Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41200465›Full record

ArticleElectronic journal of statistics2024

Reproducible parameter inference using bagged posteriors.

Jonathan H Huggins, Jeffrey W Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Electronic journal of statistics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jonathan H HugginsDepartment of Mathematics & Statistics, Boston University.ORCID 0000-0002-9256-6727
Jeffrey W MillerDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard University.ORCID 0000-0001-7718-1581

Funding

Robust, scalable, and accurate discovery of mutational signaturesR01GM144963 · NIGMS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI HUGGINS, JONATHAN · 2021 to 2023
$592k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM144963
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Under model misspecification, it is known that Bayesian posteriors often do not properly quantify uncertainty about true or pseudo-true parameters. Even more fundamentally, misspecification leads to a lack of reproducibility in the sense that the same model will yield contradictory posteriors on independent data sets from the true distribution. To define a criterion for reproducible uncertainty quantification under misspecification, we consider the probability that two credible sets constructed from independent data sets have nonempty overlap, and we establish a lower bound on this overlap probability that holds whenever the credible sets are valid confidence sets. We prove that credible sets from the standard posterior can strongly violate this bound, indicating that it is not internally coherent under misspecification. To improve reproducibility in an easy-to-use and widely applicable way, we propose to apply bagging to the Bayesian posterior ("BayesBag"); that is, to use the average of posterior distributions conditioned on bootstrapped datasets. We motivate BayesBag from first principles based on Jeffrey conditionalization and show that the bagged posterior typically satisfies the overlap lower bound. Further, we prove a Bernstein-Von Mises theorem for the bagged posterior, establishing its asymptotic normal distribution. We demonstrate the benefits of BayesBag via simulation experiments and an application to crime rate prediction.

Indexed as

BaggingBernstein–Von Mises theorembootstrapJeffrey conditionalizationmodel misspecificationoverlap probabilityPrimary 62F15, 62F40secondary 62A01, 62F35uncertainty calibration

Identifiers

PMID41200465
PMCPMC12588188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.