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:摘要讨论通用贝叶斯检验与干扰参数处理,没有足够证据归入所列应用领域。

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
Xiao-Li Meng

后验预测 p 值

研究问题
检验统计量依赖未知干扰参数时,如何用贝叶斯后验预测构造尾部概率,并理解其频率学派误差性质?
方法与思路
作者在原假设下联合考虑复制数据和干扰参数的后验分布,计算差异统计量的尾部概率并作后验平均解释。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称该方法可统一处理干扰参数,以经典例子和多重插补展示用途,并在指定复制方式下给出第一类错误界。
阅读关注点
应核对复制数据与新干扰参数如何定义、差异统计量如何选择,以及第一类错误不超过两倍名义水平的条件。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;误差界依赖所述复制设定,不能据此认定所有后验预测检验均控制名义水平。

原文摘要

Extending work of Rubin, this paper explores a Bayesian counterpart of the classical $p$-value, namely, a tail-area probability of a "test statistic" under a null hypothesis. The Bayesian formulation, using posterior predictive replications of the data, allows a "test statistic" to depend on both data and unknown (nuisance) parameters and thus permits a direct measure of the discrepancy between sample and population quantities. The tail-area probability for a "test statistic" is then found under the joint posterior distribution of replicate data and the (nuisance) parameters, both conditional on the null hypothesis. This posterior predictive $p$-value can also be viewed as the posterior mean of a classical $p$-value, averaging over the posterior distribution of (nuisance) parameters under the null hypothesis, and thus it provides one general method for dealing with nuisance parameters. Two classical examples, including the Behrens-Fisher problem, are used to illustrate the posterior predictive $p$-value and some of its interesting properties, which also reveal a new (Bayesian) interpretation for some classical $p$-values. An application to multiple-imputation inference is also presented. A frequency evaluation shows that, in general, if the replication is defined by new (nuisance) parameters and new data, then the Type I frequentist error of an $\alpha$-level posterior predictive test is often close to but less than $\alpha$ and will never exceed $2\alpha$.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文