A Unified Bayesian Nonparametric Framework for Ordinal, Survival, and Density Regression Using the Complementary Log-Log Link

Antonio R. Linero; Entejar Alam

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 43 references

A Unified Bayesian Nonparametric Framework for Ordinal, Survival, and Density Regression Using the Complementary Log-Log Link

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The complementary log-log link makes ordinal, survival, and density regression tractable with a single latent-variable scheme, at minimax-optimal rates.

desk verdict A clever cloglog unification for BART-style ordinal, survival, and density models, but the headline contraction theorem is proved for normal leaf priors while the samplers and experiments all use log-gamma leaf priors. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00606 v1 pith:WU6KUQCS submitted 2025-02-02 stat.ME

Entejar Alam , Antonio R. Linero This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.ME MSC 62F1562G0862N0262G07

keywords complementarylog-loglinkBayesianadditiveregressiontreesordinalsurvivalanalysisstick-breakingprocessdensityposteriorcontractiontruncatedexponentialaugmentation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the complementary log-log (cloglog) link, long overshadowed by probit and logit links, is a natural backbone for Bayesian nonparametric regression. Because a binary cloglog model is equivalent to thresholding a latent exponential variable, fitting it reduces to an exponential-regression problem that is conditionally conjugate under BART with a log-gamma leaf prior. The same mechanism makes cumulative-link and continuation-ratio ordinal models coincide, frees inference from monotone cutpoint constraints, and extends to new stick-breaking priors and to discrete- and continuous-time survival models with simple Gibbs samplers. For the ordinal model the posterior is shown to contract at the minimax-optimal rate $(\log n/n)^{\alpha/(2\alpha+D_0)}$ up to logarithmic factors, confirming that the computational convenience does not come at the cost of statistical efficiency.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is that a cloglog Bernoulli model is exactly a latent exponential thresholding model: $Y=\mathbf{1}\{E\le 1\}$ with $E\sim\mathrm{Exp}(e^{r(x)})$, so truncated exponential augmentation reduces inference to exponential regression. Under a $\log\text{Gam}(a,b)$ prior on BART leaves, each tree's marginal likelihood collapses to $\Gamma(a+A_\ell)/(b+B_\ell)^{a+A_\ell}$, preserving the conjugate backfitting algorithm of BART. The second pillar is the equality of the continuation-ratio and cumulative-link parameterizations under cloglog, with cutpoints $c_k=\log\sum_{j\le k} e^{\gamma_j}$, which removes ordering constraints on the cutpoints and yields log-gamma full conditionals for the $\gamma_j$'s.

