Automated Syllabus of Bayesian Statistics Papers

Built by Rex W. Douglass @RexDouglass ; Github ; LinkedIn

Papers curated by hand, summaries and taxonomy written by LLMs.

Submit paper to add for review

Bayesian Approaches for Model Selection and Optimization

> Bayesian Image Processing Techniques

>> Bayesian Estimation for High Resolution Image Reconstruction

• Incorporate prior knowledge about the acquisition process of different images, including sensor specifications and geometric considerations, within your Bayesian estimation framework to accurately estimate the high spatial resolution HS image from multiple sources. (Q. Wei, Dobigeon, and Tourneret 2013)

• Consider using Bayesian methods to marginalize over unknown variables when dealing with ill-posed inverse problems, such as estimating high-resolution images from multiple low-resolution ones, because it leads to improved accuracy and reduces bias compared to traditional maximum a-posteriori (MAP) optimization techniques. (Abeida et al. 2013)

> Bayesian Techniques for Sparse Signals, Unfolding, and Matrix Factorization

>> Bayesian Wavelets & Compressive Sensing for Noise Reduction

• Consider using an adaptive Bayesian wavelet shrinkage (ABWS) approach for estimating sparse signals in noisy data, which involves placing a mixture of two normal distributions prior on the wavelet coefficients and automatically selecting the prior parameters based on the data and wavelet theory. (H. A. Chipman, Kolaczyk, and McCulloch 1997)

• Consider using a Bayesian approach to compressive sensing, which offers advantages such as providing error bars on estimated signals, guiding the optimal design of additional measurements, and estimating the posterior density function of additive noise. (NA?)

>> Bayesian methods for matrix factorization and dimensionality reduction

• Consider using Gaussian orthogonal latent factor (GOLF) processes for modeling large incomplete matrices of correlated data, as it enables efficient computation through orthogonal decomposition of the likelihood function and posterior independence between factor processes. (Gu and Li 2022)

• Consider using Bayesian non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) with a Gibbs sampler for improved interpretability and uncertainty estimation, as well as for model order selection via marginal likelihood estimation, and for computing the maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimate using an iterated conditional modes algorithm that outperforms existing state-of-the-art NMF algorithms. (“Independent Component Analysis and Signal Separation” 2009)

• Consider incorporating prior knowledge about the data and model into your analyses through a Bayesian framework, which allows for the integration of modeling and feature extraction while simultaneously addressing issues related to parameter estimation and data rectification. (Nounou et al. 2002)

>> Bayesian Statistics & Error Correcting Codes for Quenched Disorder

• Consider interpreting complex phenomena through the lens of Bayesian statistics and error-correcting codes, particularly in cases involving quenched disorder, as demonstrated by the successful reconstruction of the Nishimori line theory using this approach. (Iba 1999)

>> Bayesian Inverse Problem Solving with Delayed Discretization

• Consider formulating your Bayesian approach to inverse problems on a separable Banach space instead of discretizing them, as this offers several advantages such as providing a well-posedness framework, linking directly to classical regularization theory, and leading to novel algorithmic approaches that fully utilize the structure of the infinite-dimensional inference problem. (Dashti and Stuart 2013)

• Avoid discretization until the last possible moment when addressing inverse problems in differential equations, as this principle can help identify fundamental insights and improve algorithmic performance. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Unfolding Methods for Accurate Distribution Estimation

• Consider using fully Bayesian unfolding (FBU) for your analysis, which involves applying Bayesian inference directly to the problem of unfolding, leading to a posterior probability density for the spectrum before smearing, and allows for regularization through the selection of a non-constant prior. (Choudalakis 2012)

• Consider using Bayesian unfolding techniques, specifically the improved iterative Bayesian unfolding method proposed in the paper, to accurately estimate the true distribution of a variable from observed data, particularly when dealing with small numbers and non-normal distributions. (D’Agostini 2010)

>> Manifold Sampling

• Consider placing your statistical prior on the source term rather than the solution or microstructure when attempting to numerically homogenize a partial differential equation using Bayesian methods, as this leads to more informative posteriors about the microstructure. (Owhadi 2015)

• Focus on generating samples from the target distribution on the manifold rather than the input space, especially when dealing with high dimensional data and complex models, as this leads to more accurate and representative estimates of the underlying population. (Oh et al. 2013)

