arXiv subjects

Samuel Pawel

Publications and source records attributed to Samuel Pawel.

26 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2023

Bayesian Approaches to Designing Replication Studies

Replication studies are essential for assessing the credibility of claims from original studies. A critical aspect of designing replication studies is determining their sample size; a too small sample size may lead to inconclusive studies whereas a too large sample size may waste resources that could be allocated better in other studies. Here, we show how Bayesian approaches can be used for tackling this problem. The Bayesian framework allows researchers to combine the original data and external knowledge in a design prior distribution for the underlying parameters. Based on a design prior, predictions about the replication data can be made, and the replication sample size can be chosen to ensure a sufficiently high probability of replication success. Replication success may be defined by Bayesian or non-Bayesian criteria, and different criteria may also be combined to meet distinct stakeholders and enable conclusive inferences based on multiple analysis approaches. We investigate sample size determination in the normal-normal hierarchical model where analytical results are available and traditional sample size determination is a special case where the uncertainty on parameter values is not accounted for. We use data from a multisite replication project of social-behavioral experiments to illustrate how Bayesian approaches can help design informative and cost-effective replication studies. Our methods can be used through the R package BayesRepDesign.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Evidential Calibration of Confidence Intervals

We present a novel and easy-to-use method for calibrating error-rate based confidence intervals to evidence-based support intervals. Support intervals are obtained from inverting Bayes factors based on a parameter estimate and its standard error. A $k$ support interval can be interpreted as "the observed data are at least $k$ times more likely under the included parameter values than under a specified alternative". Support intervals depend on the specification of prior distributions for the parameter under the alternative, and we present several types that allow different forms of external knowledge to be encoded. We also show how prior specification can to some extent be avoided by considering a class of prior distributions and then computing so-called minimum support intervals which, for a given class of priors, have a one-to-one mapping with confidence intervals. We also illustrate how the sample size of a future study can be determined based on the concept of support. Finally, we show how the bound for the type I error rate of Bayes factors leads to a bound for the coverage of support intervals. An application to data from a clinical trial illustrates how support intervals can lead to inferences that are both intuitive and informative.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Normalized power priors always discount historical data

Power priors are used for incorporating historical data in Bayesian analyses by taking the likelihood of the historical data raised to the power $α$ as the prior distribution for the model parameters. The power parameter $α$ is typically unknown and assigned a prior distribution, most commonly a beta distribution. Here, we give a novel theoretical result on the resulting marginal posterior distribution of $α$ in case of the the normal and binomial model. Counterintuitively, when the current data perfectly mirror the historical data and the sample sizes from both data sets become arbitrarily large, the marginal posterior of $α$ does not converge to a point mass at $α= 1$ but approaches a distribution that hardly differs from the prior. The result implies that a complete pooling of historical and current data is impossible if a power prior with beta prior for $α$ is used.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Pitfalls and potentials in simulation studies: Questionable research practices in comparative simulation studies allow for spurious claims of superiority of any method

Comparative simulation studies are workhorse tools for benchmarking statistical methods. As with other empirical studies, the success of simulation studies hinges on the quality of their design, execution and reporting. If not conducted carefully and transparently, their conclusions may be misleading. In this paper we discuss various questionable research practices which may impact the validity of simulation studies, some of which cannot be detected or prevented by the current publication process in statistics journals. To illustrate our point, we invent a novel prediction method with no expected performance gain and benchmark it in a pre-registered comparative simulation study. We show how easy it is to make the method appear superior over well-established competitor methods if questionable research practices are employed. Finally, we provide concrete suggestions for researchers, reviewers and other academic stakeholders for improving the methodological quality of comparative simulation studies, such as pre-registering simulation protocols, incentivizing neutral simulation studies and code and data sharing.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2022

