BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Alexander Ly

Alexander Ly contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Methodologymath.STStatistics TheoryMachine Learningstat.OT

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Bayes Factors for Peri-Null Hypotheses

A perennial objection against Bayes factor point-null hypothesis tests is that the point-null hypothesis is known to be false from the outset. We examine the consequences of approximating the sharp point-null hypothesis by a hazy `peri-null' hypothesis instantiated as a narrow prior distribution centered on the point of interest. The peri-null Bayes factor then equals the point-null Bayes factor multiplied by a correction term which is itself a Bayes factor. For moderate sample sizes, the correction term is relatively inconsequential; however, for large sample sizes the correction term becomes influential and causes the peri-null Bayes factor to be inconsistent and approach a limit that depends on the ratio of prior ordinates evaluated at the maximum likelihood estimate. We characterize the asymptotic behavior of the peri-null Bayes factor and briefly discuss suggestions on how to construct peri-null Bayes factor hypothesis tests that are also consistent.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Default Bayes Factors for Testing the (In)equality of Several Population Variances

Testing the (in)equality of variances is an important problem in many statistical applications. We develop default Bayes factor tests to assess the (in)equality of two or more population variances, as well as a test for whether the population variances equal a specific value. The resulting test can be used to check assumptions for commonly used procedures such as the $t$-test or ANOVA, or test substantive hypotheses concerning variances directly. We show that our Bayes factor fulfills a number of desiderata. Researchers may have directed hypotheses such as $σ_{1}^{2} > σ_{2}^{2}$, they may want to extend $\mathcal{H}_{0}$ to have a null-region, or wish to combine hypotheses about equality with hypotheses about inequality, for example $σ_{1}^{2} = σ_{2}^{2} > (σ_{3}^{2}, σ_{4}^{2})$. We extend our Bayes factor test to allow for these deviations from our proposed default and illustrate it on a number of practical examples. Our procedure is implemented in the R package $bfvartest$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Generic E-Variables for Exact Sequential k-Sample Tests that allow for Optional Stopping

We develop E-variables for testing whether two or more data streams come from the same source or not, and more generally, whether the difference between the sources is larger than some minimal effect size. These E-variables lead to exact, nonasymptotic tests that remain safe, i.e. keep their type-I error guarantees, under flexible sampling scenarios such as optional stopping and continuation. In special cases our E-variables also have an optimal 'growth' property under the alternative. While the construction is generic, we illustrate it through the special case of k x 2 contingency tables, where we also allow for the incorporation of different restrictions on a composite alternative. Comparison to p-value analysis in simulations and a real-world example show that E-variables, through their flexibility, often allow for early stopping of data collection, thereby retaining similar power as classical methods, while also retaining the option of extending or combining data afterwards.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

History and Nature of the Jeffreys-Lindley Paradox

The Jeffreys-Lindley paradox exposes a rift between Bayesian and frequentist hypothesis testing that strikes at the heart of statistical inference. Contrary to what most current literature suggests, the paradox was central to the Bayesian testing methodology developed by Sir Harold Jeffreys in the late 1930s. Jeffreys showed that the evidence against a point-null hypothesis $\mathcal{H}_0$ scales with $\sqrt{n}$ and repeatedly argued that it would therefore be mistaken to set a threshold for rejecting $\mathcal{H}_0$ at a constant multiple of the standard error. Here we summarize Jeffreys's early work on the paradox and clarify his reasons for including the $\sqrt{n}$ term. The prior distribution is seen to play a crucial role; by implicitly correcting for selection, small parameter values are identified as relatively surprising under $\mathcal{H}_1$. We highlight the general nature of the paradox by presenting both a fully frequentist and a fully Bayesian version. We also demonstrate that the paradox does not depend on assigning prior mass to a point hypothesis, as is commonly believed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access