Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Are you using test log-likelihood correctly?

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 2212.00219 v4 pith:MD67OJCI submitted 2022-12-01 stat.ML cs.LGstat.OT

classification stat.MLcs.LGstat.OT
keywords testlog-likelihoodcomparisonsalgorithmsapproximateconclusionsdifferentexamples
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Test log-likelihood is commonly used to compare different models of the same data or different approximate inference algorithms for fitting the same probabilistic model. We present simple examples demonstrating how comparisons based on test log-likelihood can contradict comparisons according to other objectives. Specifically, our examples show that (i) approximate Bayesian inference algorithms that attain higher test log-likelihoods need not also yield more accurate posterior approximations and (ii) conclusions about forecast accuracy based on test log-likelihood comparisons may not agree with conclusions based on root mean squared error.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Adaptive Bayesian Data-Driven Design of Reliable Solder Joints for Micro-electronic Devices

    stat.ML 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Adaptive selection of Gaussian process kernels and acquisition functions during Bayesian optimization yields modest improvements on synthetic benchmarks and on a solder joint reliability case study.

Pith tools