About: Statistical Science is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Inference & Bayesian probability. It has an ISSN identifier of 0883-4237. Over the lifetime, 1603 publication(s) have been published receiving 144265 citation(s).
Topics: Inference, Bayesian probability, Frequentist inference, Statistical inference, Markov chain Monte Carlo
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: The focus is on applied inference for Bayesian posterior distributions in real problems, which often tend toward normal- ity after transformations and marginalization, and the results are derived as normal-theory approximations to exact Bayesian inference, conditional on the observed simulations.
Abstract: The Gibbs sampler, the algorithm of Metropolis and similar iterative simulation methods are potentially very helpful for summarizing multivariate distributions. Used naively, however, iterative simulation can give misleading answers. Our methods are simple and generally applicable to the output of any iterative simulation; they are designed for researchers primarily interested in the science underlying the data and models they are analyzing, rather than for researchers interested in the probability theory underlying the iterative simulations themselves. Our recommended strategy is to use several independent sequences, with starting points sampled from an overdispersed distribution. At each step of the iterative simulation, we obtain, for each univariate estimand of interest, a distributional estimate and an estimate of how much sharper the distributional estimate might become if the simulations were continued indefinitely. Because our focus is on applied inference for Bayesian posterior distributions in real problems, which often tend toward normality after transformations and marginalization, we derive our results as normal-theory approximations to exact Bayesian inference, conditional on the observed simulations. The methods are illustrated on a random-effects mixture model applied to experimental measurements of reaction times of normal and schizophrenic patients.
TL;DR: This paper presents a meta-modelling framework for estimating Output from Computer Experiments-Predicting Output from Training Data and Criteria Based Designs for computer Experiments.
Abstract: Many scientific phenomena are now investigated by complex computer models or codes A computer experiment is a number of runs of the code with various inputs A feature of many computer experiments is that the output is deterministic--rerunning the code with the same inputs gives identical observations Often, the codes are computationally expensive to run, and a common objective of an experiment is to fit a cheaper predictor of the output to the data Our approach is to model the deterministic output as the realization of a stochastic process, thereby providing a statistical basis for designing experiments (choosing the inputs) for efficient prediction With this model, estimates of uncertainty of predictions are also available Recent work in this area is reviewed, a number of applications are discussed, and we demonstrate our methodology with an example
TL;DR: The bootstrap is extended to other measures of statistical accuracy such as bias and prediction error, and to complicated data structures such as time series, censored data, and regression models.
Abstract: This is a review of bootstrap methods, concentrating on basic ideas and applications rather than theoretical considerations. It begins with an exposition of the bootstrap estimate of standard error for one-sample situations. Several examples, some involving quite complicated statistical procedures, are given. The bootstrap is then extended to other measures of statistical accuracy such as bias and prediction error, and to complicated data structures such as time series, censored data, and regression models. Several more examples are presented illustrating these ideas. The last third of the paper deals mainly with bootstrap confidence intervals.
TL;DR: Bayesian model averaging (BMA) provides a coherent mechanism for ac- counting for this model uncertainty and provides improved out-of- sample predictive performance.
Abstract: Standard statistical practice ignores model uncertainty. Data analysts typically select a model from some class of models and then proceed as if the selected model had generated the data. This approach ignores the uncertainty in model selection, leading to over-confident inferences and decisions that are more risky than one thinks they are. Bayesian model averaging (BMA)provides a coherent mechanism for accounting for this model uncertainty. Several methods for implementing BMA have recently emerged. We discuss these methods and present a number of examples.In these examples, BMA provides improved out-of-sample predictive performance. We also provide a catalogue of currently available BMA software.
TL;DR: A relatively large number of knots and a difference penalty on coefficients of adjacent B-splines are proposed to use and connections to the familiar spline penalty on the integral of the squared second derivative are shown.
Abstract: B-splines are attractive for nonparametric modelling, but choosing the optimal number and positions of knots is a complex task. Equidistant knots can be used, but their small and discrete number allows only limited control over smoothness and fit. We propose to use a relatively large number of knots and a difference penalty on coefficients of adjacent B-splines. We show connections to the familiar spline penalty on the integral of the squared second derivative. A short overview of B-splines, of their construction and of penalized likelihood is presented. We discuss properties of penalized B-splines and propose various criteria for the choice of an optimal penalty parameter. Nonparametric logistic regression, density estimation and scatterplot smoothing are used as examples. Some details of the computations are presented.
Related Journals (5)
Annals of Statistics
5.6K papers, 601.9K citations
Journal of the American Statistical Association
13.4K papers, 1.6M citations
Journal of The Royal Statistical Society Series B-statistical Methodology
1.1K papers, 176.2K citations
7K papers, 732.2K citations
The American Statistician
3.8K papers, 176.9K citations