REVIEW 1 cited by
Computing Bayes: Bayesian Computation from 1763 to the 21st Century
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
Computing Bayes: Bayesian Computation from 1763 to the 21st Century
read the original abstract
The Bayesian statistical paradigm uses the language of probability to express uncertainty about the phenomena that generate observed data. Probability distributions thus characterize Bayesian analysis, with the rules of probability used to transform prior probability distributions for all unknowns - parameters, latent variables, models - into posterior distributions, subsequent to the observation of data. Conducting Bayesian analysis requires the evaluation of integrals in which these probability distributions appear. Bayesian computation is all about evaluating such integrals in the typical case where no analytical solution exists. This paper takes the reader on a chronological tour of Bayesian computation over the past two and a half centuries. Beginning with the one-dimensional integral first confronted by Bayes in 1763, through to recent problems in which the unknowns number in the millions, we place all computational problems into a common framework, and describe all computational methods using a common notation. The aim is to help new researchers in particular - and more generally those interested in adopting a Bayesian approach to empirical work - make sense of the plethora of computational techniques that are now on offer; understand when and why different methods are useful; and see the links that do exist, between them all.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Comparative study of Bayesian and Frequentist methods for epidemic forecasting: Insights from simulated and historical data
Neither Bayesian nor frequentist fitting is uniformly better for epidemic forecasts; performance depends on phase and data, though the paper's own results undercut its phase-specific claims.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.