Model Misspecification in Approximate Bayesian Computation: Consequences and Diagnostics
近似贝叶斯计算中的模型误设:后果与诊断AI 解读 ↓
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要分析通用模拟推断的模型误设,未指定结构经济模型或其他所列细分领域。
近似贝叶斯计算中的模型误设:后果与诊断AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Summary We analyse the behaviour of approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) when the model generating the simulated data differs from the actual data-generating process, i.e. when the data simulator in ABC is misspecified. We demonstrate both theoretically and in simple, but practically relevant, examples that when the model is misspecified different versions of ABC can yield substantially different results. Our theoretical results demonstrate that even though the model is misspecified, under regularity conditions, the accept–reject ABC approach concentrates posterior mass on an appropriately defined pseudotrue parameter value. However, under model misspecification the ABC posterior does not yield credible sets with valid frequentist coverage and has non-standard asymptotic behaviour. In addition, we examine the theoretical behaviour of the popular local regression adjustment to ABC under model misspecification and demonstrate that this approach concentrates posterior mass on a pseudotrue value that is completely different from accept–reject ABC. Using our theoretical results, we suggest two approaches to diagnose model misspecification in ABC. All theoretical results and diagnostics are illustrated in a simple running example.