Johnny van Doorn, Frederik Aust, Julia M Haaf, Angelika M Stefan, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
{"title":"混合模型的贝叶斯因子:反应视角","authors":"Johnny van Doorn, Frederik Aust, Julia M Haaf, Angelika M Stefan, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers","doi":"10.1007/s42113-022-00158-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In van Doorn et al. (2021), we outlined a series of open questions concerning Bayes factors for mixed effects model comparison, with an emphasis on the impact of aggregation, the effect of measurement error, the choice of prior distributions, and the detection of interactions. Seven expert commentaries (partially) addressed these initial questions. Surprisingly perhaps, the experts disagreed (often strongly) on what is best practice-a testament to the intricacy of conducting a mixed effect model comparison. Here, we provide our perspective on these comments and highlight topics that warrant further discussion. In general, we agree with many of the commentaries that in order to take full advantage of Bayesian mixed model comparison, it is important to be aware of the specific assumptions that underlie the to-be-compared models.</p>","PeriodicalId":72660,"journal":{"name":"Computational brain & behavior","volume":"6 1","pages":"127-139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9981503/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bayes Factors for Mixed Models: Perspective on Responses.\",\"authors\":\"Johnny van Doorn, Frederik Aust, Julia M Haaf, Angelika M Stefan, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s42113-022-00158-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In van Doorn et al. (2021), we outlined a series of open questions concerning Bayes factors for mixed effects model comparison, with an emphasis on the impact of aggregation, the effect of measurement error, the choice of prior distributions, and the detection of interactions. Seven expert commentaries (partially) addressed these initial questions. Surprisingly perhaps, the experts disagreed (often strongly) on what is best practice-a testament to the intricacy of conducting a mixed effect model comparison. Here, we provide our perspective on these comments and highlight topics that warrant further discussion. In general, we agree with many of the commentaries that in order to take full advantage of Bayesian mixed model comparison, it is important to be aware of the specific assumptions that underlie the to-be-compared models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computational brain & behavior\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"127-139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9981503/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computational brain & behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-022-00158-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational brain & behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-022-00158-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在 van Doorn 等人(2021 年)的文章中,我们概述了有关混合效应模型比较的贝叶斯因子的一系列开放性问题,重点是聚合的影响、测量误差的影响、先验分布的选择以及交互作用的检测。七份专家评论(部分)涉及了这些初步问题。出人意料的是,专家们对最佳做法的意见并不一致(通常是强烈的意见不一致),这证明了进行混合效应模型比较的复杂性。在此,我们将对这些意见提出自己的看法,并强调值得进一步讨论的话题。总的来说,我们同意许多评论的观点,即要充分利用贝叶斯混合模型比较的优势,就必须了解作为待比较模型基础的具体假设。
Bayes Factors for Mixed Models: Perspective on Responses.
In van Doorn et al. (2021), we outlined a series of open questions concerning Bayes factors for mixed effects model comparison, with an emphasis on the impact of aggregation, the effect of measurement error, the choice of prior distributions, and the detection of interactions. Seven expert commentaries (partially) addressed these initial questions. Surprisingly perhaps, the experts disagreed (often strongly) on what is best practice-a testament to the intricacy of conducting a mixed effect model comparison. Here, we provide our perspective on these comments and highlight topics that warrant further discussion. In general, we agree with many of the commentaries that in order to take full advantage of Bayesian mixed model comparison, it is important to be aware of the specific assumptions that underlie the to-be-compared models.