Archive for Bayesian Analysis

Bayesian workflow [book review]

Posted in Books, R, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 8, 2026 by xi'an


“This original, thought-provoking, and transforming, book is much much more than an implementation manual for Bayesian Data Analysis, even though it shares almost the same perspective. (The first sentence of the book states that the authors’ `conceptions of statistical practice, and of Bayesian statistics, have changed over the years’.) By providing a modus vivendi for undertaking Bayesian modelling from scratch in realistic settings where models are not magicked out of the blue, the authors explicit and rationalise the many steps required by such a bottom-up modelling protocol (`not a checklist, not a cookbook’, and not a flowchart!) in real situations. The contents read very well and very smoothly, with a seamless conjunction of intuition, modelling advices, computational details, and comparison tools. While unsurprisingly Bayesian, the perspective adopted therein remains both open and inclusive, with a welcome humility about the limitations and challenges of Bayesian workflows. This book should thus appeal to and profit a wide variety of readers, as providing guidance through an extensive collection of highly detailed examples, with shared code and exercises.”

This book proposes a modus vivendi for Bayesian modelling in applied, realistic Bayesian analysis, where models are not magicked out of the blue. It thus emphases iterative model building, model checking, computational troubleshooting, and simulated-data experimentation, filling a gap that looks glaring in retrospect. It particularly targets users and developers of Stan, with code excerpts in R and Stan. It consists of four parts:

  1. background on Bayesian methods and computational tools;
  2. the Bayesian workflow proper, namely building a statistical model from its components, together with its assessment tools;
  3. the computational aspects of fitting models, diagnosing convergence and assessing calibration;
  4. case studies.

I was eagerly waiting for the book, as I knew Andrew, Aki, and Richard had been working on it for a few years. (The quote above is the blurb I wrote upon request from the publisher.)

The tenets of BaWoFlo—if I may resort to this acronym!—are (i) fitting multiple models, (ii) applying methods repeatedly, and (iii) resorting to simulated-data experiments, which should not come as a surprise to readers of BDA. As noted in the introduction, the protocol exposed therein can also benefit non-Bayesian experimenters. This agrees with the highly moderate, “M-open”, agnostic approach to Bayesianism adopted by the authors (“there is no safe haven”). I also welcome and share their humble perspective about the limitations and challenges of Bayesian workflows.

Examples are treated in full detail, with successive modelling and computational choices profusely commented, which is a big plus for such a practical book. This starts as early as Chapter 4, with a multiple-choice exam example. Indeed, there cannot be general principles or a generic theory that would make the approach foolproof. See, e.g., “A data model is not just a ‘likelihood’” (p.70), as when the data model is not fully generative. I very much liked the section on choosing priors (5.6), and the very rich graphs (see, e.g., Chapter 8) for assessing the impact of prior and likelihood, as well as for predictive checks. In coherent continuation of the authors’ earlier work, the book advocates LOO methods and model stacking rather than model averaging. (With a surprisingly anti-Ockham perspective in Section 9.7.)

The MCMC coverage is unsurprising, with \(\hat R\) at the forefront. Chapter 12, on using fast experiments to detect fitting or computational issues, is very nice. The book builds on the immense corpus of work achieved by the authors over the decades (for the most senior ones!). By contrast, the chapter on approximate solutions (13) is way too short, and the same goes for those on calibration and software development.

The book is very US-centric, unsurprisingly given Andrew’s focus on political science. Some sections are reminiscent of Andrew’s blog entries (or the opposite). The (football) World Cup example was initiated when Andrew was in France, during the 2014 World Cup, and as a result (?) the names of the teams are in French! One chapter also reanalyses the birthdate data displayed on the cover of BDA.

Mileage varies on the applied chapters, depending on the example. A dog chapter is followed by a cat chapter! Not that the (stat)dog experiment was in any way enjoyable, especially for the dogs. Maybe the cats were running it! And then come chapters on roaches and sharks. There is also a frightening flowchart (Fig. 2.1)! And the book ends with an appendix on going through BDA to better understand BaWoFlo

[The usual disclaimer applies, namely that this review is likely to appear later in CHANCE, in my book reviews column.]

estimating evidence redux

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , on November 21, 2025 by xi'an

Following our arXival on the new version of our HPD based Gelfand & Dey estimator of evidence, I got pointed at Wang et al. (2018), which I had forgotten I had read at the time (as testified by an ‘Og entry). Reading my own comments, I concur (with myself¹⁸!) that the method is not massively compelling since it requires a partition set that is strongly related with the targeted integral. The above illustration for a mixture, that is for a pseudo posterior that is a mixture with two Gaussian components with known variance, also shows (in reverse) the curse of dimension and the need for finely tuned partitions. Said partition corresponding to the myriad of sets on the rhs. With such a degree of partitioning, Riemann integration should also produce perfect estimate, as shown by the zero error in the resulting estimator (Table 4).

