arXiv subjects

Daniel J. Schad

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel J. Schad.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

How accurate are Bayes factor-based null hypothesis tests? A simulation study

Bayes factor null hypothesis tests provide a viable alternative to frequentist measures of evidence quantification. Bayes factors for realistic data sets in areas like psychology cannot be calculated exactly and require numerical approximations to complex integrals. Crucially, the accuracy of these approximations, i.e., whether an approximate Bayes factor corresponds to the exact Bayes factor, is unknown, and may depend on data, prior, and likelihood. We have recently developed a novel statistical procedure, namely marginal simulation-based calibration (SBC) for Bayes factors, to test whether the computed Bayes factors for a given analysis are accurate. Here, we use marginal SBC for Bayes factors and calibration plots to test for some common cognitive designs, whether Bayes factors are calculated accurately. We use the bridgesampling/brms packages in R. We run analyses for three commonly used designs in psychology and psycholinguistics: (a) a design with random effects for subjects only, (b) a Latin square design with crossed random effects for subjects and items, but a single fixed-factor, and (c) a Latin square 2x2 design with crossed random effects for subjects and items. We find that Bayes factor estimates turn out accurate in cases when the bridgesampling algorithm does not issue a warning message, but can be biased and variable when a warning message is shown. These results support the use of brms/bridgesampling for null hypothesis Bayes factor tests in commonly used factorial designs. They also suggest that when a warning message is issued, Bayes factor results should not be trusted. The results show that it is practical to check whether Bayes factors are computed correctly.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Data aggregation can lead to biased inferences in Bayesian linear mixed models and Bayesian ANOVA: A simulation study

Bayesian linear mixed-effects models and Bayesian ANOVA are increasingly being used in the cognitive sciences to perform null hypothesis tests, where a null hypothesis that an effect is zero is compared with an alternative hypothesis that the effect exists and is different from zero. While software tools for Bayes factor null hypothesis tests are easily accessible, how to specify the data and the model correctly is often not clear. In Bayesian approaches, many authors use data aggregation at the by-subject level and estimate Bayes factors on aggregated data. Here, we use simulation-based calibration for model inference applied to several example experimental designs to demonstrate that, as with frequentist analysis, such null hypothesis tests on aggregated data can be problematic in Bayesian analysis. Specifically, when random slope variances differ (i.e., violated sphericity assumption), Bayes factors are too conservative for contrasts where the variance is small and they are too liberal for contrasts where the variance is large. Running Bayesian ANOVA on aggregated data can - if the sphericity assumption is violated - likewise lead to biased Bayes factor results. Moreover, Bayes factors for by-subject aggregated data are biased (too liberal) when random item slope variance is present but ignored in the analysis. These problems can be circumvented or reduced by running Bayesian linear mixed-effects models on non-aggregated data such as on individual trials, and by explicitly modeling the full random effects structure. Reproducible code is available from \url{https://osf.io/mjf47/}.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2022

The posterior probability of a null hypothesis given a statistically significant result

When researchers carry out a null hypothesis significance test, it is tempting to assume that a statistically significant result lowers Prob(H0), the probability of the null hypothesis being true. Technically, such a statement is meaningless for various reasons: e.g., the null hypothesis does not have a probability associated with it. However, it is possible to relax certain assumptions to compute the posterior probability Prob(H0) under repeated sampling. We show in a step-by-step guide that the intuitively appealing belief, that Prob(H0) is low when significant results have been obtained under repeated sampling, is in general incorrect and depends greatly on: (a) the prior probability of the null being true; (b) type-I error rate, (c) type-II error rate, and (d) replication of a result. Through step-by-step simulations using open-source code in the R System of Statistical Computing, we show that uncertainty about the null hypothesis being true often remains high despite a significant result. To help the reader develop intuitions about this common misconception, we provide a Shiny app (https://danielschad.shinyapps.io/probnull/). We expect that this tutorial will help researchers better understand and judge results from null hypothesis significance tests.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2021