What would settle it

Simulate data from a sparse Hölder function with smoothness $\alpha=0.5$ and fit the ordinal model with a very coarse candidate split grid (e.g., two candidate split points per predictor). If the posterior's integrated total-variation error does not decay at the claimed rate for $\alpha=0.5$, namely $(\log n/n)^{1/(2+2D_0)}$, then the approximation condition behind the contraction theorem is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the cloglog link sits at a unique intersection: under the cloglog link, the cumulative-link and continuation-ratio formulations of ordinal regression coincide, and the resulting likelihood has a Poisson-gamma form that admits conjugate updates for BART leaf parameters when leaves carry a log-gamma prior. Augmenting one truncated exponential per observation turns inference into Bayesian backfitting of a Gumbel regression, avoiding the constrained cutpoint sampling that plagues probit and logit cumulative models. The paper uses this to construct the proportional hazards stick-breaking process (PHSBP) and its nonproportional extension (NPHSBP), shows that a special case of the PHSBP is a Dirichlet process with covariate-dependent concentration, and builds proportional and non-proportional hazards survival models. It further proves that the ordinal regression posterior concentrates around the truth at the minimax-optimal rate under a Hölder smoothness and sparsity assumption.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed minimax-optimal rate rests on the assumption that the true regression function can be approximated, everywhere on the predictor space and to within the target error, by a tree built on a fixed grid of candidate split points; if that grid is too coarse, the rate proof fails even though the algorithm still runs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A BART-based ordinal model can be fit with essentially the same ease as a normal regression, with no cutpoint-ordering constraint step.
The new stick-breaking priors need only one latent variable per observation, unlike probit and logit stick-breaking processes, so density regression is more scalable.
The same augmentation yields discrete-time and continuous-time proportional hazards survival models with conjugate Gibbs updates; the proportional-hazards sampler processes each observation in constant time per tree.
The ordinal model attains minimax-optimal posterior contraction rates, so the computational convenience is not bought at the price of slower learning.
A special case of the PHSBP is a Dirichlet process whose concentration parameter varies with covariates, placing the new construction inside the classical dependent Dirichlet process family.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: the same truncated-exponential machinery should transfer to other asymmetric links or to multivariate ordinal outcomes; nothing in the augmentation restricts it to the cloglog link.
Because the contraction-rate theorem is proved only for the ordinal model, the natural next check is whether the stick-breaking and survival models also reach the minimax bounds; the paper conjectures but does not prove this.
The NPHSBP's prior shrinks the nonparametric function toward the proportional-hazards form by controlling splits on the category index, so the posterior probability of such splits could serve as a model-selection test for the proportional-hazards assumption; the paper does not yet run that test.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short take: this is a genuinely useful methods paper, but it has a real internal mismatch between its headline theory and what it actually fits. The stress-test note is correct. Section 3 and Web Appendices S.1-S.4 build the Gibbs samplers on log-gamma leaf priors (mu ~ logGam(a,b)), and that is what makes the conjugate backfitting work. Condition P3 in Web Appendix S.5, however, states that leaf node parameters have independent Normal(0, sigma_mu^2) priors, and Lemma 1, imported from Orlandi et al. and Jeong and Rockova, is a prior-thickness bound for normal leaves. No analogous bound is derived for log-gamma leaves. So Theorem 3 proves minimax contraction for a different prior than the one used in every implementation and experiment. That is a load-bearing gap, not a footnote: the minimax-optimal posterior contraction claim is the paper's central theoretical result. It may well be repairable, since the log-gamma prior might satisfy a similar bound, but as written the theorem does not cover the model. What is genuinely good: the cloglog link is exactly the right device to make cumulative-link and continuation-ratio ordinal models coincide, and the truncated-exponential augmentation with log-gamma priors is a neat trick that sidesteps the cutpoint ordering constraints that plague probit and logit ordinal BART. The PHSBP/NPHSBP construction is natural, and Theorem 1's DP special case is a clean Sethuraman calculation. The survival extensions are a reasonable byproduct, not a revolution, but they are coherent. Soft spots beyond the theory mismatch: no code is shipped, benchmark tables have no uncertainty, and there are no MCMC diagnostics. For a methods paper these are fixable, but they should be fixed before anyone relies on the empirical comparisons. The paper also leans on borrowed lemmas in a way that makes the proof hard to check independently, though that is common in this literature and not by itself a flaw. This paper deserves a serious referee. The core ideas are solid and the cloglog trick will be citable even if the theory needs work. If the authors close the prior mismatch, either by proving a log-gamma version of the prior-thickness bound or by honestly restricting the theorem to a normal-leaf variant, and add code and uncertainty-aware comparisons, this becomes a strong contribution. As is, the minimax claim should not be taken at face value. Send it to peer review, but flag the mismatch and require a fix or a clear caveat before acceptance.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Bayesian nonparametric framework based on the complementary log-log (cloglog) link for ordinal regression, density regression via stick-breaking processes, and survival analysis. The key computational device is a truncated-exponential data augmentation scheme that, combined with BART and log-gamma leaf priors, yields conjugate Bayesian backfitting updates. The paper introduces the PHOBART and NPHOBART ordinal models, the PHSBP and NPHSBP stick-breaking priors, and discrete- and continuous-time proportional/non-proportional hazards survival models. The main theoretical result, Theorem 3, claims minimax-optimal posterior contraction for the ordinal model at rate (log n/n)^(alpha/(2alpha+D0)). The methods are illustrated on simulations, MEPS depression and BMI data, and the LeukSurv leukemia survival dataset.