When Evidence and Significance Collide

Null hypothesis statistical significance testing (NHST) is the dominant approach for evaluating results from randomized controlled trials. Whereas NHST comes with long-run error rate guarantees, its main inferential tool -- the $p$-value -- is only an indirect measure of evidence against the null hypothesis. The main reason is that the $p$-value is based on the assumption the null hypothesis is true, whereas the likelihood of the data under any alternative hypothesis is ignored. If the goal is to quantify how much evidence the data provide for or against the null hypothesis it is unavoidable that an alternative hypothesis be specified (Goodman & Royall, 1988). Paradoxes arise when researchers interpret $p$-values as evidence. For instance, results that are surprising under the null may be equally surprising under a plausible alternative hypothesis, such that a $p=.045$ result (`reject the null') does not make the null any less plausible than it was before. Hence, $p$-values have been argued to overestimate the evidence against the null hypothesis. Conversely, it can be the case that statistically non-significant results (i.e., $p>.05)$ nevertheless provide some evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis. It is therefore crucial for researchers to know when statistical significance and evidence collide, and this requires that a direct measure of evidence is computed and presented alongside the traditional $p$-value.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2021

The sceptical Bayes factor for the assessment of replication success

Replication studies are increasingly conducted but there is no established statistical criterion for replication success. We propose a novel approach combining reverse-Bayes analysis with Bayesian hypothesis testing: a sceptical prior is determined for the effect size such that the original finding is no longer convincing in terms of a Bayes factor. This prior is then contrasted to an advocacy prior (the reference posterior of the effect size based on the original study), and replication success is declared if the replication data favour the advocacy over the sceptical prior at a higher level than the original data favoured the sceptical prior over the null hypothesis. The sceptical Bayes factor is the highest level where replication success can be declared. A comparison to existing methods reveals that the sceptical Bayes factor combines several notions of replicability: it ensures that both studies show sufficient evidence against the null and penalises incompatibility of their effect estimates. Analysis of asymptotic properties and error rates, as well as case studies from the Social Sciences Replication Project show the advantages of the method for the assessment of replicability.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2021

Reverse-Bayes methods for evidence assessment and research synthesis

It is now widely accepted that the standard inferential toolkit used by the scientific research community -- null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST) -- is not fit for purpose. Yet despite the threat posed to the scientific enterprise, there is no agreement concerning alternative approaches for evidence assessment. This lack of consensus reflects long-standing issues concerning Bayesian methods, the principal alternative to NHST. We report on recent work that builds on an approach to inference put forward over 70 years ago to address the well-known "Problem of Priors" in Bayesian analysis, by reversing the conventional prior-likelihood-posterior ("forward") use of Bayes's Theorem. Such Reverse-Bayes analysis allows priors to be deduced from the likelihood by requiring that the posterior achieve a specified level of credibility. We summarise the technical underpinning of this approach, and show how it opens up new approaches to common inferential challenges, such as assessing the credibility of scientific findings, setting them in appropriate context, estimating the probability of successful replications, and extracting more insight from NHST while reducing the risk of misinterpretation. We argue that Reverse-Bayes methods have a key role to play in making Bayesian methods more accessible and attractive for evidence assessment and research synthesis. As a running example we consider a recently published meta-analysis from several randomized controlled clinical trials investigating the association between corticosteroids and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2021

The assessment of replication success based on relative effect size

Replication studies are increasingly conducted in order to confirm original findings. However, there is no established standard how to assess replication success and in practice many different approaches are used. The purpose of this paper is to refine and extend a recently proposed reverse-Bayes approach for the analysis of replication studies. We show how this method is directly related to the relative effect size, the ratio of the replication to the original effect estimate. This perspective leads to a new proposal to recalibrate the assessment of replication success, the golden level. The recalibration ensures that for borderline significant original studies replication success can only be achieved if the replication effect estimate is larger than the original one. Conditional power for replication success can then take any desired value if the original study is significant and the replication sample size is large enough. Compared to the standard approach to require statistical significance of both the original and replication study, replication success at the golden level offers uniform gains in project power and controls the Type-I error rate if the replication sample size is not smaller than the original one. An application to data from four large replication projects shows that the new approach leads to more appropriate inferences, as it penalizes shrinkage of the replication estimate compared to the original one, while ensuring that both effect estimates are sufficiently convincing on their own.

stat.ME↗