In practice, scoring rules elicit good probability estimates from individuals, while betting markets elicit good consensus estimates from groups. Market scoring rules combine these features, eliciting estimates from individuals or groups, with groups costing no more than individuals.

Ensembles used for probabilistic weather forecasting often exhibit a spread-error correlation, but they tend to be underdispersive. This paper proposes a statistical method for postprocessing ensembles based on Bayesian model averaging (BMA), which is a standard method for combining predictive distributions from different sources. The BMA predictive probability density function (PDF) of any quantity of interest is a weighted average of PDFs centered on the individual bias-corrected forecasts, where the weights are equal to posterior probabilities of the models generating the forecasts and reflect the models ’ relative contributions to predictive skill over the training period. The BMA weights can be used to assess the usefulness of ensemble members, and this can be used as a basis for selecting ensemble members; this can be useful given the cost of running large ensembles. The BMA PDF can be represented as an unweighted ensemble of any desired size, by simulating from the BMA predictive distribution. The BMA predictive variance can be decomposed into two components, one corresponding to the between-forecast variability, and the second to the within-forecast variability. Predictive PDFs or intervals based solely on the ensemble spread incorporate the first component but not the second. Thus BMA provides a theoretical explanation of the tendency of ensembles to exhibit a spread-error correlation but yet

We consider the problems of variable selection and accounting for model uncertainty in linear regression models. Conditioning on a single selected model ignores model uncertainty, and thus leads to the underestimation of uncertainty when making inferences about quantities of interest. The complete Bayesian solution to this problem involves averaging over all possible models when making inferences about quantities of interest. This approach is often not practical. In this paper we offer two alternative approaches. First we describe a Bayesian model selection algorithm called "Occam's "Window" which involves averaging over a reduced set of models. Second, we describe a Markov chain Monte Carlo approach which directly approximates the exact solution. Both these model averaging procedures provide better predictive performance than any single model which might reasonably have been selected. In the extreme case where there are many candidate predictors but there is no relationship between any of them and the response, standard variable selection procedures often choose some subset of variables that yields a high R² and a highly significant overall F value. We refer to this unfortunate phenomenon as "Freedman's Paradox" (Freedman, 1983). In this situation, Occam's vVindow usually indicates the null model as the only one to be considered, or else a small number of models including the null model, thus largely resolving the paradox.

Abstract not found

Survival analysis is concerned with finding models to predict the survival of patients or to assess the efficacy of a clinical treatment. A key part of the model-building process is the selection of the predictor variables. It is standard to use a stepwise procedure guided by a series of significance tests to select a single model, and then to make inference conditionally on the selected model. However, this ignores model uncertainty, which can be substantial. We review the standard Bayesian model averaging solution to this problem and extend it to survival analysis, introducing partial Bayes factors to do so for the Cox proportional hazards model. In two examples, taking account of model uncertainty enhances predictive performance, to an extent that could be clinically useful. 1 Introduction From 1974 to 1984 the Mayo Clinic conducted a double-blinded randomized clinical trial involving 312 patients to compare the drug DPCA with a placebo in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis...

We investigate the issue of model uncertainty in cross-country growth regressions using Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA). We find that the posterior probability is spread widely among many models, suggesting the superiority of BMA over choosing any single model. Out-of-sample predictive results support this claim. In contrast to Levine and Renelt (1992), our results broadly support the more ‘optimistic ’ conclusion of Salai-Martin (1997b), namely that some variables are important regressors for explaining cross-country growth patterns. However, care should be taken in the methodology employed. The approach proposed here is firmly grounded in statistical theory and immediately leads to posterior and predictive inference. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1.

Standard statistical practice ignores model uncertainty. Data analysts typically select a model from some class of models and then proceed as if the selected model had generated the data. This approach ignores the uncertainty in model selection, leading to over-con dent inferences and decisions that are more risky than one thinks they are. Bayesian model averaging (BMA) provides a coherent mechanism for accounting for this model uncertainty. Several methods for implementing BMA haverecently emerged. We discuss these methods and present anumber of examples. In these examples, BMA provides improved out-of-sample predictive performance. We also provide a catalogue of

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.

We describe computationally efficient methods for learning mixtures in which each component is a directed acyclic graphical model (mixtures of DAGs or MDAGs). We argue that simple search-and-score algorithms are infeasible for a variety of problems, and introduce a feasible approach in which parameter and structure search is interleaved and expected data is treated as real data. Our approach can be viewed as a combination of (1) the Cheeseman–Stutz asymptotic approximation for model posterior probability and (2) the Expectation–Maximization algorithm. We evaluate our procedure for selecting among MDAGs on synthetic and real examples. 1

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.