Nonparametric hierarchical Bayes analysis of binomial data via Bernstein polynomial priors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For binomial data analysis, many methods based on empirical Bayes interpretations have been developed, in which a variance‐stabilizing transformation and a normality assumption are usually required. To achieve the greatest model flexibility, we conduct nonparametric Bayesian inference for binomial data and employ a special nonparametric Bayesian prior—the Bernstein–Dirichlet process (BDP)—in the hierarchical Bayes model for the data. The BDP is a special Dirichlet process (DP) mixture based on beta distributions, and the posterior distribution resulting from it has a smooth density defined on [0, 1]. We examine two Markov chain Monte Carlo procedures for simulating from the resulting posterior distribution, and compare their convergence rates and computational efficiency. In contrast to existing results for posterior consistency based on direct observations, the posterior consistency of the BDP, given indirect binomial data, is established. We study shrinkage effects and the robustness of the BDP‐based posterior estimators in comparison with several other empirical and hierarchical Bayes estimators, and we illustrate through examples that the BDP‐based nonparametric Bayesian estimate is more robust to the sample variation and tends to have a smaller estimation error than those based on the DP prior. In certain settings, the new estimator can also beat Stein's estimator, Efron and Morris's limited‐translation estimator, and many other existing empirical Bayes estimators.The Canadian Journal of Statistics40: 328–344; 2012 © 2012 Statistical Society of Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".