Posterior probabilities for choosing a regression model
用于回归模型选择的后验概率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:材料讨论一般回归模型的贝叶斯选择与先验问题,未明确针对预测收益、时间序列或其他给定细分方向。
用于回归模型选择的后验概率AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
SUMMARY A simple Bayesian formula for the posterior probability of one of several regression models is shown to be systematically misleading unless all models have the same number of para- meters. Even in this case the use of improper priors leads to arbitrary inferences, as it does more generally. An alternative weighting for choosing a model is suggested and the relation- ship between significance tests and data-dependent priors mentioned. An alternative to the analysis of variance and related significance tests for choosing regression models is the calculation of the posterior probabilities of the competing models. These two methods can lead to sharply opposed inferences, both asymptotically and for a finite number of observations. It is the purpose of the present paper to examine in detail the potentially misleading behaviour of the apparent posterior probabilities of the models, particularly as a function of the number of observations. In passing, some errors in the literature are identified and some anomalies explained. The calculation of posterior probabilities after each observation arises in a natural way in the analysis of designed experiments for discriminating between regression models. In such experiments sequential procedures are desirable. A formula for updating the posterior probabilities of the models after each observation is given by Box & Hill (1967). In ? 2 the nonsequential form for these posterior probabilities is derived and related to posterior probabilities calculated in the customary way by integration over the parameter space of each model. This relationship makes clear the prior assumptions underlying the sequential procedure. The difficulties which arise from the use of improper priors are also mentioned in ?2. The design of experiments is peripheral to the main discussion of the present paper. But since the numerical investigation of the behaviour of the posterior probabilities requires sequential experiments, design is discussed briefly in ?3. The behaviour of the posterior probabilities is investigated in ?4 for models with the same and with differing numbers of parameters when none, some or all of the models are true. Empirical weights for model plausibilities are derived in ? 5 and related to data-dependent prior probabilities for the models. The argument of the paper is almost entirely conducted in terms of two models with additive independent normal errors of constant known variance. The restriction to two models is purely for convenience, the extension to any number of models being straight- forward as is the extension to linearized nonlinear models. If the variance of the errors is unknown, the expressions for the posterior probabilities of the models become more com- plicated while the properties of the probabilities remain similar to those described here.