Paper detail

Credal Model Averaging for classification: representing prior ignorance and expert opinions

Bayesian model averaging (BMA) is the state of the art approach for overcoming model uncertainty. Yet, especially on small data sets, the results yielded by BMA might be sensitive to the prior over the models. Credal Model Averaging (CMA) addresses this problem by substituting the single prior over the models by a set of priors (credal set). Such approach solves the problem of how to choose the prior over the models and automates sensitivity analysis. We discuss various CMA algorithms for building an ensemble of logistic regressors characterized by different sets of covariates. We show how CMA can be appropriately tuned to the case in which one is prior-ignorant and to the case in which instead domain knowledge is available. CMA detects prior-dependent instances, namely instances in which a different class is more probable depending on the prior over the models. On such instances CMA suspends the judgment, returning multiple classes. We thoroughly compare different BMA and CMA variants on a real case study, predicting presence of Alpine marmot burrows in an Alpine valley. We find that BMA is almost a random guesser on the instances recognized as prior-dependent by CMA.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.