Paper detail

Limiting behavior of the Jeffreys Power-Expected-Posterior Bayes Factor in Gaussian Linear Models

Expected-posterior priors (EPP) have been proved to be extremely useful for testing hypothesis on the regression coefficients of normal linear models. One of the advantages of using EPPs is that impropriety of baseline priors causes no indeterminacy. However, in regression problems, they based on one or more \textit{training samples}, that could influence the resulting posterior distribution. The power-expected-posterior priors are minimally-informative priors that diminishing the effect of training samples on the EPP approach, by combining ideas from the power-prior and unit-information-prior methodologies. In this paper we show the consistency of the Bayes factors when using the power-expected-posterior priors, with the independence Jeffreys (or reference) prior as a baseline, for normal linear models under very mild conditions on the design matrix.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.