Category: Bayesian Statistics

“Dynamically Rescaled Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for Bayesian Hierarchical Models”

Aki points us to this paper by Tore Selland Kleppe, which begins: Dynamically rescaled Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (DRHMC) is introduced as a computationally fast and easily implemented method for performing full Bayesian analysis in hierarchical statistical models. The method relies on introducing a modified parameterisation so that the re-parameterised target distribution has close to constant […]

The post “Dynamically Rescaled Hamiltonian Monte Carlo for Bayesian Hierarchical Models” appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

StanCon 2018 Helsinki tutorial videos online

StanCon 2018 Helsinki tutorial videos are now online at Stan YouTube channel List of tutorials at StanCon 2018 Helsinki Basics of Bayesian inference and Stan, parts 1 + 2, Jonah Gabry & Lauren Kennedy Hierarchical models, parts 1 + 2, Ben Goodrich Stan C++ development: Adding a new function to Stan, parts 1 + 2, […]

The post StanCon 2018 Helsinki tutorial videos online appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

Hey—take this psychological science replication quiz!

Rob Wilbin writes: I made this quiz where people try to guess ahead of time which results will replicate and which won’t in order to give then a more nuanced understanding of replication issues in psych. Based on this week’s Nature replication paper. It includes quotes and p-values from the original study if people want […]

The post Hey—take this psychological science replication quiz! appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

“To get started, I suggest coming up with a simple but reasonable model for missingness, then simulate fake complete data followed by a fake missingness pattern, and check that you can recover your missing-data model and your complete data model in that fake-data situation. You can then proceed from there. But if you can’t even do it with fake data, you’re sunk.”

Alex Konkel writes on a topic that never goes out of style: I’m working on a data analysis plan and am hoping you might help clarify something you wrote regarding missing data. I’m somewhat familiar with multiple imputation and some of the available methods, and I’m also becoming more familiar with Bayesian modeling like in […]

The post “To get started, I suggest coming up with a simple but reasonable model for missingness, then simulate fake complete data followed by a fake missingness pattern, and check that you can recover your missing-data model and your complete data model in that fake-data situation. You can then proceed from there. But if you can’t even do it with fake data, you’re sunk.” appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

Bayesian model comparison in ecology

Conor Goold writes: I was reading this overview of mixed-effect modeling in ecology, and thought you or your blog readers may be interested in their last conclusion (page 35): Other modelling approaches such as Bayesian inference are available, and allow much greater flexibility in choice of model structure, error structure and link function. However, the […]

The post Bayesian model comparison in ecology appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

The fallacy of the excluded middle — statistical philosophy edition

I happened to come across this post from 2012 and noticed a point I’d like to share again. I was discussing an article by David Cox and Deborah Mayo, in which Cox wrote: [Bayesians’] conceptual theories are trying to do two entirely different things. One is trying to extract information from the data, while the […]

The post The fallacy of the excluded middle — statistical philosophy edition appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

The fallacy of the excluded middle — statistical philosophy edition

I happened to come across this post from 2012 and noticed a point I’d like to share again. I was discussing an article by David Cox and Deborah Mayo, in which Cox wrote: [Bayesians’] conceptual theories are trying to do two entirely different things. One is trying to extract information from the data, while the […]

The post The fallacy of the excluded middle — statistical philosophy edition appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.