>> Givens Representation for Bayesian Inference on Stiefel Manifold

• Consider using the Givens representation for Bayesian inference over the Stiefel manifold, as it provides an effective and efficient solution for dealing with the challenges of change-of-measure, topology, and parameterization in this context. (Pourzanjani et al. 2021)

> Bayesian Techniques for Estimation, Filtering, and Control

>> Bayesian Networks for Autonomous Systems and Navigation

• Consider using recursive Bayesian estimation for solving nonlinear and non-Gaussian estimation problems, particularly in the context of terrain navigation and target tracking, due to its ability to handle complex models and provide optimal performance as demonstrated by reaching the Cramer-Rao lower bound. (Arulampalam et al. 2002)

• Consider using a decentralized Bayesian approach to coordinate multiple autonomous sensor platforms searching for a single non-evading target, as it allows for scalability and real-time adaptability while building an equivalent representation of the target state probability distribution through a Bayesian IDF network. (Bourgault, Furukawa, and Durrant-Whyte, n.d.)

>> Bayesian Filters for Multisensor Fusion & Identity Estimation

• Consider using Bayesian filtering techniques for managing measurement uncertainty and performing multisensor fusion and identity estimation in location estimation tasks common in pervasive computing, as these techniques provide a powerful statistical tool for probabilistically estimating the state of a dynamic system from noisy observations. (D. Fox et al. 2003)

>> Bayesian Robustness over Online Expectation Maximization

• Consider using Bayesian inference instead of online expectation-maximization (EM) for mapping tasks involving noisy sensors and actuators, as demonstrated by the authors comparison of the two methods on a simple example, which showed that the Bayesian approach maintained multiple hypotheses and was more robust to local minima than the online EM approach. (Doucet, Godsill, and Andrieu 2000)

>> Bayesian Decision Theory for Stochastic Estimation & Control

• Adopt a Bayesian decision-theoretic perspective when approaching stochastic estimation and control problems, as it offers a unified framework for solving such problems through evaluating prior probabilities, likelihood functions, and posterior densities, ultimately leading to optimal estimates based on chosen criteria. (Ho and Lee 1964)

>> Bayesian Filters & Smoothers with Prior Knowledge Integration

• Consider adopting a Bayesian approach to filtering and smoothing problems, as it provides a principled way to incorporate prior knowledge and uncertainty into the analysis, leading to more robust and interpretable results. (Särkkä 2013)

> Bayesian Techniques for Improving Deep Learning Models

>> Bayesian Regularization and Ensemble Methods for Neural Networks

• Consider using the Bayesian Committee Machine (BCM) for combining estimates from multiple sources, particularly when dealing with complex models such as Gaussian processes, as it offers improved efficiency and accuracy compared to traditional methods, especially when the number of test points is large. (Tresp 2000)

• Consider using a Bayesian approach to online learning, where the true posterior distribution is replaced with a simpler parametric distribution, allowing for updates upon arrival of new data and projections into the parametric family, ultimately leading to asymptotic efficiency in certain scenarios. (Opper 1999)

• Consider incorporating Bayesian regularization with a Gauss-Newton approximation to the Hessian matrix in your feedforward neural network training algorithms to improve generalization capabilities while reducing computational overhead. (Foresee and Hagan, n.d.)

>> Bayesian Regularization and Objective Model Comparison

• Employ Bayesian model comparison to objectively assess different network architectures, select appropriate weight decay terms, estimate error bars on network parameters and output, and calculate the effective number of parameters determined by the data. (V. Rossi and Vila 2006)

• Employ Bayesian methods for model comparison and regularization, which effectively embodies Occams Razor by penalizing overly complex models that fit the data better but are less probable overall. (MacKay 1992a)

• Employ a Bayesian framework for learning in feedforward networks, which enables objective comparisons between solutions using alternative network architectures, objective stopping rules for network pruning or growing procedures, objective choices of weight decay terms or additive regularizers, measures of the effective number of well-determined parameters in a model, quantified estimates of the error bars on network parameters and on network output, and objective comparisons with alternative learning and interpolation models such as splines and radial basis functions. (MacKay 1992b)

>> Bayesian Neural Networks: Advantages, Complexity Tradeoffs, and Domain Knowledge