a guest post from Julyan Arbel on ISBA on-line resources

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 30, 2025 by xi'an
I would like to highlight two resources that, in my humble opinion as ISBA Social Media Manager, remain under-recognized yet immensely valuable:
ISBA Webinars on Bayesian Analysis Articles (2019–present).
This webpage gathers an exceptional collection of webinars discussing Bayesian Analysis articles since 2019. For anyone curious about the frontiers of Bayesian statistics, this series brings together cutting-edge research from world-class experts. The talks span topics such as model uncertainty and missing data, new perspectives on stick-breaking models, sparse Bayesian factor analysis, and advances in causal inference under model mis-specification. Other contributions cover nonparametric priors, spatio-temporal modeling of Arctic sea ice, Bayesian regression trees for causal inference, and much more.
The next BA webinar will focus on the paper “Model Uncertainty and Missing Data: An Objective Bayesian Perspective” by G. García-Donato, M. Eugenia Castellanos, S. Cabras, A. Quirós, and A. Forte. There will be four invited discussants: M. Clyde, M. Ferreira, A. Ly, and J. Rubio. It is scheduled for November 5, 2025 (4:00 PM UTC | 11:00 AM EST | 5:00 PM CET). Registration will be announced later on this webpage.
ISBA YouTube Channel.
All recorded webinar videos are available on the ISBA YouTube channel. Beyond the webinars, the channel hosts curated playlists from ISBA World Meetings (2012, 2016, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2024), specialized workshops and seminars (ABI, BNP, BayesComp), as well as content from ISBA Sections (j-ISBA, BNP, BioPharma, Industrial).
These resources deserve broad visibility. I warmly encourage you to explore them, share them within your networks, and let us know your feedback.
— Julyan, on behalf of the ISBA Social Media team

model uncertainty and missing data: an objective BAyesian perspective

Posted in Books, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 16, 2025 by xi'an

My Spanish and objective Bayesian friends Gonzalo García-Donato, María Eugenia Castellanos, Stefano Cabras, Alicia Quirós, and Anabel Forte wrote an fairly exciting paper in BA that is open to discussion (for a few more days), to be discussed on 05 November (4:00 PM UTC | 11:00 AM EST | 5:00 PM CET).

The interplay between missing data and model uncertainty—two classic statistical problems—leads to primary questions that we formally address from an objective Bayesian perspective. For the general regression problem, we discuss the probabilistic justification of Rubin’s rules applied to the usual components of Bayesian variable selection, arguing that prior predictive marginals should be central to the pursued methodology. In the regression settings, we explore the conditions of prior distributions that make the missing data mechanism ignorable, provided that it is missing at random or completely at random. Moreover, when comparing multiple linear models, we provide a complete methodology for dealing with special cases, such as variable selection or uncertainty regarding model errors. In numerous simulation experiments, we demonstrate that our method outperforms or equals others, in consistently producing results close to those obtained using the full dataset. In general, the difference increases with the percentage of missing data and the correlation between the variables used for imputation.

The so-called Rubin’s identity is simply the representation of the posterior probability of a model γ given the observed data x⁰, p(γ|x⁰), as the integrated posterior probability of a model given both observed and latent data,  p(γ|x⁰, x¹), against the marginal of latent x¹ given observed x⁰. Since this marginal involves the probabilities p(γ|x⁰), this representation is not directly useful for a numerical implementation.

In this paper, missingness relates to some entries of either the covariates or the response variate. Which is less common but more realistic, especially if some covariates do not contribute to the response. (The missingness mechanism does not matter if the data is missing at random (à la Rubin). The computational solution (p9) is rather standard, simulating the missing variables given the observed variables. In my opinion, the elephant in the room is the super-delicate selection of a prior distribution on the missing covariates, as methinks this impacts in a considerable manner the actual value of the Bayes factor, hence the selection of the surviving model. (As a side remark, we are credited in Celeux et al. (2006) to have “extended DIC for missing data models or when missing data were present”, but our point was instead to point out the arbitrariness of the very definition of DIC in such contexts.)

“The standard Bayesian method for addressing the absence of prior information uses improper distributions. In estimation problems (the model is fixed), the impropriety of priors does not imply any additional difficulty as long as the posterior is proper” (p9)

The authors point out the well-known difficulty with improper priors but still resort to improper priors on the parameters shared by all models—which I dispute as being adequate, despite the arguments put forward on p15, right Haar measure or not—, while sticking to proper priors on the model-dependent parameters. Which unsurprisingly become Zellner’s g-priors. Or rather g’-priors, although the discussion seems to resolve into the (model-free) factor g’ being equal to 1 as for the g-priors. Again a strong term in the derivation of the Bayes factor.

introduction to Bayesian methods for the social sciences (18-22 Aug, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano)

Posted in Books, Mountains, R, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on June 5, 2025 by xi'an