Significance. If the results hold, the cloglog link provides a useful unification: it avoids cutpoint constraints in ordinal models, requires only one augmented latent variable per observation in stick-breaking mixtures, and yields simple Gibbs samplers. The augmentation algebra in Section 3 and the Web Appendices is coherent, and Theorem 1 is a clean verification that the PHSBP reduces to a Dirichlet process conditional on the regression function. The paper is strongest as a computational and methodological contribution. The theoretical claim, however, is currently mismatched with the implemented model: Theorem 3 is proved for Normal leaf priors, whereas all samplers use log-gamma leaf priors. Since the abstract and introduction explicitly advertise minimax-optimal contraction for the proposed ordinal models, this gap is load-bearing and must be resolved.

major comments (1)

[Section 4 and Web Appendix S.5, Condition P3] Theorem 3's contraction result is proved for a prior that does not match the model implemented in the paper. Condition P3 states that leaf node parameters mu_tl have independent Normal(0, sigma_mu^2) priors, and the prior-thickness bound in Lemma 1 is imported from Orlandi et al. (2021) and Jeong and Rockova (2023), which are proven for Normal leaf priors. However, Section 3 and Web Appendices S.1 through S.4 define all models with log-gamma leaf priors mu_tl ~ log Gam(a,b), with Section 3 explicitly stating "provided that we use a log-gamma prior mu_tl ~ log Gam(a,b) rather than the usual normal distribution." No analogue of Lemma 1 is proven for log-gamma leaves, and the log-gamma density e^{a*mu - b*e^mu} has tail behavior substantially different from the Normal, so the existing prior-thickness argument does not transfer without new work. As written, Theorem 3 establishes contraction for a different ordinal BART model than the PHOBART and NPHOBART procedures whose samplers, illustrations, and computational claims are the subject of the paper. Please either extend the prior-concentration lemma to log-gamma leaf priors or state explicitly that the theoretical guarantee applies only to a normal-leaf variant.

minor comments (5)

[Web Appendix S.2] The definition of Z_ij contains an internal contradiction: the text says "Z_ij = 1 if Yi > j, Z_ij = Zi if Yi = j and Z_ij = 0 if Yi > j"; the last clause should presumably be "Z_ij = 0 if Yi < j."
[Web Appendix S.4] The lambda_b update contains a typographical double comma in the gamma distribution: "Gam(a_lambda + sum delta_i, , b_lambda + ...)".
[Section 4, Condition P5] The theorem's rate is conditional on Condition P5, but the paper does not state how the number of candidate split points b_n must scale with n for the approximation error bound to be satisfied for an alpha-Hoelder r0; please provide this guidance explicitly.
[Web Appendix S.5, Lemma 3] The entropy bound is written as "L log dT bT n LU/epsilon", which is ambiguous; please clarify the intended product (presumably d*T*b_n*L*U/epsilon).
[Section 5.3, Table 2] The cross-validated deviance difference between the PH BART model and the Cox Linear model is small (-1.91); please provide standard errors or intervals for the deviance differences to support the claim that the PH BART model outperforms both competitors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cloglog identities, conjugate augmentations, and contraction proof are derived from stated priors and external concentration/entropy results, not from the paper's own conclusions.

full rationale

The main derivations are self-contained algebraic identities and standard prior-to-posterior calculations. Section 3.1 proves the cumulative-link/continuation-ratio coincidence for the cloglog link by direct manipulation of exp(-exp(.)) terms with c_k = log sum_{j<=k} exp(gamma_j); nothing is assumed that is equivalent to the claimed coincidence. The truncated-exponential augmentation and log-gamma conjugacy in Section 3 and Web Appendices S.1-S.2 are explicit calculations of integrated likelihoods and full conditionals. Theorems 1 and 2 identify the PHSBP/NPHSBP weights with, respectively, a Sethuraman DP construction (via U = exp(-E) ~ Beta(lambda,1)) and an Ishwaran-James stick-breaking prior; these are restatements of the definitions after short calculations, not predictions extracted from fitted values. Theorem 3 follows the standard Ghosal et al. (2000) sufficient conditions: Lemma 1 is imported from Orlandi et al. (2021)/Jeong and Rockova (2023), Lemma 7 verifies a condition of Linero (2024) explicitly, and Condition P5 is a sieve approximation assumption rather than the theorem's conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the empirical sections use held-out ELPD/deviance. One substantive caveat, which is a correctness/coverage gap rather than circularity: the contraction theorem is proved under Condition P3 ('The leaf node parameters mu_tl of T_t are given independent Normal(0, sigma_mu^2) priors', Web Appendix S.5), while the implemented PHOBART/NPHOBART samplers use log-gamma leaf priors ('provided that we use a log-gamma prior mu_tl ~ log Gam(a,b) rather than the usual normal distribution', Section 3). Thus Theorem 3 as written does not cover the prior used in the paper's algorithms; this does not make the derivation circular because the theorem's assumptions do not incorporate its conclusion, but it should be addressed before the theoretical claim is attached to the implemented model.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework depends on several hand-chosen default hyperparameters (leaf variance scales, threshold priors, bin counts) and standard BART regularity conditions. These are prior and modeling choices, not constants fitted to reproduce target results. No new physical or structural entities are postulated; the new stick-breaking processes are model constructs built from standard distributions.