• Consider encoding domain knowledge about feature sparsity and signal-to-noise ratio into your Bayesian neural network priors through the use of informative Gaussian scale mixture priors with automatic relevance determination, specifically by proposing a new joint prior over local scale parameters that encodes knowledge about feature sparsity and using Stein gradient optimization to tune hyperparameters so that the distribution induced on the models proportion of variance explained matches the prior distribution. (Cui et al. 2022)

• Employ Bayesian methods for inferring the parameters of a mixture of experts model, as this approach mitigates issues of over-fitting and under-estimation of noise levels commonly encountered in traditional maximum likelihood estimation. (Bishop and Svensen 2012)

• Consider using Bayesian methods for neural networks because they offer a principled way to handle incomplete prior knowledge through marginalization, allowing for more accurate inferences about complex systems. (Toussaint, Gori, and Dose 2006)

• Consider using Bayesian techniques for analyzing neural network models, particularly for selecting among competing architectures and making predictions, as these methods offer advantages such as improved interpretability and reduced risk of overfitting. (Müller and Insua 1998)

• Carefully consider the tradeoff between model complexity and fit when using Bayesian methods for feed-forward neural networks, as more complex models may require stronger assumptions and computational resources, while simpler models may lack sufficient flexibility to capture important patterns in the data. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Posterior Approximation Methods for Deep Learning

• Consider incorporating Bayesian principles into deep learning models via natural-gradient variational inference, which provides practical benefits such as well-calibrated predictive probabilities, improved uncertainties on out-of-distribution data, and boosted continual-learning performance, while still achieving similar performance in terms of epochs and accuracy compared to traditional optimization algorithms like Adam. (Bottou, Curtis, and Nocedal 2016)

• Consider using Stochastic Weight Averaging (SWA) in combination with a low-rank plus diagonal covariance structure to approximate the posterior distribution of deep learning models, as it provides a scalable, efficient, and effective way to capture uncertainty and improve generalization performance. (Ioffe and Szegedy 2015)

• Consider combining online Monte Carlo methods with model distillation to achieve scalable and accurate Bayesian inference for neural networks, leading to improved log likelihood scores compared to traditional methods like SGD and expectation propagation. (Korattikara et al. 2015)

• Consider using full-batch Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) for generating high-quality posterior approximations in Bayesian deep learning, despite its computational cost, as it provides a valuable benchmark for evaluating and calibrating more practical alternatives. (Ahn, Korattikara, and Welling 2012)

> Variational Inference Techniques for Robust Model Estimation

>> Variational Inference Applications for Efficient Data Analysis

• Focus on finding an approximate distribution that closely matches the actual joint distribution in the KL-divergence sense, even though this may result in poor approximations of the individual marginal distributions. (E. B. Fox et al. 2011)

• Be aware of the potential limitations of variational Expectation Maximization (vEM) in time-series models, specifically the failure to propagate uncertainty due to compactness properties of variational inference and the risk of systematic biases in parameter estimation, which can sometimes be mitigated through simpler variational approximations. (Turner and Sahani 2011)

• Consider using variational Bayesian learning algorithms for conjugate-exponential graphical models, such as linear-Gaussian state-space models, because they enable efficient inference by leveraging the belief propagation and junction tree algorithms, while also allowing for integration over all model parameters. (J. Zhang, Ghahramani, and Yang 2008)

• Consider using Variational Bayesian Inference instead of Expectation Maximization (EM) for complex statistical signal processing problems, as it relaxes some of the limiting assumptions required by EM and provides additional capabilities for estimating model parameters. (NA?)

>> Robust Models for Outlier Detection and Efficient Computation

• Consider using Bayesian mixture models based on Student-\(t\) distributions instead of Gaussian distributions when dealing with data containing outliers, as the former provides greater robustness against departures from Gaussianity. (C. Wang and Blei 2015)

• Consider using Student-\(t\) mixture models instead of traditional Gaussian mixture models for density estimation, clustering, and model selection tasks because they offer improved robustness to outliers by incorporating heavier tailed distributions. (NA?)

