The HDI + ROPE decision rule is logically incoherent but we can fix it.

IF 7.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological methods Pub Date : 2024-05-23 DOI:10.1037/met0000660
Alexander Etz, Adriana F Chávez de la Peña, Luis Baroja, Kathleen Medriano, Joachim Vandekerckhove
{"title":"The HDI + ROPE decision rule is logically incoherent but we can fix it.","authors":"Alexander Etz, Adriana F Chávez de la Peña, Luis Baroja, Kathleen Medriano, Joachim Vandekerckhove","doi":"10.1037/met0000660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Bayesian highest-density interval plus region of practical equivalence (HDI + ROPE) decision rule is an increasingly common approach to testing null parameter values. The decision procedure involves a comparison between a posterior highest-density interval (HDI) and a prespecified region of practical equivalence. One then accepts or rejects the null parameter value depending on the overlap (or lack thereof) between these intervals. Here, we demonstrate, both theoretically and through examples, that this procedure is logically incoherent. Because the HDI is not transformation invariant, the ultimate inferential decision depends on statistically arbitrary and scientifically irrelevant properties of the statistical model. The incoherence arises from a common confusion between probability density and probability proper. The HDI + ROPE procedure relies on characterizing posterior densities as opposed to being based directly on probability. We conclude with recommendations for alternative Bayesian testing procedures that do not exhibit this pathology and provide a \"quick fix\" in the form of quantile intervals. This article is the work of the authors and is reformatted from the original, which was published under a <i>CC-BY Attribution 4.0 International</i> license and is available at https://psyarxiv.com/5p2qt/. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000660","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Bayesian highest-density interval plus region of practical equivalence (HDI + ROPE) decision rule is an increasingly common approach to testing null parameter values. The decision procedure involves a comparison between a posterior highest-density interval (HDI) and a prespecified region of practical equivalence. One then accepts or rejects the null parameter value depending on the overlap (or lack thereof) between these intervals. Here, we demonstrate, both theoretically and through examples, that this procedure is logically incoherent. Because the HDI is not transformation invariant, the ultimate inferential decision depends on statistically arbitrary and scientifically irrelevant properties of the statistical model. The incoherence arises from a common confusion between probability density and probability proper. The HDI + ROPE procedure relies on characterizing posterior densities as opposed to being based directly on probability. We conclude with recommendations for alternative Bayesian testing procedures that do not exhibit this pathology and provide a "quick fix" in the form of quantile intervals. This article is the work of the authors and is reformatted from the original, which was published under a CC-BY Attribution 4.0 International license and is available at https://psyarxiv.com/5p2qt/. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人类发展指数 + ROPE 决策规则在逻辑上是不连贯的,但我们可以解决这个问题。
贝叶斯最高密度区间加实际等效区域(HDI + ROPE)决策规则是一种越来越常见的检验空参数值的方法。决策程序包括比较后验最高密度区间(HDI)和预设实际等效区域。然后,根据这两个区间之间的重叠(或不重叠)来接受或拒绝零参数值。在此,我们从理论和实例两方面证明,这一程序在逻辑上是不连贯的。由于人类发展指数不具有变换不变性,最终的推论决定取决于统计模型在统计上的任意性和科学上的不相关性。这种不连贯源于概率密度和概率适当性之间的常见混淆。HDI + ROPE 程序依赖于后验密度的特征,而不是直接基于概率。最后,我们建议采用其他贝叶斯测试程序,这些程序不会出现这种病理现象,并能以量子区间的形式提供 "快速修复"。本文是作者的研究成果,根据原文重新排版,原文以 CC-BY 署名 4.0 国际许可协议发布,可在 https://psyarxiv.com/5p2qt/ 上查阅。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
期刊最新文献
Simplicity, complexity, and the standardized mean difference between two independent groups. SimDE App: Simulating and visualizing formal theories using differential equations. Ricci curvature and the stream of thought. On estimating the frequency of a target behavior from time-constrained yes/no survey questions: A parametric approach based on the Poisson process. What are the mathematical bounds for coefficient α?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1