free parameters (5)

BART leaf prior standard deviation sigma_mu for ordinal and survival models = 1.5/sqrt(T)
Chosen to mimic the original BART prior; a hyperparameter rather than a fitted value, but it controls regularization strength in all models.
BART leaf prior standard deviation sigma_mu for density regression = 1/sqrt(T)
Hand-selected default for the NPHSBP; affects smoothness of r(x) and h(x).
log-gamma prior on threshold parameters gamma_k = log Gam(1,1) in PHSBP theorem
Required for the DP equivalence in Theorem 1; other hyperparameters would break the DP result.
NPHSBP split-category CDF p(k) = geometric CDF with success probability 1/3
A design choice in illustrations to prioritize early mixture components; not derived from data.
Survival baseline number of bins B = N^(1/3)
Histogram-style default chosen so equal uncensored event counts fall per bin; model output can depend on B.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumption F: r0 is alpha-Holder smooth, alpha in (0,1], and depends on D0 coordinates (Section 4).
Underlies the contraction-rate claim; the rate is computed against this smoothness class.
domain assumption Condition P (P1-P6): BART prior regularity, candidate split points with log bn <= log n, and tree approximation capability (Web Appendix S.5).
Needed to apply prior thickness and entropy bounds; borrowed from Orlandi et al. (2021) and Jeong and Rockova (2023).
domain assumption Independent censoring: Ci is independent of (Ti, Xi) (Section 3.5).
Required for the survival likelihood factorization; standard in survival analysis.
standard math Sethuraman stick-breaking representation of the Dirichlet process (cited in Theorem 1 proof).
Used to prove that the PHSBP special case reduces to DP(e^{-r(x)}, H).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Unified Bayesian Nonparametric Framework for Ordinal, Survival, and Density Regression Using the Complementary Log-Log Link." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WU6KUQCS

@misc{pith2026250200606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Unified Bayesian Nonparametric Framework for Ordinal, Survival, and Density Regression Using the Complementary Log-Log Link},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WU6KUQCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00606}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, we develop applications of the complementary log-log (cloglog) link to problems in Bayesian nonparametrics. Although less commonly used than the probit or logit links, we find that the cloglog link is computationally and theoretically well-suited to several commonly used Bayesian nonparametric methods. Our starting point is a Bayesian nonparametric model for ordinal regression. We first review how the cloglog link uniquely sits at the intersection of the cumulative link and continuation ratio approaches to ordinal regression. Then, we develop a convenient computational method for fitting these ordinal models using Bayesian additive regression trees. Next, we use our ordinal regression model to build a Bayesian nonparametric stick-breaking process and show that, under a proportional hazards assumption, our stick-breaking process can be used to construct a weight-dependent Dirichlet process mixture model. Again, Bayesian additive regression trees lead to convenient computations. We then extend these models to allow for Bayesian nonparametric survival analysis in both discrete and continuous time. Our models have desirable theoretical properties, and we illustrate this analyzing the posterior contraction rate of our ordinal models. Finally, we demonstrate the practical utility of our cloglog models through a series of illustrative examples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00606 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Visualization of the cumulative link model for ordinal data using the probit (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The first five panels display the true conditional response density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (Top panel) Estimated BMI density and 95% pointwise credible bands for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Posterior partial-effect functions for age (top row), education (middle row), and income (bottom row) under the PHOBART model (left column) and under the NPHOBART model for each ordinal cutoff k = 1, 2, 3 (three right columns). Each panel shows the projection-based me…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Posterior distributions of the summary R2 statistics for the projection-based summary model under PHOBART (top-left) and NPHOBART (k = 1, 2, 3, remaining panels). The “All” distribution corresponds to using all predictors, while each other curve shows a reduced model …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Posterior projection summaries for the partial effect of age, log of white blood cell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical Data Analysis . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 3rd edition

work page 2013
[2]

Albert, J. H. and Chib, S. (1993). Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 88(422):669--679

1993
[3]

Relative Survival Analysis Using Bayesian Decision Tree Ensembles

Basak, P., Linero, A. R., Maringe, C., and Rubio, F. J. (2024). Relative survival analysis using B ayesian decision tree ensembles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01435

