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

Riko Kelter

Riko Kelter contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyComputationApplications

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
3topics
1close 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

5 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

A new Bayesian two-sample t-test for effect size estimation under uncertainty based on a two-component Gaussian mixture with known allocations and the region of practical equivalence

Testing differences between a treatment and control group is common practice in biomedical research like randomized controlled trials (RCT). The standard two-sample t-test relies on null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) via p-values, which has several drawbacks. Bayesian alternatives were recently introduced using the Bayes factor, which has its own limitations. This paper introduces an alternative to current Bayesian two-sample t-tests by interpreting the underlying model as a two-component Gaussian mixture in which the effect size is the quantity of interest, which is most relevant in clinical research. Unlike p-values or the Bayes factor, the proposed method focusses on estimation under uncertainty instead of explicit hypothesis testing. Therefore, via a Gibbs sampler the posterior of the effect size is produced, which is used subsequently for either estimation under uncertainty or explicit hypothesis testing based on the region of practical equivalence (ROPE). An illustrative example, theoretical results and a simulation study show the usefulness of the proposed method, and the test is made available in the R package bayest.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Bayesian model selection in the $\mathcal{M}$-open setting -- Approximate posterior inference and probability-proportional-to-size subsampling for efficient large-scale leave-one-out cross-validation

Comparison of competing statistical models is an essential part of psychological research. From a Bayesian perspective, various approaches to model comparison and selection have been proposed in the literature. However, the applicability of these approaches strongly depends on the assumptions about the model space $\mathcal{M}$, the so-called model view. Furthermore, traditional methods like leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO-CV) estimate the expected log predictive density (ELPD) of a model to investigate how the model generalises out-of-sample, which quickly becomes computationally inefficient when sample size becomes large. Here, we provide a tutorial on approximate Pareto-smoothed importance sampling leave-one-out cross-validation (PSIS-LOO), a computationally efficient method for Bayesian model comparison. First, we discuss several model views and the available Bayesian model comparison methods in each. We then use Bayesian logistic regression as a running example how to apply the method in practice, and show that it outperforms other methods like LOO-CV or information criteria in terms of computational effort while providing similarly accurate ELPD estimates. In a second step, we show how even large-scale models can be compared efficiently by using posterior approximations in combination with probability-proportional-to-size subsampling. We show how to compare competing models based on the ELPD estimates provided, and how to conduct posterior predictive checks to safeguard against overconfidence in one of the models under consideration. We conclude that the method is attractive for mathematical psychologists who aim at comparing several competing statistical models, which are possibly high-dimensional and in the big-data regime.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

fbst: An R package for the Full Bayesian Significance Test for testing a sharp null hypothesis against its alternative via the e-value

Hypothesis testing is a central statistical method in psychology and the cognitive sciences. However, the problems of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) and p-values have been debated widely, but few attractive alternatives exist. This article introduces the fbst R package, which implements the Full Bayesian Significance Test (FBST) to test a sharp null hypothesis against its alternative via the e-value. The statistical theory of the FBST has been introduced by Pereira et al. (1999) more than two decades ago and since then, the FBST has shown to be a Bayesian alternative to NHST and p-values with both theoretical and practical highly appealing properties. The algorithm provided in the fbst package is applicable to any Bayesian model as long as the posterior distribution can be obtained at least numerically. The core function of the package provides the Bayesian evidence against the null hypothesis, the e-value. Additionally, p-values based on asymptotic arguments can be computed and rich visualisations for communication and interpretation of the results can be produced. Three examples of frequently used statistical procedures in the cognitive sciences are given in this paper which demonstrate how to apply the FBST in practice using the fbst package. Based on the success of the FBST in statistical science, the fbst package should be of interest to a broad range of researchers in psychology and the cognitive sciences and hopefully will encourage researchers to consider the FBST as a possible alternative when conducting hypothesis tests of a sharp null hypothesis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

How to choose between different Bayesian posterior indices for hypothesis testing in practice

Hypothesis testing is an essential statistical method in psychology and the cognitive sciences. The problems of traditional null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) have been discussed widely, and among the proposed solutions to the replication problems caused by the inappropriate use of significance tests and $p$-values is a shift towards Bayesian data analysis. However, Bayesian hypothesis testing is concerned with various posterior indices for significance and the size of an effect. This complicates Bayesian hypothesis testing in practice, as the availability of multiple Bayesian alternatives to the traditional $p$-value causes confusion which one to select and why. In this paper, we compare various Bayesian posterior indices which have been proposed in the literature and discuss their benefits and limitations. Our comparison shows that conceptually not all proposed Bayesian alternatives to NHST and $p$-values are beneficial, and the usefulness of some indices strongly depends on the study design and research goal. However, our comparison also reveals that there exist at least two candidates among the available Bayesian posterior indices which have appealing theoretical properties and are, to our best knowledge, widely underused among psychologists.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The Full Bayesian Significance Test and the e-value -- Foundations, theory and application in the cognitive sciences

Hypothesis testing is a central statistical method in psychological research and the cognitive sciences. While the problems of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) have been debated widely, few attractive alternatives exist. In this paper, we provide a tutorial on the Full Bayesian Significance Test (FBST) and the e-value, which is a fully Bayesian alternative to traditional significance tests which rely on p-values. The FBST is an advanced methodological procedure which can be applied to several areas. In this tutorial, we showcase with two examples of widely used statistical methods in psychological research how the FBST can be used in practice, provide researchers with explicit guidelines on how to conduct it and make available R-code to reproduce all results. The FBST is an innovative method which has clearly demonstrated to perform better than frequentist significance testing. However, to our best knowledge, it has not been used so far in the psychological sciences and should be of wide interest to a broad range of researchers in psychology and the cognitive sciences.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access