Minimax-optimal strength of statistical evidence for a composite alternative hypothesis
From MaRDI portal
Publication:4968560
direct likelihoodempirical Bayesindirect evidenceinformation for discriminationlikelihood paradigmlikelihoodismminimum description lengthmultiple comparisonsmultiple testingnormalized maximum likelihoodobjective Bayes factorobjective Bayesian model selectionpure likelihoodrandom-effects modelstrength of statistical evidenceweighted likelihood
Abstract: For frequentist settings in which parameter randomness represents variability rather than uncertainty, the ideal measure of the support for one hypothesis over another is the difference in the posterior and prior log odds. For situations in which the prior distribution cannot be accurately estimated, that ideal support may be replaced by another measure of support, which may be any predictor of the ideal support that, on a per-observation basis, is asymptotically unbiased. Two qualifying measures of support are defined. The first is minimax optimal with respect to the population and is equivalent to a particular Bayes factor. The second is worst-sample minimax optimal and is equivalent to the normalized maximum likelihood. It has been extended by likelihood weights for compatibility with more general models. One such model is that of two independent normal samples, the standard setting for gene expression microarray data analysis. Applying that model to proteomics data indicates that support computed from data for a single protein can closely approximate the estimated difference in posterior and prior odds that would be available with the data for 20 proteins. This suggests the applicability of random-parameter models to other situations in which the parameter distribution cannot be reliably estimated.
Recommendations
- The strength of statistical evidence for composite hypotheses: inference to the best explanation
- A predictive approach to measuring the strength of statistical evidence for single and multiple comparisons
- Axiomatic Development of Profile Likelihoods as the Strength of Evidence for Composite Hypotheses
- Testing hypotheses by using optimal statistical criteria. I
- Optimal significance procedures for simple hypotheses
Cited in
(12)- Self-consistent confidence sets and tests of composite hypotheses applicable to restricted parameters
- The sufficiency of the evidence, the relevancy of the evidence, and quantifying both with a single number
- Pseudo-likelihood, explanatory power, and Bayes's theorem [Comment on: ``A likelihood paradigm for clinical trials]
- The strength of statistical evidence for composite hypotheses: inference to the best explanation
- A predictive approach to measuring the strength of statistical evidence for single and multiple comparisons
- Bayesian revision of a prior given prior-data conflict, expert opinion, or a similar insight: a large-deviation approach
- Confidence intervals, significance values, maximum likelihood estimates, etc. sharpened into Occam's razors
- Reporting Bayes factors or probabilities to decision makers of unknown loss functions
- Axiomatic Development of Profile Likelihoods as the Strength of Evidence for Composite Hypotheses
- The Bayes e-value: testing by betting given a prior probability of the null hypothesis
- Discovery on the basis of the established amount of information in the evidence against the null hypothesis: optimal fact-finding in the presence of imprecise probability
- Inference after checking multiple Bayesian models for data conflict and applications to mitigating the influence of rejected priors
This page was built for publication: Minimax-optimal strength of statistical evidence for a composite alternative hypothesis
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4968560)
