Bayes factor
Part of a series on |
Bayesian statistics |
---|
Posterior = Likelihood × Prior ÷ Evidence |
Background |
Model building |
Posterior approximation |
Estimators |
|
Evidence approximation |
Model evaluation |
|
The Bayes factor is a ratio of two competing
Although conceptually simple, the computation of the Bayes factor can be challenging depending on the complexity of the model and the hypotheses.
Definition
The Bayes factor is the ratio of two marginal likelihoods; that is, the likelihoods of two statistical models integrated over the prior probabilities of their parameters.[9]
The posterior probability of a model M given data D is given by Bayes' theorem:
The key data-dependent term represents the probability that some data are produced under the assumption of the model M; evaluating it correctly is the key to Bayesian model comparison.
Given a model selection problem in which one wishes to choose between two models on the basis of observed data D, the plausibility of the two different models M1 and M2, parametrised by model parameter vectors and , is assessed by the Bayes factor K given by
When the two models have equal prior probability, so that , the Bayes factor is equal to the ratio of the posterior probabilities of M1 and M2. If instead of the Bayes factor integral, the likelihood corresponding to the
Other approaches are:
- to treat model comparison as a decision problem, computing the expected value or cost of each model choice;
- to use minimum message length (MML).
- to use minimum description length (MDL).
Interpretation
A value of K > 1 means that M1 is more strongly supported by the data under consideration than M2. Note that classical
K | dHart | bits | Strength of evidence |
---|---|---|---|
< 100 | < 0 | < 0 | Negative (supports M2) |
100 to 101/2 | 0 to 5 | 0 to 1.6 | Barely worth mentioning |
101/2 to 101 | 5 to 10 | 1.6 to 3.3 | Substantial |
101 to 103/2 | 10 to 15 | 3.3 to 5.0 | Strong |
103/2 to 102 | 15 to 20 | 5.0 to 6.6 | Very strong |
> 102 | > 20 | > 6.6 | Decisive |
The second column gives the corresponding weights of evidence in
An alternative table, widely cited, is provided by Kass and Raftery (1995):[10]
log10 K | K | Strength of evidence |
---|---|---|
0 to 1/2 | 1 to 3.2 | Not worth more than a bare mention |
1/2 to 1 | 3.2 to 10 | Substantial |
1 to 2 | 10 to 100 | Strong |
> 2 | > 100 | Decisive |
Example
Suppose we have a
Thus we have for M1
whereas for M2 we have
The ratio is then 1.2, which is "barely worth mentioning" even if it points very slightly towards M1.
A
A classical
(rather than averaging over all possible q). That gives a likelihood ratio of 0.1 and points towards M2.
M2 is a more complex model than M1 because it has a free parameter which allows it to model the data more closely. The ability of Bayes factors to take this into account is a reason why
On the other hand, the modern method of relative likelihood takes into account the number of free parameters in the models, unlike the classical likelihood ratio. The relative likelihood method could be applied as follows. Model M1 has 0 parameters, and so its Akaike information criterion (AIC) value is . Model M2 has 1 parameter, and so its AIC value is . Hence M1 is about times as probable as M2 to minimize the information loss. Thus M2 is slightly preferred, but M1 cannot be excluded.
See also
- Akaike information criterion
- Approximate Bayesian computation
- Bayesian information criterion
- Deviance information criterion
- Lindley's paradox
- Minimum message length
- Model selection
- E-Value
- Statistical ratios
References
- .
- ISBN 978-0-470-01823-1.
- hdl:2066/226717.
- S2CID 210156537.
- ISBN 978-1-119-95151-3.
- ISBN 0-470-84567-8.
- S2CID 206867662.
- ISBN 0-387-95277-2.
- ISBN 1-58488-288-3.
- ^ JSTOR 2291091.
- PMID 19880371.
- PMID 21876135.
- ISBN 9780191589676.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link - MR 0548210.
- ^ Sharpening Ockham's Razor On a Bayesian Strop
Further reading
- Bernardo, J.; Smith, A. F. M. (1994). Bayesian Theory. John Wiley. ISBN 0-471-92416-4.
- Denison, D. G. T.; Holmes, C. C.; Mallick, B. K.; Smith, A. F. M. (2002). Bayesian Methods for Nonlinear Classification and Regression. John Wiley. ISBN 0-471-49036-9.
- Dienes, Z. (2019). How do I know what my theory predicts? Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
- Duda, Richard O.; Hart, Peter E.; Stork, David G. (2000). "Section 9.6.5". Pattern classification (2nd ed.). Wiley. pp. 487–489. ISBN 0-471-05669-3.
- Gelman, A.; Carlin, J.; Stern, H.; Rubin, D. (1995). Bayesian Data Analysis. London: ISBN 0-412-03991-5.
- Jaynes, E. T. (1994), Probability Theory: the logic of science, chapter 24.
- Kadane, Joseph B.; Dickey, James M. (1980). "Bayesian Decision Theory and the Simplification of Models". In Kmenta, Jan; Ramsey, James B. (eds.). Evaluation of Econometric Models. New York: Academic Press. pp. 245–268. ISBN 0-12-416550-8.
- Lee, P. M. (2012). Bayesian Statistics: an introduction. Wiley. ISBN 9781118332573.
- Richard, Mark; Vecer, Jan (2021). "Efficiency Testing of Prediction Markets: Martingale Approach, Likelihood Ratio and Bayes Factor Analysis". Risks. 9 (2): 31. hdl:10419/258120.
- Winkler, Robert (2003). Introduction to Bayesian Inference and Decision (2nd ed.). Probabilistic. ISBN 0-9647938-4-9.
External links
- BayesFactor —an R package for computing Bayes factors in common research designs
- Bayes factor calculator — Online calculator for informed Bayes factors
- Bayes Factor Calculators Archived 2015-05-07 at the Wayback Machine —web-based version of much of the BayesFactor package