REVIEW 3 cited by
Calibrating Model-Based Inferences and Decisions
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
As the frontiers of applied statistics progress through increasingly complex experiments we must exploit increasingly sophisticated inferential models to analyze the observations we make. In order to avoid misleading or outright erroneous inferences we then have to be increasingly diligent in scrutinizing the consequences of those modeling assumptions. Fortunately model-based methods of statistical inference naturally define procedures for quantifying the scope of inferential outcomes and calibrating corresponding decision making processes. In this paper I review the construction and implementation of the particular procedures that arise within frequentist and Bayesian methodologies.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Amortizing personalization in virtual brain twins
Virtual brain twin inference can be run from a cohort-derived prior over personal connectomes, enabling anonymous training and lightweight personalized inference for new subjects.
-
Does Unsupervised Domain Adaptation Improve the Robustness of Amortized Bayesian Inference? A Systematic Evaluation
Aligning simulated and observed summaries improves neural Bayesian inference under likelihood misspecification but degrades it under prior misspecification.
-
Data-driven mean-field within whole-brain models
A trained MLP reproduces QIF network mean-field dynamics, adds connection probability p as a whole-brain parameter, and improves parameter recovery in simulation-based inference.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.