Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Calibrated Model Criticism Using Split Predictive Checks

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 2203.15897 v3 pith:MQ347FTX submitted 2022-03-29 stat.ME math.STstat.TH

classification stat.MEmath.STstat.TH
keywords spcscheckspredictivewhenmodelcheckingdatadivided
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Checking how well a fitted model explains the data is one of the most fundamental parts of a Bayesian data analysis. However, existing model checking methods suffer from trade-offs between being well-calibrated, automated, and computationally efficient. To overcome these limitations, we propose split predictive checks (SPCs), which combine the ease-of-use and speed of posterior predictive checks with the good calibration properties of predictive checks that rely on model-specific derivations or inference schemes. We develop an asymptotic theory for two types of SPCs: single SPCs and the divided SPCs. Our results demonstrate that they offer complementary strengths. Single SPCs work well with smaller datasets and provide excellent power when there is substantial misspecification, such as when the estimate uncertainty in the test statistic is significantly underestimated. When the sample size is large, divided SPCs can provide better power and are able to detect more subtle form of misspecification. We validate the finite-sample utility of SPCs through extensive simulation experiments in exponential family and hierarchical models, and provide three real-data examples where SPCs offer novel insights and additional flexibility beyond what is available when using posterior predictive checks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Prior-Posterior Derived-Predictive Consistency Checks for Post-Estimation Calculated Quantities of Interest (QOI-Check)

    stat.ME 2024-12 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    QOI-Check uses rank-based uniformity tests, in the style of simulation-based calibration, to validate post-estimation quantities of interest and their underlying population definition.

  2. A Bayesian Model of Underreporting for Sexual Assault on College Campuses

    stat.AP 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A hierarchical Bayesian model of reported campus sexual assault counts estimates that the rise in reports from 2014 to 2018 reflects rising reporting rates, not rising incidence.

Pith tools