Cargando…

Rejoinder: More Limitations of Bayesian Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation

We recently discussed several limitations of Bayesian leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO) for model selection. Our contribution attracted three thought-provoking commentaries. In this rejoinder, we address each of the commentaries and identify several additional limitations of LOO-based methods suc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gronau, Quentin F., Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6400413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30906918
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42113-018-0022-4
_version_ 1783399955247923200
author Gronau, Quentin F.
Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan
author_facet Gronau, Quentin F.
Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan
author_sort Gronau, Quentin F.
collection PubMed
description We recently discussed several limitations of Bayesian leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO) for model selection. Our contribution attracted three thought-provoking commentaries. In this rejoinder, we address each of the commentaries and identify several additional limitations of LOO-based methods such as Bayesian stacking. We focus on differences between LOO-based methods versus approaches that consistently use Bayes’ rule for both parameter estimation and model comparison. We conclude that LOO-based methods do not align satisfactorily with the epistemic goal of mathematical psychology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6400413
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64004132019-03-22 Rejoinder: More Limitations of Bayesian Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation Gronau, Quentin F. Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan Comput Brain Behav Article We recently discussed several limitations of Bayesian leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO) for model selection. Our contribution attracted three thought-provoking commentaries. In this rejoinder, we address each of the commentaries and identify several additional limitations of LOO-based methods such as Bayesian stacking. We focus on differences between LOO-based methods versus approaches that consistently use Bayes’ rule for both parameter estimation and model comparison. We conclude that LOO-based methods do not align satisfactorily with the epistemic goal of mathematical psychology. Springer International Publishing 2019-01-15 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6400413/ /pubmed/30906918 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42113-018-0022-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Gronau, Quentin F.
Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan
Rejoinder: More Limitations of Bayesian Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation
title Rejoinder: More Limitations of Bayesian Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation
title_full Rejoinder: More Limitations of Bayesian Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation
title_fullStr Rejoinder: More Limitations of Bayesian Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation
title_full_unstemmed Rejoinder: More Limitations of Bayesian Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation
title_short Rejoinder: More Limitations of Bayesian Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation
title_sort rejoinder: more limitations of bayesian leave-one-out cross-validation
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6400413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30906918
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42113-018-0022-4
work_keys_str_mv AT gronauquentinf rejoindermorelimitationsofbayesianleaveoneoutcrossvalidation
AT wagenmakersericjan rejoindermorelimitationsofbayesianleaveoneoutcrossvalidation