Using prior-data conflict to tune Bayesian regularized regression models
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
scenarios provided the shrinkage priors are configured adequately. We propose an empirical Bayes configuration using checks for prior-data conflict: tests that assess whether there is disagreement in parameter information provided by the prior and data. We apply our proposed method to the Bayesian LASSO and spike-and-slab shrinkage priors in the linear regression model and assess the variable selection performance of our prior configurations through a high-dimensional simulation study. Additionally, we apply our method to proteomic data collected from patients admitted to the Albany Medical Center in Albany NY in April of 2020 with COVID-like respiratory issues. Simulation results suggest our proposed configurations may outperform competing models when the true regression effects are small. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11222-025-10582-1.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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