Long-Run Performance of Bayesian Model Averaging

Abstract

Abstract : Hjort and Claeskens (HC) argue that statistical inference conditional on a single selected model underestimates uncertainty, and that model averaging is the way to remedy this; we strongly agree. They point out that Bayesian model averaging (BMA) has been the dominant approach to this, but argue that its performance has been inadequately studied, and propose an alternative, Frequentist Model Averaging (FMA). We point out, however, that there is a substantial literature on the performance of BMA, consisting of three main threads: general theoretical results, simulation studies, and evaluation of out-of-sample performance. The theoretical results are scattered, and we summarize them. The results have been quite consistent: BMA has tended to outperform competing methods for model selection and taking account of model uncertainty. The theoretical results depend on the assumption that the practical over which the performance of methods is assessed is the same as the prior distribution used, and we investigate sensitivity of results to this assumption in a simple normal example; they turn out not to be unduly sensitive.