SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1508.00793

Power-Expected-Posterior Priors for Generalized Linear Models

Abstract

The power-expected-posterior (PEP) prior provides an objective, automatic, consistent and parsimonious model selection procedure. At the same time it resolves the conceptual and computational problems due to the use of imaginary data. Namely, (i) it dispenses with the need to select and average across all possible minimal imaginary samples, and (ii) it diminishes the effect that the imaginary data have upon the posterior distribution. These attributes allow for large sample approximations, when needed, in order to reduce the computational burden under more complex models. In this work we generalize the applicability of the PEP methodology, focusing on the framework of generalized linear models (GLMs), by introducing two new PEP definitions which are in effect applicable to any general model setting. Hyper-prior extensions for the power parameter that regulates the contribution of the imaginary data are introduced. We further study the validity of the predictive matching and of the model selection consistency, providing analytical proofs for the former and empirical evidence supporting the latter. For estimation of posterior model and inclusion probabilities we introduce a tuning-free Gibbs-based variable selection sampler. Several simulation scenarios and one real life example are considered in order to evaluate the performance of the proposed methods compared to other commonly used approaches based on mixtures of g-priors. Results indicate that the GLM-PEP priors are more effective in the identification of sparse and parsimonious model formulations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Dimitris Fouskakis, Ioannis Ntzoufras, Konstantinos Perrakis. 2015-08-04. Power-Expected-Posterior Priors for Generalized Linear Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.00793

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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