BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Michael Evans

Michael Evans appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Methodologymath.STStatistics TheoryApplicationsmath.OCquant-phSystems and Control

Catalog footprint

What is connected

13works
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

Published work

13 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Combining Evidence

The problem of combining the evidence concerning an unknown, contained in each of $k$ Bayesian inference bases, is discussed. This can be considered as a generalization of the problem of pooling $k$ priors to determine a consensus prior. The linear opinion pool of Stone (1961) is seen to have the most appropriate properties for this role. In particular, linear pooling preserves a consensus with respect to the evidence and other rules do not. While linear pooling does not preserve prior independence, it is shown that it still behaves appropriately with respect to the expression of evidence in such a context. For the general problem of combining evidence, Jeffrey conditionalization plays a key role.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

ROC Analyses Based on Measuring Evidence

ROC analyses are considered under a variety of assumptions concerning the distributions of a measurement $X$ in two populations. These include the binormal model as well as nonparametric models where little is assumed about the form of distributions. The methodology is based on a characterization of statistical evidence which is dependent on the specification of prior distributions for the unknown population distributions as well as for the relevant prevalence $w$ of the disease in a given population. In all cases, elicitation algorithms are provided to guide the selection of the priors. Inferences are derived for the AUC as well as the cutoff $c$ used for classification and the associated error characteristics.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Using prior expansions for prior-data conflict checking

Any Bayesian analysis involves combining information represented through different model components, and when different sources of information are in conflict it is important to detect this. Here we consider checking for prior-data conflict in Bayesian models by expanding the prior used for the analysis into a larger family of priors, and considering a marginal likelihood score statistic for the expansion parameter. Consideration of different expansions can be informative about the nature of any conflict, and extensions to hierarchically specified priors and connections with other approaches to prior-data conflict checking are discussed. Implementation in complex situations is illustrated with two applications. The first concerns testing for the appropriateness of a LASSO penalty in shrinkage estimation of coefficients in linear regression. Our method is compared with a recent suggestion in the literature designed to be powerful against alternatives in the exponential power family, and we use this family as the prior expansion for constructing our check. A second application concerns a problem in quantum state estimation, where a multinomial model is considered with physical constraints on the model parameters. In this example, the usefulness of different prior expansions is demonstrated for obtaining checks which are sensitive to different aspects of the prior.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Robustly Maximal Utilisation of Energy-Constrained Distributed Resources

We consider the problem of dispatching a fleet of distributed energy reserve devices to collectively meet a sequence of power requests over time. Under the restriction that reserves cannot be replenished, we aim to maximise the survival time of an energy-constrained islanded electrical system; and we discuss realistic scenarios in which this might be the ultimate goal of the grid operator. We present a policy that achieves this optimality, and generalise this into a set-theoretic result that implies there is no better policy available, regardless of the realised energy requirement scenario.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Checking for prior-data conflict using prior to posterior divergences

When using complex Bayesian models to combine information, the checking for consistency of the information being combined is good statistical practice. Here a new method is developed for detecting prior-data conflicts in Bayesian models based on comparing the observed value of a prior to posterior divergence to its distribution under the prior predictive distribution for the data. The divergence measure used in our model check is a measure of how much beliefs have changed from prior to posterior, and can be thought of as a measure of the overall size of a relative belief function. It is shown that the proposed method is intuitive, has desirable properties, can be extended to hierarchical settings, and is related asymptotically to Jeffreys' and reference prior distributions. In the case where calculations are difficult, the use of variational approximations as a way of relieving the computational burden is suggested. The methods are compared in a number of examples with an alternative but closely related approach in the literature based on the prior predictive distribution of a minimal sufficient statistic.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Multiple testing via relative belief ratios

Some large scale inference problems are considered based on using the relative belief ratio as a measure of statistical evidence. This approach is applied to the multiple testing problem. A particular application of this is concerned with assessing sparsity. The approach taken to sparsity has several advantages as it is based on a measure of evidence and does not require that the prior be restricted in any way.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Optimal Robustness Results for Some Bayesian Procedures and the Relationship to Prior-Data Conflict

The robustness to the prior of Bayesian inference procedures based on a measure of statistical evidence are considered. These inferences are shown to have optimal properties with respect to robustness. Furthermore, a connection between robustness and prior-data conflict is established. In particular, the inferences are shown to be effectively robust when the choice of prior does not lead to prior-data conflict. When there is prior-data conflict, however, robustness may fail to hold.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Bayesian Hypothesis Assessment in Two-arm Trials Using Relative Belief Ratios

This paper develops a Bayesian approach for assessing equivalence and non-inferiority hypotheses in two-arm trials using relative belief ratios. A relative belief ratio is a measure of statistical evidence and can indicate evidence either for or against a hypothesis. In addition to the relative belief ratio, we also compute a measure of the strength of this evidence as a calibration of the relative belief ratio. Furthermore, we make use of the relative belief ratio as a measure of evidence, to assess whether a given prior induces bias either for or against a hypothesis. Prior elicitation, model checking and checking for prior-data conflict procedures are developed to ensure that the choices of model and prior made are relevant to the specific application. We highlight the applicability of the approach and illustrate the proposed method by applying it to a data set obtained from a two-arm clinical trial.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Weak Informativity and the Information in One Prior Relative to Another

A question of some interest is how to characterize the amount of information that a prior puts into a statistical analysis. Rather than a general characterization, we provide an approach to characterizing the amount of information a prior puts into an analysis, when compared to another base prior. The base prior is considered to be the prior that best reflects the current available information. Our purpose then is to characterize priors that can be used as conservative inputs to an analysis relative to the base prior. The characterization that we provide is in terms of a priori measures of prior-data conflict.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Inferences from prior-based loss functions

Inferences that arise from loss functions determined by the prior are considered and it is shown that these lead to limiting Bayes rules that are closely connected with likelihood. The procedures obtained via these loss functions are invariant under reparameterizations and are Bayesian unbiased or limits of Bayesian unbiased inferences. These inferences serve as well-supported alternatives to MAP-based inferences.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Invariant $P$-values for model checking

$P$-values have been the focus of considerable criticism based on various considerations. Still, the $P$-value represents one of the most commonly used statistical tools. When assessing the suitability of a single hypothesized distribution, it is not clear that there is a better choice for a measure of surprise. This paper is concerned with the definition of appropriate model-based $P$-values for model checking.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access