Workflow Techniques for the Robust Use of Bayes Factors

Inferences about hypotheses are ubiquitous in the cognitive sciences. Bayes factors provide one general way to compare different hypotheses by their compatibility with the observed data. Those quantifications can then also be used to choose between hypotheses. While Bayes factors provide an immediate approach to hypothesis testing, they are highly sensitive to details of the data/model assumptions. Moreover it's not clear how straightforwardly this approach can be implemented in practice, and in particular how sensitive it is to the details of the computational implementation. Here, we investigate these questions for Bayes factor analyses in the cognitive sciences. We explain the statistics underlying Bayes factors as a tool for Bayesian inferences and discuss that utility functions are needed for principled decisions on hypotheses. Next, we study how Bayes factors misbehave under different conditions. This includes a study of errors in the estimation of Bayes factors. Importantly, it is unknown whether Bayes factor estimates based on bridge sampling are unbiased for complex analyses. We are the first to use simulation-based calibration as a tool to test the accuracy of Bayes factor estimates. Moreover, we study how stable Bayes factors are against different MCMC draws. We moreover study how Bayes factors depend on variation in the data. We also look at variability of decisions based on Bayes factors and how to optimize decisions using a utility function. We outline a Bayes factor workflow that researchers can use to study whether Bayes factors are robust for their individual analysis, and we illustrate this workflow using an example from the cognitive sciences. We hope that this study will provide a workflow to test the strengths and limitations of Bayes factors as a way to quantify evidence in support of scientific hypotheses. Reproducible code is available from https://osf.io/y354c/.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2020

Toward a principled Bayesian workflow in cognitive science

Experiments in research on memory, language, and in other areas of cognitive science are increasingly being analyzed using Bayesian methods. This has been facilitated by the development of probabilistic programming languages such as Stan, and easily accessible front-end packages such as brms. The utility of Bayesian methods, however, ultimately depends on the relevance of the Bayesian model, in particular whether or not it accurately captures the structure of the data and the data analyst's domain expertise. Even with powerful software, the analyst is responsible for verifying the utility of their model. To demonstrate this point, we introduce a principled Bayesian workflow (Betancourt, 2018) to cognitive science. Using a concrete working example, we describe basic questions one should ask about the model: prior predictive checks, computational faithfulness, model sensitivity, and posterior predictive checks. The running example for demonstrating the workflow is data on reading times with a linguistic manipulation of object versus subject relative clause sentences. This principled Bayesian workflow also demonstrates how to use domain knowledge to inform prior distributions. It provides guidelines and checks for valid data analysis, avoiding overfitting complex models to noise, and capturing relevant data structure in a probabilistic model. Given the increasing use of Bayesian methods, we aim to discuss how these methods can be properly employed to obtain robust answers to scientific questions. All data and code accompanying this paper are available from https://osf.io/b2vx9/.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2019

How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial

Factorial experiments in research on memory, language, and in other areas are often analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). However, for effects with more than one numerator degrees of freedom, e.g., for experimental factors with more than two levels, the ANOVA omnibus F-test is not informative about the source of a main effect or interaction. Because researchers typically have specific hypotheses about which condition means differ from each other, a priori contrasts (i.e., comparisons planned before the sample means are known) between specific conditions or combinations of conditions are the appropriate way to represent such hypotheses in the statistical model. Many researchers have pointed out that contrasts should be "tested instead of, rather than as a supplement to, the ordinary `omnibus' F test" (Hays, 1973, p. 601). In this tutorial, we explain the mathematics underlying different kinds of contrasts (i.e., treatment, sum, repeated, polynomial, custom, nested, interaction contrasts), discuss their properties, and demonstrate how they are applied in the R System for Statistical Computing (R Core Team, 2018). In this context, we explain the generalized inverse which is needed to compute the coefficients for contrasts that test hypotheses that are not covered by the default set of contrasts. A detailed understanding of contrast coding is crucial for successful and correct specification in linear models (including linear mixed models). Contrasts defined a priori yield far more useful confirmatory tests of experimental hypotheses than standard omnibus F-test. Reproducible code is available from https://osf.io/7ukf6/.

stat.ME↗