> Bayesian methods for model selection and optimization

>> Generalization Error Analysis via Bayesian Bounds

• Consider using PAC-Bayes bounds, which are a type of tool in statistical learning theory, to analyze the generalization ability of aggregated and randomized predictors, as these bounds do not rely on minimization problems and can handle complex models such as neural networks. (Alquier 2021)

• Recognize the utility of the compression lemma as a unifying principle for deriving various types of Bayesian bounds in machine learning, including PAC-Bayesian bounds, log-loss bounds, and bounded-loss bounds, regardless of whether they are working in the batch or online setting. (Banerjee 2006)

• Consider using a Bayesian-style analysis of generalization, specifically through the use of a luckiness function that captures the logarithmic ratio of the volume of the entire parameter space to the volume of the subspace consistent with the training data, as this approach offers a probabilistically smooth estimation of generalization error that is independent of the complexity of the function class and depends only on the dimensionality of the parameter space. (Shawe-Taylor and Williamson 1997)

>> Optimal Sparse Models via Marginal Likelihood Maximization

• Consider using the Relevance Vector Machine (RVM) instead of Support Vector Machines (SVMs) when dealing with high-dimensional datasets, as the RVM provides similar accuracy while using significantly fewer basis functions, resulting in improved interpretability and reduced computational cost. (Senekane and Taele 2016)

• Use Bayesian inference to incorporate prior knowledge and uncertainty in your statistical models, allowing for more robust and interpretable results through the integration of marginalization. (“Advanced Lectures on Machine Learning” 2004)

• Focus on optimizing the marginal likelihood of the data given the hyperparameters in order to achieve sparsity in generalized linear models using a specific type of Gaussian prior, and that this optimization process yields a unique maximum that is computationally efficient to calculate. (Faul and Tipping 2002)

>> Regularization Techniques for Improved Classification and Basis Selection

• Consider using sparse Bayesian learning (SBL) for basis selection tasks, as it offers the advantage of preventing structural errors (similar to the \(\ell_{0}\)-norm) while potentially having fewer local minima than FOCUSS, leading to improved performance with fewer convergence errors. (NA?)

> Gaussian Processes for Improved Predictions and Efficiency

>> Instrumental Variables & Nonlinear Estimation Techniques

• Carefully consider your choice of instrumental variables, data prefiltering, and the norm of the extended IV-criterion when implementing instrumental variable methods for closed-loop system identification, as these factors impact the variance properties of the estimator. (Gilson and Hof 2005)

>> Gaussian Processes Tools & Techniques

• Consider using the GPstuff toolbox for implementing Gaussian processes in your statistical analyses, as it offers a versatile collection of models, inference methods, and sparse approximations, along with various tools for model assessment. (Vanhatalo et al. 2012)

>> Gaussian Process Extensions for Enhanced Computer Models

• Consider using Deep Gaussian Processes (DGPs) combined with scalable variational inference techniques to address the limitations of traditional Bayesian calibration methods, specifically the poor scalability of Gaussian processes and the difficulty in specifying a suitable covariance function for complex computer models. (Marmin and Filippone 2022)

• Consider using composite Gaussian processes (CGP) models to improve predictions in computer experiments, as these models allow for greater flexibility in handling changes in variability compared to traditional stationary Gaussian processes (GP) models. (Ba and Joseph 2012)

• Consider adopting a Bayesian approach to validate computer models, which offers advantages such as flexibility in model specification, efficient combination of multiple sources of data, and straightforward computation of prediction intervals. (S. Wang, Chen, and Tsui 2009)

• Utilize Bayesian hierarchical Gaussian processes (BHGP) to combine data from disparate sources, allowing for flexible location and scale adjustments to accommodate systematic differences among experiments, ultimately producing predictions that tend to align closely with those derived from higher accuracy studies. (P. Z. G. Qian and Wu 2008)

• Consider using Bayesian treed Gaussian processes to overcome limitations of traditional Gaussian processes, including scalability issues, assumptions of stationarity, and homogeneity of variance, while maintaining the benefits of incorporating prior knowledge and providing estimates of predictive uncertainty. (Gramacy and Lee 2007)

Bayesian Nonparametric Models for Complex Data

> Bayesian Model Selection and Validation Techniques

>> Bias in Posterior Probability Computations Using Single Model MCMC Output

• Avoid using the approximation methods suggested by Scott (2002) and Congdon (2006) for computing posterior probabilities of models based solely on MCMC outputs from single models, as these methods are biased and can lead to incorrect inferences. Instead, researchers should consider using joint simulation of parameters under all models, even though it requires more computational resources. (J.-M. Marin and Robert 2008)

