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
Signed reviews
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.