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[4]

Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning , 45(1):5--32

2001
[5]

S., Weber, F., Vehtari, A., Ben-Shachar, M

Bürkner, P.-C., Gabry, J., Weber, S., Johnson, A., Modrak, M., Badr, H. S., Weber, F., Vehtari, A., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Rabel, H., Mills, S. C., Wild, S., and Popov, V. (2024). brms: Bayesian Regression Models using 'Stan' . R package version 2.22.0

work page 2024
[6]

and Berger, R

Casella, G. and Berger, R. L. (2002). Statistical Inference . Duxbury, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 2 edition

work page 2002
[7]

A., George, E

Chipman, H. A., George, E. I., and McCulloch, R. E. (2010). BART: Bayesian additive regression trees . The Annals of Applied Statistics , 4(1):266 -- 298

2010
[8]

K., Rai, M., Rehkopf, D

Cohen, A. K., Rai, M., Rehkopf, D. H., and Abrams, B. (2013). Educational attainment and obesity: a systematic review. Obesity reviews , 14(12):989--1005

work page 2013

Show all 43 references

[9]

Cowles, M. K. (1996). Accelerating M onte C arlo M arkov chain convergence for cumulative-link generalized linear models. Statistics and Computing , 6:101--111

1996
[10]

B., Pillai, N., and Park, J.-H

Dunson, D. B., Pillai, N., and Park, J.-H. (2007). Bayesian density regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 69(2):163--183

2007
[11]

Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. The Annals of Statistics , pages 1189--1232

2001
[12]

Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., Dunson, D., Vehtari, A., and Rubin, D. (2013). Bayesian Data Analysis, Third Edition . Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science. Taylor & Francis

2013
[13]

K., and Van Der Vaart, A

Ghosal, S., Ghosh, J. K., and Van Der Vaart, A. W. (2000). Convergence rates of posterior distributions. Annals of Statistics , pages 500--531

2000
[14]

R., Murray, J

Hahn, P. R., Murray, J. S., and Carvalho, C. M. (2020). Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: Regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effects (with discussion). Bayesian Analysis , 15(3):965--1056

2020
[15]

Henderson, R., Shimakura, S., and Gorst, D. (2002). Modeling spatial variation in leukemia survival data. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 97(460):965--972

2002
[16]

Hill, J., Linero, A., and Murray, J. (2020). Bayesian additive regression trees: A review and look forward. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , 7(1):251--278

2020
[17]

and James, L

Ishwaran, H. and James, L. F. (2001). Gibbs sampling methods for stick-breaking priors . Journal of the American statistical Association , 96(453):161--173

2001
[18]

and Rockova, V

Jeong, S. and Rockova, V. (2023). The art of bart: Minimax optimality over nonhomogeneous smoothness in high dimension. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 24(337):1--65

2023
[19]

Kalbfleisch, J. D. and Prentice, R. L. (2002). The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data . John Wiley & Sons

2002
[20]

Lamprinakou, S., Barahona, M., Flaxman, S., Filippi, S., Gandy, A., and McCoy, E. J. (2023). BART -based inference for P oisson processes. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 180:107658

2023
[21]

R., and Murray, J

Li, Y., Linero, A. R., and Murray, J. (2023). Adaptive conditional distribution estimation with B ayesian decision tree ensembles. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 118(543):2129--2142

2023
[22]

Linero, A. R. (2018). Bayesian regression trees for high-dimensional prediction and variable selection. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 113(522):626--636

2018
[23]

Linero, A. R. (2024). Generalized B ayesian additive regression trees models: Beyond conditional conjugacy. Journal of the American Statistical Association , pages 1--14. Advance online publication

2024
[24]

R., Basak, P., Li, Y., and Sinha, D

Linero, A. R., Basak, P., Li, Y., and Sinha, D. (2022). Bayesian survival tree ensembles with submodel shrinkage. Bayesian Analysis , 17(3):997--1020

2022
[25]

R., Sinha, D., and Lipsitz, S

Linero, A. R., Sinha, D., and Lipsitz, S. R. (2020). Semiparametric mixed-scale models using shared B ayesian forests. Biometrics , 76(1):131--144

2020
[26]

Linero, A. R. and Yang, Y. (2018). Bayesian regression tree ensembles that adapt to smoothness and sparsity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 80(5):1087--1110

2018
[27]

