REVIEW 1 cited by
Inconsistency of Bayesian Inference for Misspecified Linear Models, and a Proposal for Repairing It
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
read the original abstract
We empirically show that Bayesian inference can be inconsistent under misspecification in simple linear regression problems, both in a model averaging/selection and in a Bayesian ridge regression setting. We use the standard linear model, which assumes homoskedasticity, whereas the data are heteroskedastic, and observe that the posterior puts its mass on ever more high-dimensional models as the sample size increases. To remedy the problem, we equip the likelihood in Bayes' theorem with an exponent called the learning rate, and we propose the Safe Bayesian method to learn the learning rate from the data. SafeBayes tends to select small learning rates as soon the standard posterior is not `cumulatively concentrated', and its results on our data are quite encouraging.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Adaptive Bayes exactly tracks information over intrinsic time
Any Bayes/multiplicative-weights update has an exact regret identity that splits excess loss into an intrinsic-time uncertainty payment and KL transport to the comparator, for both retempered and local adaptive schedules.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.