BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research pathsDiscover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
James O. Berger appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.
Catalog footprint
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
We consider the problem of variable selection in linear models when $p$, the number of potential regressors, may exceed (and perhaps substantially) the sample size $n$ (which is possibly small).
The problem of testing mutually exclusive hypotheses with dependent test statistics is considered. Bayesian and frequentist approaches to multiplicity control are studied and compared to help gain understanding as to the effect of test statistic dependence on each approach. The Bayesian approach is shown to have excellent frequentist properties and is argued to be the most effective way of obtaining frequentist multiplicity control, without sacrificing power, when there is considerable test statistic dependence.
In multi-parameter models, reference priors typically depend on the parameter or quantity of interest, and it is well known that this is necessary to produce objective posterior distributions with optimal properties. There are, however, many situations where one is simultaneously interested in all the parameters of the model or, more realistically, in functions of them that include aspects such as prediction, and it would then be useful to have a single objective prior that could safely be used to produce reasonable posterior inferences for all the quantities of interest. In this paper, we consider three methods for selecting a single objective prior and study, in a variety of problems including the multinomial problem, whether or not the resulting prior is a reasonable overall prior.
Much of science is (rightly or wrongly) driven by hypothesis testing. Even in situations where the hypothesis testing paradigm is correct, the common practice of basing inferences solely on p-values has been under intense criticism for over 50 years. We propose, as an alternative, the use of the odds of a correct rejection of the null hypothesis to incorrect rejection. Both pre-experimental versions (involving the power and Type I error) and post-experimental versions (depending on the actual data) are considered. Implementations are provided that range from depending only on the p-value to consideration of full Bayesian analysis. A surprise is that all implementations -- even the full Bayesian analysis -- have complete frequentist justification. Versions of our proposal can be implemented that require only minor modifications to existing practices yet overcome some of their most severe shortcomings.
Rejoinder to Overall Objective Priors by James O. Berger, Jose M. Bernardo, Dongchu Sun [arXiv:1504.02689]
Item response theory (IRT) models have been widely used in educational measurement testing. When there are repeated observations available for individuals through time, a dynamic structure for the latent trait of ability needs to be incorporated into the model, to accommodate changes in ability. Other complications that often arise in such settings include a violation of the common assumption that test results are conditionally independent, given ability and item difficulty, and that test item difficulties may be partially specified, but subject to uncertainty. Focusing on time series dichotomous response data, a new class of state space models, called Dynamic Item Response (DIR) models, is proposed. The models can be applied either retrospectively to the full data or on-line, in cases where real-time prediction is needed. The models are studied through simulated examples and applied to a large collection of reading test data obtained from MetaMetrics, Inc.
This paper studies the multiplicity-correction effect of standard Bayesian variable-selection priors in linear regression. Our first goal is to clarify when, and how, multiplicity correction happens automatically in Bayesian analysis, and to distinguish this correction from the Bayesian Ockham's-razor effect. Our second goal is to contrast empirical-Bayes and fully Bayesian approaches to variable selection through examples, theoretical results and simulations. Considerable differences between the two approaches are found. In particular, we prove a theorem that characterizes a surprising aymptotic discrepancy between fully Bayes and empirical Bayes. This discrepancy arises from a different source than the failure to account for hyperparameter uncertainty in the empirical-Bayes estimate. Indeed, even at the extreme, when the empirical-Bayes estimate converges asymptotically to the true variable-inclusion probability, the potential for a serious difference remains.