Abstract

Bayesian model selection is premised on the assumption that the data are generated from one of the postulated models. However, in many applications, all of these models are incorrect (that is, there is misspecification). When the models are misspecified, two or more models can provide a nearly equally good fit to the data, in which case Bayesian model selection can be highly unstable, potentially leading to self-contradictory findings. To remedy this instability, we propose to use bagging on the posterior distribution ("BayesBag") - that is, to average the posterior model probabilities over many bootstrapped datasets. We provide theoretical results characterizing the asymptotic behavior of the posterior and the bagged posterior in the (misspecified) model selection setting. We empirically assess the BayesBag approach on synthetic and real-world data in (i) feature selection for linear regression and (ii) phylogenetic tree reconstruction. Our theory and experiments show that, when all models are misspecified, BayesBag (a) provides greater reproducibility and (b) places posterior mass on optimal models more reliably, compared to the usual Bayesian posterior; on the other hand, under correct specification, BayesBag is slightly more conservative than the usual posterior, in the sense that BayesBag posterior probabilities tend to be slightly farther from the extremes of zero and one. Overall, our results demonstrate that BayesBag provides an easy-to-use and widely applicable approach that improves upon Bayesian model selection by making it more stable and reproducible.

Highlights

  • In Bayesian statistics, the usual method of quantifying uncertainty in the choice of model is to use the posterior distribution over models

  • We provide concrete guidance on selecting the bootstrap dataset size M and, via our theory, we clarify the effect of M on the stability of BayesBag model selection

  • In Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, we characterize the asymptotic distribution of the posterior on models in this setting, for both the usual posterior (“Bayes”) and the bagged posterior (“BayesBag”)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In Bayesian statistics, the usual method of quantifying uncertainty in the choice of model is to use the posterior distribution over models. An implicit assumption of this approach is that one of the assumed models is exactly correct. When all of the models are incorrect (that is, they are misspecified ), the posterior concentrates on the model that provides the best fit in terms of Kullback-Leibler divergence (Berk, 1966). When two or more models can explain the data almost well, the posterior becomes unstable and can yield contradictory results when seemingly inconsequential changes are.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call