Post-Processing Posterior Predictive p Values
后验预测 p 值的后处理校准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:摘要属于通用贝叶斯模型检验与校准理论,未提供所列经济计量细分领域的直接依据。
后验预测 p 值的后处理校准AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
This article addresses issues of model criticism and model comparison in Bayesian contexts, and focuses on the use of the so-called posterior predictive p values (ppp). These involve a general discrepancy or conflict measure and depend on the prior, the model, and the data. They are used in statistical practice to quantify the degree of surprise or conflict in data and to compare different combinations of prior and model. The distribution of such ppp values is far from uniform however, as we demonstrate for different models, making their interpretation and comparison a difficult matter. We propose a natural calibration of the ppp values, where the resulting cppp values are uniform on the unit interval under model conditions. The cppp values, which in general rely on a double-simulation scheme for their computation, may then be used to assess and compare different priors and models. Our methods also make it possible to compare parametric and nonparametric model specifications, in that genuine “measures of surprise” are put on the same canonical uniform scale. We illustrate our techniques for some applications to real data. We also present supplementing theoretical results on various properties of the ppp and cppp.