Paper detail

Investigation of the widely applicable Bayesian information criterion

The widely applicable Bayesian information criterion (WBIC) is a simple and fast approximation to the model evidence that has received little practical consideration. WBIC uses the fact that the log evidence can be written as an expectation, with respect to a powered posterior proportional to the likelihood raised to a power $t^*\in{(0,1)}$, of the log deviance. Finding this temperature value $t^*$ is generally an intractable problem. We find that for a particular tractable statistical model that the mean squared error of an optimally-tuned version of WBIC with correct temperature $t^*$ is lower than an optimally-tuned version of thermodynamic integration (power posteriors). However in practice WBIC uses the a canonical choice of $t=1/\log(n)$. Here we investigate the performance of WBIC in practice, for a range of statistical models, both regular models and singular models such as latent variable models or those with a hierarchical structure for which BIC cannot provide an adequate solution. Our findings are that, generally WBIC performs adequately when one uses informative priors, but it can systematically overestimate the evidence, particularly for small sample sizes.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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.