Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1310.0628

Conflict Diagnostics in Directed Acyclic Graphs, with Applications in Bayesian Evidence Synthesis

Anne M. Presanis·David Ohlssen·David J. Spiegelhalter·Daniela De Angelis
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Complex stochastic models represented by directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are increasingly employed to synthesise multiple, imperfect and disparate sources of evidence, to estimate quantities that are difficult to measure directly. The various data sources are dependent on shared parameters and hence have the potential to conflict with each other, as well as with the model. In a Bayesian framework, the model consists of three components: the prior distribution, the assumed form of the likelihood and structural assumptions. Any of these components may be incompatible with the observed data. The detection and quantification of such conflict and of data sources that are inconsistent with each other is therefore a crucial component of the model criticism process. We first review Bayesian model criticism, with a focus on conflict detection, before describing a general diagnostic for detecting and quantifying conflict between the evidence in different partitions of a DAG. The diagnostic is a p-value based on splitting the information contributing to inference about a "separator" node or group of nodes into two independent groups and testing whether the two groups result in the same inference about the separator node(s). We illustrate the method with three comprehensive examples: an evidence synthesis to estimate HIV prevalence; an evidence synthesis to estimate influenza case-severity; and a hierarchical growth model for rat weights.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anne M. Presanis, David Ohlssen, David J. Spiegelhalter, Daniela De Angelis. 2013-10-02. Conflict Diagnostics in Directed Acyclic Graphs, with Applications in Bayesian Evidence Synthesis. https://doi.org/10.1214/13-sts426

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