Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation for Bayesian Model Comparison in Large Data

Recently, new methods for model assessment, based on subsampling and posterior approximations, have been proposed for scaling leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO) to large datasets. Although these methods work well for estimating predictive performance for individual models, they are less powerful in model comparison. We propose an efficient method for estimating differences in predictive performance by combining fast approximate LOO surrogates with exact LOO subsampling using the difference estimator and supply proofs with regards to scaling characteristics. The resulting approach can be orders of magnitude more efficient than previous approaches, as well as being better suited to model comparison

Bayesian comparison of latent variable models: Conditional vs marginal likelihoods

Typical Bayesian methods for models with latent variables (or random effects) involve directly sampling the latent variables along with the model parameters. In high-level software code for model definitions (using, e.g., BUGS, JAGS, Stan), the likelihood is therefore specified as conditional on the latent variables. This can lead researchers to perform model comparisons via conditional likelihoods, where the latent variables are considered model parameters. In other settings, however, typical model comparisons involve marginal likelihoods where the latent variables are integrated out. This distinction is often overlooked despite the fact that it can have a large impact on the comparisons of interest. In this paper, we clarify and illustrate these issues, focusing on the comparison of conditional and marginal Deviance Information Criteria (DICs) and Watanabe-Akaike Information Criteria (WAICs) in psychometric modeling. The conditional/marginal distinction corresponds to whether the model should be predictive for the clusters that are in the data or for new clusters (where "clusters" typically correspond to higher-level units like people or schools). Correspondingly, we show that marginal WAIC corresponds to leave-one-cluster out (LOcO) cross-validation, whereas conditional WAIC corresponds to leave-one-unit out (LOuO). These results lead to recommendations on the general application of the criteria to models with latent variables.Comment: Manuscript in press at Psychometrika; 31 pages, 8 figure

Bayesian leave-one-out cross-validation for large data

Model inference, such as model comparison, model checking, and model selection, is an important part of model development. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO) is a general approach for assessing the generalizability of a model, but unfortunately, LOO does not scale well to large datasets. We propose a combination of using approximate inference techniques and probability-proportional-to-size-sampling (PPS) for fast LOO model evaluation for large datasets. We provide both theoretical and empirical results showing good properties for large data.Comment: Accepted to ICML 2019. This version is the submitted pape

A tutorial on group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: second level analysis with PEB

This tutorial provides a worked example of using Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM) and Parametric Empirical Bayes (PEB) to characterise inter-subject variability in neural circuitry (effective connectivity). This involves specifying a hierarchical model with two or more levels. At the first level, state space models (DCMs) are used to infer the effective connectivity that best explains a subject's neuroimaging timeseries (e.g. fMRI, MEG, EEG). Subject-specific connectivity parameters are then taken to the group level, where they are modelled using a General Linear Model (GLM) that partitions between-subject variability into designed effects and additive random effects. The ensuing (Bayesian) hierarchical model conveys both the estimated connection strengths and their uncertainty (i.e., posterior covariance) from the subject to the group level; enabling hypotheses to be tested about the commonalities and differences across subjects. This approach can also finesse parameter estimation at the subject level, by using the group-level parameters as empirical priors. We walk through this approach in detail, using data from a published fMRI experiment that characterised individual differences in hemispheric lateralization in a semantic processing task. The preliminary subject specific DCM analysis is covered in detail in a companion paper. This tutorial is accompanied by the example dataset and step-by-step instructions to reproduce the analyses