ArticleBayesian analysis2025
A Tree Perspective on Stick-Breaking Models in Covariate-Dependent Mixtures (with Discussion).
Article in Bayesian analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Logistic-Beta Processes for Dependent Random Probabilities with Beta Marginals.Bayesian analysis · 2025Article
- A Tree Perspective on Stick-Breaking Models in Covariate-Dependent Mixtures (with Discussion).Bayesian analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stick-breaking (SB) processes are often adopted in Bayesian mixture models for generating mixing weights. When covariates influence the sizes of clusters, SB mixtures are particularly convenient as they can leverage their connection to binary regression to ease both the specification of covariate effects and posterior computation. Existing SB models are typically constructed based on continually breaking a single remaining piece of the unit stick. We view this from a dyadic tree perspective in terms of a lopsided bifurcating tree that extends only on one side. We show that two unsavory characteristics of SB models are in fact largely due to this lopsided tree structure. We consider a generalized class of SB models with alternative bifurcating tree structures and examine the influence of the underlying tree topology on the resulting Bayesian analysis in terms of prior assumptions, posterior uncertainty, and computational effectiveness. In particular, we provide evidence that a balanced tree topology, which corresponds to continually breaking all remaining pieces of the unit stick, can resolve or mitigate these undesirable properties of SB models that rely on a lopsided tree.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.