Explore the vast range of titles available.

We consider estimation of the parameters of a Gaussian Stochastic Process (GaSP), in the context of emulation (approximation) of computer models for which the outcomes are real-valued scalars. The main focus is on estimation of the GaSP parameters through various generalized maximum likelihood methods, mostly involving finding posterior modes; this is because full Bayesian analysis in computer model emulation is typically prohibitively expensive. The posterior modes that are studied arise from objective priors, such as the reference prior. These priors have been studied in the literature for the situation of an isotropic covariance function or under the assumption of separability in the design of inputs for model runs used in the GaSP construction. In this paper, we consider more general designs (e.g., a Latin Hypercube Design) with a class of commonly used anisotropic correlation functions, which can be written as a product of isotropic correlation functions, each having an unknown range parameter and a fixed roughness parameter. We discuss properties of the objective priors and marginal likelihoods for the parameters of the GaSP and establish the posterior propriety of the GaSP parameters, but our main focus is to demonstrate that certain parameterizations result in more robust estimation of the GaSP parameters than others, and that some parameterizations that are in common use should clearly be avoided. These results are applicable to many frequently used covariance functions, for example, power exponential, Matérn, rational quadratic and spherical covariance. We also generalize the results to the GaSP model with a nugget parameter. Both theoretical and numerical evidence is presented concerning the performance of the studied procedures.

We present a framework that enables computer model evaluation oriented toward answering the question: Does the computer model adequately represent reality? The proposed validation framework is a six-step procedure based on Bayesian and likelihood methodology. The Bayesian methodology is particularly well suited to treating the major issues associated with the validation process: quantifying multiple sources of error and uncertainty in computer models, combining multiple sources of information, and updating validation assessments as new information is acquired. Moreover, it allows inferential statements to be made about predictive error associated with model predictions in untested situations. The framework is implemented in a test bed example of resistance spot welding, to provide context for each of the six steps in the proposed validation process.

Researchers commonly use p-values to answer the question: How strongly does the evidence favor the alternative hypothesis relative to the null hypothesis? p-Values themselves do not directly answer this question and are often misinterpreted in ways that lead to overstating the evidence against the null hypothesis. Even in the \"post p < 0.05 era,\" however, it is quite possible that p-values will continue to be widely reported and used to assess the strength of evidence (if for no other reason than the widespread availability and use of statistical software that routinely produces p-values and thereby implicitly advocates for their use). If so, the potential for misinterpretation will persist. In this article, we recommend three practices that would help researchers more accurately interpret p-values. Each of the three recommended practices involves interpreting p-values in light of their corresponding \"Bayes factor bound,\" which is the largest odds in favor of the alternative hypothesis relative to the null hypothesis that is consistent with the observed data. The Bayes factor bound generally indicates that a given p-value provides weaker evidence against the null hypothesis than typically assumed. We therefore believe that our recommendations can guard against some of the most harmful p-value misinterpretations. In research communities that are deeply attached to reliance on \"p < 0.05,\" our recommendations will serve as initial steps away from this attachment. We emphasize that our recommendations are intended merely as initial, temporary steps and that many further steps will need to be taken to reach the ultimate destination: a holistic interpretation of statistical evidence that fully conforms to the principles laid out in the ASA statement on statistical significance and p-values.

This paper studies the multiplicity-correction effect of standard Bayesian variable-selection priors in linear regression. Our first goal is to clarify when, and how, multiplicity correction happens automatically in Bayesian analysis, and to distinguish this correction from the Bayesian Ockham's-razor effect. Our second goal is to contrast empirical-Bayes and fully Bayesian approaches to variable selection through examples, theoretical results and simulations. Considerable differences between the two approaches are found. In particular, we prove a theorem that characterizes a surprising aymptotic discrepancy between fully Bayes and empirical Bayes. This discrepancy arises from a different source than the failure to account for hyperparameter uncertainty in the empirical-Bayes estimate. Indeed, even at the extreme, when the empirical-Bayes estimate converges asymptotically to the true variable-inclusion probability, the potential for a serious difference remains.

Item response theory (IRT) models have been widely used in educational measurement testing. When there are repeated observations available for individuals through time, a dynamic structure for the latent trait of ability needs to be incorporated into the model, to accommodate changes in ability. Other complications that often arise in such settings include a violation of the common assumption that test results are conditionally independent, given ability and item difficulty, and that test item difficulties may be partially specified, but subject to uncertainty. Focusing on time series dichotomous response data, a new class of state space models, called Dynamic Item Response (DIR) models, is proposed. The models can be applied either retrospectively to the full data or on-line, in cases where real-time prediction is needed. The models are studied through simulated examples and applied to a large collection of reading test data obtained from MetaMetrics, Inc.

Spatially varying phenomena are often modeled using Gaussian random fields, specified by their mean function and covariance function. The spatial correlation structure of these models is commonly specified to be of a certain form (e.g., spherical, power exponential, rational quadratic, or Matérn) with a small number of unknown parameters. We consider objective Bayesian analysis of such spatial models, when the mean function of the Gaussian random field is specified as in a linear model. It is thus necessary to determine an objective (or default) prior distribution for the unknown mean and covariance parameters of the random field. We first show that common choices of default prior distributions, such as the constant prior and the independent Jeffreys prior, typically result in improper posterior distributions for this model. Next, the reference prior for the model is developed and is shown to yield a proper posterior distribution. A further attractive property of the reference prior is that it can be used directly for computation of Bayes factors or posterior probabilities of hypotheses to compare different correlation functions, even though the reference prior is improper. An illustration is given using a spatial dataset of topographic elevations.

Study of the bivariate normal distribution raises the full range of issues involving objective Bayesian inference, including the different types of objective priors (e.g., Jeffreys, invariant, reference, matching), the different modes of inference (e.g., Bayesian, frequentist, fiducial) and the criteria involved in deciding on optimal objective priors (e.g., ease of computation, frequentist performance, marginalization paradoxes). Summary recommendations as to optimal objective priors are made for a variety of inferences involving the bivariate normal distribution. In the course of the investigation, a variety of surprising results were found, including the availability of objective priors that yield exact frequentist inferences for many functions of the bivariate normal parameters, including the correlation coefficient.

Bayesian analysis for the covariance matrix of a multivariate normal distribution has received a lot of attention in the last two decades. In this paper, we propose a new class of priors for the covariance matrix, including both inverse Wishart and reference priors as special cases. The main motivation for the new class is to have available priors—both subjective and objective—that do not “force eigenvalues apart,” which is a criticism of inverse Wishart and Jeffreys priors. Extensive comparison of these “shrinkage priors” with inverse Wishart and Jeffreys priors is undertaken, with the new priors seeming to have considerably better performance. A number of curious facts about the new priors are also observed, such as that the posterior distribution will be proper with just three vector observations from the multivariate normal distribution—regardless of the dimension of the covariance matrix—and that useful inference about features of the covariance matrix can be possible. Finally, a new MCMC algorithm is developed for this class of priors and is shown to be computationally effective for matrices of up to 100 dimensions.

Reference analysis produces objective Bayesian inference, in the sense that inferential statements depend only on the assumed model and the available data, and the prior distribution used to make an inference is least informative in a certain information-theoretic sense. Reference priors have been rigorously defined in specific contexts and heuristically defined in general, but a rigorous general definition has been lacking. We produce a rigorous general definition here and then show how an explicit expression for the reference prior can be obtained under very weak regularity conditions. The explicit expression can be used to derive new reference priors both analytically and numerically.