SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2108.12045

Selection of inverse gamma and half-t priors for hierarchical models: sensitivity and recommendations

Abstract

While the importance of prior selection is well understood, establishing guidelines for selecting priors in hierarchical models has remained an active, and sometimes contentious, area of Bayesian methodology research. Choices of hyperparameters for individual families of priors are often discussed in the literature, but rarely are different families of priors compared under similar models and hyperparameters. Using simulated data, we evaluate the performance of inverse gamma and half-$t$ priors for estimating the standard deviation of random effects in three hierarchical models: the 8-schools model, a random intercepts longitudinal model, and a simple multiple outcomes model. We compare the performance of the two prior families using a range of prior hyperparameters, some of which have been suggested in the literature, and others that allow for a direct comparison of pairs of half-$t$ and inverse-gamma priors. Estimation of very small values of the random effect standard deviation led to convergence issues especially for the half-$t$ priors. For most settings, we found that the posterior distribution of the standard deviation had smaller bias under half-$t$ priors than under their inverse-gamma counterparts. Inverse gamma priors generally gave similar coverage but had smaller interval lengths than their half-$t$ prior counterparts. Our results for these two prior families will inform prior specification for hierarchical models, allowing practitioners to better align their priors with their respective models and goals.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Zachary Brehm, Aaron Wagner, Erik VonKaenel, David Burton, Samuel J. Weisenthal, Martin Cole, Yiping Pang, Sally W. Thurston. 2021-08-26. Selection of inverse gamma and half-t priors for hierarchical models: sensitivity and recommendations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.12045

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