Introducing doubt in Bayesian model comparison

There are things we know, things we know we dont know, and then there are things we dont know we dont know. In this paper we address the latter two issues in a Bayesian framework, introducing the notion of doubt to quantify the degree of (dis)belief in a model given observational data in the absence of explicit alternative models. We demonstrate how a properly calibrated doubt can lead to model discovery when the true model is unknown

Bayesian model checking: A comparison of tests

Two procedures for checking Bayesian models are compared using a simple test problem based on the local Hubble expansion. Over four orders of magnitude, p-values derived from a global goodness-of-fit criterion for posterior probability density functions (Lucy 2017) agree closely with posterior predictive p-values. The former can therefore serve as an effective proxy for the difficult-to-calculate posterior predictive p-values.Comment: 4 pages, 3 figures. Submitted to Astronomy & Astrophysic

A bayesian approach for predicting with polynomial regresión of unknown degree.

This article presents a comparison of four methods to compute the posterior probabilities of the possible orders in polynomial regression models. These posterior probabilities are used for forecasting by using Bayesian model averaging. It is shown that Bayesian model averaging provides a closer relationship between the theoretical coverage of the high density predictive interval (HDPI) and the observed coverage than those corresponding to selecting the best model. The performance of the different procedures are illustrated with simulations and some known engineering data

Bayesian interpolation

Although Bayesian analysis has been in use since Laplace, the Bayesian method of model-comparison has only recently been developed in depth. In this paper, the Bayesian approach to regularization and model-comparison is demonstrated by studying the inference problem of interpolating noisy data. The concepts and methods described are quite general and can be applied to many other data modeling problems. Regularizing constants are set by examining their posterior probability distribution. Alternative regularizers (priors) and alternative basis sets are objectively compared by evaluating the evidence for them. “Occam's razor” is automatically embodied by this process. The way in which Bayes infers the values of regularizing constants and noise levels has an elegant interpretation in terms of the effective number of parameters determined by the data set. This framework is due to Gull and Skilling

Bayesian model comparison and model averaging for small-area estimation

This paper considers small-area estimation with lung cancer mortality data, and discusses the choice of upper-level model for the variation over areas. Inference about the random effects for the areas may depend strongly on the choice of this model, but this choice is not a straightforward matter. We give a general methodology for both evaluating the data evidence for different models and averaging over plausible models to give robust area effect distributions. We reanalyze the data of Tsutakawa [Biometrics 41 (1985) 69--79] on lung cancer mortality rates in Missouri cities, and show the differences in conclusions about the city rates from this methodology.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/08-AOAS205 the Annals of Applied Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aoas/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Sequential Monte Carlo with transformations

This paper examines methodology for performing Bayesian inference sequentially on a sequence of posteriors on spaces of different dimensions. For this, we use sequential Monte Carlo samplers, introducing the innovation of using deterministic transformations to move particles effectively between target distributions with different dimensions. This approach, combined with adaptive methods, yields an extremely flexible and general algorithm for Bayesian model comparison that is suitable for use in applications where the acceptance rate in reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo is low. We use this approach on model comparison for mixture models, and for inferring coalescent trees sequentially, as data arrives

Bayesian Model comparison of Higgs couplings

We investigate the possibility of contributions from physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) to the Higgs couplings, in the light of the LHC data. The work is performed within an interim framework where the magnitude of the Higgs production and decay rates are rescaled though Higgs coupling scale factors. We perform Bayesian parameter inference on these scale factors, concluding that there is good compatibility with the SM. Furthermore, we carry out Bayesian model comparison on all models where any combination of scale factors can differ from their SM values and find that typically models with fewer free couplings are strongly favoured. We consider the evidence that each coupling individually equals the SM value, making the minimal assumptions on the other couplings. Finally, we make a comparison of the SM against a single "not-SM" model, and find that there is moderate to strong evidence for the SM.Comment: 24 pages, 4 figure