Comparing the Accuracy of Three Predictive Information Criteria for Bayesian Linear Multilevel Model Selection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian multilevel modeling techniques have become increasingly popular. As researchers leverage these techniques, information criteria—fit indices which provide information about a model’s fit to the data—play an important role in disambiguating between competing models. The deviance information criteria (DIC) has been historically popular and is computationally easy, yet newer indices such as Watanabe-Akaike information criterion (WAIC) and an approximation to the leave-one-out cross-validation information criterion (LOO-CV) have been recently introduced. However, researchers may be unsure about which criteria to use, as to our knowledge, a systematic evaluation of these Bayesian criteria in a multilevel context has not yet been undertaken. Complicating this matter, computation of these indices using the so-called marginal likelihood is sometimes recommended, yet use of the conditional likelihood is easier and more readily found in some popular software. In addition, researchers frequently select the model with the lowest value of the information criteria, discounting the presence of uncertainty in calculating the criteria. Across two extensive simulation studies meant to mimic experimental and observational studies, we investigate the model selection accuracy of conditional and marginal versions of DIC, WAIC, and LOO-CV; we also compare a lowest wins strategy versus one that considers model selection uncertainty. In general, indices based on the marginal likelihood had a slight advantage and performed similarly to each other, whereas under the conditional likelihood WAIC and LOO-CV outperformed DIC. In addition, we argue that a selection strategy that simply chooses the model with the lowest information criteria may result in overfitting.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it