Paper detail

Bayesian Decision-theoretic Methods for Parameter Ensembles with Application to Epidemiology

Parameter ensembles or sets of random effects constitute one of the cornerstones of modern statistical practice. This is especially the case in Bayesian hierarchical models, where several decision theoretic frameworks can be deployed. The estimation of these parameter ensembles may substantially vary depending on which inferential goals are prioritised by the modeller. Since one may wish to satisfy a range of desiderata, it is therefore of interest to investigate whether some sets of point estimates can simultaneously meet several inferential objectives. In this thesis, we will be especially concerned with identifying ensembles of point estimates that produce good approximations of (i) the true empirical quantiles and empirical quartile ratio (QR) and (ii) provide an accurate classification of the ensemble's elements above and below a given threshold. For this purpose, we review various decision-theoretic frameworks, which have been proposed in the literature in relation to the optimisation of different aspects of the empirical distribution of a parameter ensemble. This includes the constrained Bayes (CB), weighted-rank squared error loss (WRSEL), and triple-goal (GR) ensembles of point estimates. In addition, we also consider the set of maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) and the ensemble of posterior means --the latter being optimal under the summed squared error loss (SSEL). Firstly, we test the performance of these different sets of point estimates as plug-in estimators for the empirical quantiles and empirical QR under a range of synthetic scenarios encompassing both spatial and non-spatial simulated data sets. Performance evaluation is here conducted using the posterior regret. Secondly, two threshold classification losses (TCLs) --weighted and unweighted-- are formulated and formally optimised. The performance of these decision-theoretic tools is also evaluated on real data sets.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.