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

Ori Rosen

Ori Rosen contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyPopulations and Evolutionstat.OTApplicationsComputationMachine Learningphysics.soc-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
7topics
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)

preprint2023arXiv

Covariate-guided Bayesian mixture model for multivariate time series

With rapid development of techniques to measure brain activity and structure, statistical methods for analyzing modern brain-imaging play an important role in the advancement of science. Imaging data that measure brain function are usually multivariate time series and are heterogeneous across both imaging sources and subjects, which lead to various statistical and computational challenges. In this paper, we propose a group-based method to cluster a collection of multivariate time series via a Bayesian mixture of smoothing splines. Our method assumes each multivariate time series is a mixture of multiple components with different mixing weights. Time-independent covariates are assumed to be associated with the mixture components and are incorporated via logistic weights of a mixture-of-experts model. We formulate this approach under a fully Bayesian framework using Gibbs sampling where the number of components is selected based on a deviance information criterion. The proposed method is compared to existing methods via simulation studies and is applied to a study on functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), which aims to understand infant emotional reactivity and recovery from stress. The results reveal distinct patterns of brain activity, as well as associations between these patterns and selected covariates.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Case Study in Model Failure? COVID-19 Daily Deaths and ICU Bed Utilisation Predictions in New York State

Forecasting models have been influential in shaping decision-making in the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is concern that their predictions may have been misleading. Here, we dissect the predictions made by four models for the daily COVID-19 death counts between March 25 and June 5 in New York state, as well as the predictions of ICU bed utilisation made by the influential IHME model. We evaluated the accuracy of the point estimates and the accuracy of the uncertainty estimates of the model predictions. First, we compared the "ground truth" data sources on daily deaths against which these models were trained. Three different data sources were used by these models, and these had substantial differences in recorded daily death counts. Two additional data sources that we examined also provided different death counts per day. For accuracy of prediction, all models fared very poorly. Only 10.2% of the predictions fell within 10% of their training ground truth, irrespective of distance into the future. For accurate assessment of uncertainty, only one model matched relatively well the nominal 95% coverage, but that model did not start predictions until April 16, thus had no impact on early, major decisions. For ICU bed utilisation, the IHME model was highly inaccurate; the point estimates only started to match ground truth after the pandemic wave had started to wane. We conclude that trustworthy models require trustworthy input data to be trained upon. Moreover, models need to be subjected to prespecified real time performance tests, before their results are provided to policy makers and public health officials.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

AdaptSPEC-X: Covariate Dependent Spectral Modeling of Multiple Nonstationary Time Series

We present a method for the joint analysis of a panel of possibly nonstationary time series. The approach is Bayesian and uses a covariate-dependent infinite mixture model to incorporate multiple time series, with mixture components parameterized by a time varying mean and log spectrum. The mixture components are based on AdaptSPEC, a nonparametric model which adaptively divides the time series into an unknown number of segments and estimates the local log spectra by smoothing splines. We extend AdaptSPEC to handle missing values, a common feature of time series which can cause difficulties for nonparametric spectral methods. A second extension is to allow for a time varying mean. Covariates, assumed to be time-independent, are incorporated via the mixture weights using the logistic stick breaking process. The model can estimate time varying means and spectra at observed and unobserved covariate values, allowing for predictive inference. Estimation is performed by Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, combining data augmentation, reversible jump, and Riemann manifold Hamiltonian Monte Carlo techniques. We evaluate the methodology using simulated data, and describe applications to Australian rainfall data and measles incidence in the US. Software implementing the method proposed in this paper is available in the R package BayesSpec.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Learning as We Go: An Examination of the Statistical Accuracy of COVID19 Daily Death Count Predictions

This paper provides a formal evaluation of the predictive performance of a model (and its various updates) developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) for predicting daily deaths attributed to COVID19 for each state in the United States. The IHME models have received extensive attention in social and mass media, and have influenced policy makers at the highest levels of the United States government. For effective policy making the accurate assessment of uncertainty, as well as accurate point predictions, are necessary because the risks inherent in a decision must be taken into account, especially in the present setting of a novel disease affecting millions of lives. To assess the accuracy of the IHME models, we examine both forecast accuracy as well as the predictive performance of the 95% prediction intervals provided by the IHME models. We find that the initial IHME model underestimates the uncertainty surrounding the number of daily deaths substantially. Specifically, the true number of next day deaths fell outside the IHME prediction intervals as much as 70% of the time, in comparison to the expected value of 5%. In addition, we note that the performance of the initial model does not improve with shorter forecast horizons. Regarding the updated models, our analyses indicate that the later models do not show any improvement in the accuracy of the point estimate predictions. In fact, there is some evidence that this accuracy has actually decreased over the initial models. Moreover, when considering the updated models, while we observe a larger percentage of states having actual values lying inside the 95% prediction intervals (PI), our analysis suggests that this observation may be attributed to the widening of the PIs. The width of these intervals calls into question the usefulness of the predictions to drive policy making and resource allocation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access