Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Meta-Uncertainty in Bayesian Model Comparison

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2210.07278 v3 pith:TQRIRBJS submitted 2022-10-13 stat.ML cs.LG

classification stat.MLcs.LG
keywords bayesiandatamodelpmpsuncertaintycomparisondistributioninference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Bayesian model comparison (BMC) offers a principled probabilistic approach to study and rank competing models. In standard BMC, we construct a discrete probability distribution over the set of possible models, conditional on the observed data of interest. These posterior model probabilities (PMPs) are measures of uncertainty, but -- when derived from a finite number of observations -- are also uncertain themselves. In this paper, we conceptualize distinct levels of uncertainty which arise in BMC. We explore a fully probabilistic framework for quantifying meta-uncertainty, resulting in an applied method to enhance any BMC workflow. Drawing on both Bayesian and frequentist techniques, we represent the uncertainty over the uncertain PMPs via meta-models which combine simulated and observed data into a predictive distribution for PMPs on new data. We demonstrate the utility of the proposed method in the context of conjugate Bayesian regression, likelihood-based inference with Markov chain Monte Carlo, and simulation-based inference with neural networks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools