampered by the fact that abnormal returns are neither normally distributed nor independent. This study presents a new approach to inference that overcomes these difficulties and dominates other popular testing methods. I illustrate the use of the methodology by examining the long-horizon returns of initial public offerings ~IPOs!. I find that the Fama and French ~1993! three-factor model is inconsistent with the observed long-horizon price performance of these IPOs, whereas a characteristic-based model cannot be rejected. RECENT EMPIRICAL STUDIES IN FINANCE document systematic long-run abnormal price reactions subsequent to numerous corporate activities. 1 Since these results imply that stock prices react with a long delay to publicly available information, they appear to be at odds with the Efficient Markets Hypothesis ~EMH!. Long-run event studies, however, are subject to serious statistical difficulties

Summary. Probabilistic forecasts of continuous variables take the form of predictive densities or predictive cumulative distribution functions. We propose a diagnostic approach to the evaluation of predictive performance that is based on the paradigm of maximizing the sharpness of the predictive distributions subject to calibration. Calibration refers to the statistical consistency between the distributional forecasts and the observations and is a joint property of the predictions and the events that materialize. Sharpness refers to the concentration of the predictive distributions and is a property of the forecasts only. A simple theoretical framework allows us to distinguish between probabilistic calibration, exceedance calibration and marginal calibration. We propose and study tools for checking calibration and sharpness, among them the probability integral transform histogram, marginal calibration plots, the sharpness diagram and proper scoring rules. The diagnostic approach is illustrated by an assessment and ranking of probabilistic forecasts of wind speed at the Stateline wind energy centre in the US Pacific Northwest. In combination with cross-validation or in the time series context, our proposal provides very general, nonparametric alternatives to the use of information criteria for model diagnostics and model selection.

In this work, we discuss practical methods for the assessment, comparison, and selection of complex hierarchical Bayesian models. A natural way to assess the goodness of the model is to estimate its future predictive capability by estimating expected utilities. Instead of just making a point estimate, it is important to obtain the distribution of the expected utility estimate, as it describes the uncertainty in the estimate. The distributions of the expected utility estimates can also be used to compare models, for example, by computing the probability of one model having a better expected utility than some other model. We propose an approach using crossvalidation predictive densities to obtain expected utility estimates and Bayesian bootstrap to obtain samples from their distributions. We also discuss the probabilistic assumptions made and properties of two practical cross-validation methods, importance sampling and k-fold cross-validation. As illustrative examples, we use MLP neural networks and Gaussian Processes (GP) with Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling in one toy problem and two challenging real-world problems.

The Gibbs sampler can be used to obtain samples of arbitrary size from the posterior distribution over the parameters of a structural equation model (SEM) given covariance data and a prior distribution over the parameters. Point estimates, standard deviations and interval estimates for the parameters can be computed from these samples. If the prior distribution over the parameters is uninformative, the posterior is proportional to the likelihood, and asymptotically the inferences based on the Gibbs sample are the same as those based on the maximum likelihood solution, e.g., output from LISREL or EQS. In small samples, however, the likelihood surface is not Gaussian and in some cases contains local maxima. Nevertheless, the Gibbs sample comes from the correct posterior distribution over the parameters regardless of the sample size and the shape of the likelihood surface. With an informative prior distribution over the parameters, the posterior can be used to make inferences about the parameters of underidentified models, as we illustrate on a simple errors-in-variables model.