跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要主旨是通用贝叶斯模型选择计算,纵向和变点模型仅作为例子或适用场景。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Cong Han
Bradley P Carlin

计算 Bayes 因子的马尔可夫链蒙特卡洛方法

研究问题
面对多个候选模型,如何利用 MCMC 计算模型后验概率与 Bayes 因子,并权衡不同方法的编程、调参与计算负担?
方法与思路
作者综述联合模型与参数空间搜索、仅模型空间搜索和直接边际似然估计,并在回归、层级纵向及二元潜变量例子中比较。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称边际似然方法在许多标准模型选择场景中额外编码较少,联合搜索在变维等问题中仍重要,所有比较方法均耗费较多资源。
阅读关注点
核对各方法的实现与调参要求、边际似然估计稳定性,以及三个例子的比较标准和变维模型中联合搜索的适用条件。
阅读边界
依据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;结论来自所述例子与方法比较,摘要未提供误差和耗时数值,不能认定某方法普遍最佳。

原文摘要

The problem of calculating posterior probabilities for a collection of competing models and associated Bayes factors continues to be a formidable challenge for applied Bayesian statisticians. Current approaches that take advantage of modern Markov chain Monte Carlo computing methods include those that attempt to sample over some form of the joint space created by the model indicators and the parameters for each model, others that sample over the model space alone, and still others that attempt to estimate the marginal likelihood of each model directly (because the collection of these is equivalent to the collection of model probabilities themselves). We review several methods and compare them in the context of three examples: a simple regression example, a more challenging hierarchical longitudinal model, and a binary data latent variable model. We find that the joint model-parameter space search methods perform adequately but can be difficult to program and tune, whereas the marginal likelihood methods often are less troublesome and require less additional coding. Our results suggest that the latter methods may be most appropriate for practitioners working in many standard model choice settings, but the former remain important for comparing models of varying dimension (e.g., multiple changepoint models) or models whose parameters cannot easily be updated in relatively few blocks. We caution, however, that all methods we compared require significant human and computer effort, and this suggests that less formal Bayesian model choice methods may offer a more realistic alternative in many cases.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文