MacEachern, S. N. (2000). Dependent D irichlet processes. Technical report, Department of Statistics, The Ohio State University

2000
[28]

and Nelder, J

McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. A. (1998). Generalized Linear Models . Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2nd edition

1998
[29]

T., and Zhang, S

M \"u ller, P., Shih, Y.-C. T., and Zhang, S. (2007). A spatially-adjusted Bayesian additive regression tree model to merge two datasets . Bayesian Analysis , 2(3):611 -- 633

2007
[30]

Murray, J. S. (2021). Log-linear B ayesian additive regression trees for multinomial logistic and count regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 116(534):756--769

2021
[31]

Orlandi, V., Murray, J., Linero, A., and Volfovsky, A. (2021). Density regression with bayesian additive regression trees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.12259

2021 arXiv
[32]

G., Scott, J

Polson, N. G., Scott, J. G., and Windle, J. (2013). Bayesian inference for logistic models using P \'o lya--gamma latent variables. Journal of the American statistical Association , 108(504):1339--1349

2013
[33]

T., Chipman, H

Pratola, M. T., Chipman, H. A., George, E. I., and McCulloch, R. E. (2020). Heteroscedastic BART via multiplicative regression trees. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 29(2):405--417

2020
[34]

Ren, L., Du, L., Carin, L., and Dunson, D. (2011). Logistic stick-breaking process. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 12(7):203--239

2011
[35]

and Durante, D

Rigon, T. and Durante, D. (2021). Tractable B ayesian density regression via logit stick-breaking priors. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , 211:131--142

2021
[36]

and Van der Pas, S

Ro c kov \'a , V. and Van der Pas, S. (2020). Posterior concentration for bayesian regression trees and forests. The Annals of Statistics , 48(4):2108--2131

2020
[37]

and Dunson, D

Rodr \'i guez, A. and Dunson, D. B. (2011). Nonparametric Bayesian models through probit stick-breaking processes . Bayesian Analysis , 6(1):145 -- 177

2011
[38]

Saha, E. (2023). Theory of posterior concentration for generalized bayesian additive regression trees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12505

2023
[39]

Sethuraman, J. (1994). A constructive definition of Dirichlet priors . Statistica sinica , pages 639--650

1994
[40]

A., Logan, B

Sparapani, R. A., Logan, B. R., McCulloch, R. E., and Laud, P. W. (2016). Nonparametric survival analysis using B ayesian additive regression trees ( BART ). Statistics in Medicine , 35(16):2741--2753

2016
[41]

Suresh, K., Severn, C., and Ghosh, D. (2022). Survival prediction models: an introduction to discrete-time modeling. BMC medical research methodology , 22(1):207

2022
[42]

Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., and Gabry, J. (2017). Practical bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and waic. Statistics and computing , 27:1413--1432

2017
[43]

M., and Murray, J

Woody, S., Carvalho, C. M., and Murray, J. S. (2021). Model interpretation through lower-dimensional posterior summarization. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 30(1):144--161

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical Data Analysis . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 3rd edition

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Albert, J. H. and Chib, S. (1993). Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 88(422):669--679

1993

[3] [3]

Relative Survival Analysis Using Bayesian Decision Tree Ensembles

Basak, P., Linero, A. R., Maringe, C., and Rubio, F. J. (2024). Relative survival analysis using B ayesian decision tree ensembles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01435

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning , 45(1):5--32

2001

[5] [5]

S., Weber, F., Vehtari, A., Ben-Shachar, M

Bürkner, P.-C., Gabry, J., Weber, S., Johnson, A., Modrak, M., Badr, H. S., Weber, F., Vehtari, A., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Rabel, H., Mills, S. C., Wild, S., and Popov, V. (2024). brms: Bayesian Regression Models using 'Stan' . R package version 2.22.0

work page 2024

[6] [6]

and Berger, R

Casella, G. and Berger, R. L. (2002). Statistical Inference . Duxbury, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 2 edition

work page 2002

[7] [7]

A., George, E

Chipman, H. A., George, E. I., and McCulloch, R. E. (2010). BART: Bayesian additive regression trees . The Annals of Applied Statistics , 4(1):266 -- 298

2010

[8] [8]

K., Rai, M., Rehkopf, D

Cohen, A. K., Rai, M., Rehkopf, D. H., and Abrams, B. (2013). Educational attainment and obesity: a systematic review. Obesity reviews , 14(12):989--1005

work page 2013