>> Efficient Sampling Strategies for Posterior Distribution Estimation

• Consider using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods for analyzing complex Bayesian models, as these methods create a sequence of dependent variables that converge to the distribution of interest, making them robust and universal alternatives to traditional Monte Carlo methods that require direct simulations from the target distribution. (Robert and Changye 2020)

• Utilize a simple Monte Carlo method to estimate highest probability density (HPD) intervals for parameters of interest, especially when dealing with complex models involving intractable integrals, by generating a sample from the marginal posterior distribution using a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm and identifying the subset of the sample corresponding to the shortest interval containing a specified probability mass. (M.-H. Chen and Shao 1999)

• Carefully choose the importance sampling density in order to minimize the variance of the estimator, which can lead to significant improvements in numerical efficiency compared to simply generating samples from the posterior distribution. (John Geweke 1989)

>> Bayesian Software Verification & Calibration Checking

• Employ a simulation-based methodology to verify the accuracy of your Bayesian model-fitting software by comparing the posterior quantiles of the true parameter values against the uniform distribution, which should hold if the software is performing correctly. (Cook, Gelman, and Rubin 2006)

>> Approximate Bayesian Computation: Improving Accuracy and Efficiency

• Consider using perturbed MCMC samplers within the ABC and BSL frameworks to significantly speed up computation while maintaining control over computational efficiency, by recycling samples from the chains past and leveraging a k-nearest neighbor approach to estimate the transition kernel. (Levi and Craiu 2022)

• Consider using an adaptive approach for selecting the tolerance sequence in Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) methods, which involves setting a separate quantile for each iteration based on the online performance of the algorithm, instead of using a fixed quantile across all iterations. (Simola et al. 2021)

• Carefully consider the choice of GP model and discrepancy transformation when performing ABC inference, as these decisions can significantly impact the accuracy of the resulting posterior estimate. (Järvenpää et al. 2018)

• Carefully choose summary statistics and calibrate tolerance levels when implementing approximate Bayesian computational (ABC) methods to ensure accurate and reliable estimates of posterior distributions in the absence of tractable likelihood functions. (J.-M. Marin et al. 2011)

• Be aware of the potential bias in the weight formula used in the partial rejection control version of the approximate Bayesian computation algorithm, and they can address this issue by implementing a population Monte Carlo correction to improve the accuracy of your estimates. (Beaumont et al. 2009)

• Utilize Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) to estimate the posterior distribution of parameters in complex models without an explicit likelihood function, by comparing summaries of simulated and observed data through a distance measure and accepting simulations that fall within a specified tolerance level. (NA?)

> Advanced Techniques for Estimation and Optimization

>> Improving Likelihood Estimation in Heterogeneous Data Contexts

• Consider using the propagation-separation (PS) approach for local likelihood estimation, which involves extending the adaptive weights smoothing (AWS) procedure to a broader range of nonparametric models. This approach uses data-driven weights to describe the largest possible region of local homogeneity around each design point, allowing for flexible and accurate estimates even in the presence of large homogeneous regions and sharp discontinuities. (Polzehl and Spokoiny 2005)

• Adapt your maximum likelihood estimation approach for imperfectly observed Gibbsian fields using a modified version of the algorithm presented in Younes [28 (Younes 1989)

>> Monte Carlo & Sequential Strategies for Efficient Simulation

• Consider using Poisson processes as a unifying framework for studying and developing Monte Carlo methods, as it allows for a deeper analysis and understanding of various techniques such as accept-reject and Gumbel-Max tricks. (Maddison 2016)

>> Advanced Importance Sampling Techniques for Posterior Approximation

• Utilize the Pareto Smoothed Importance Sampling (PSIS) diagnostic tool to assess the quality of your variational inference (VI) approximations, as it provides a continuous estimate of the Renyi divergence between the true and approximated posteriors, allowing for early detection of potentially disastrous VI approximations. (Yao et al. 2018a)

• Consider using Pareto smoothed importance sampling (PSIS) to stabilize your importance sampling estimates, especially when dealing with high-dimensional data, as it replaces the largest importance ratios with your expected ordered statistics, reducing bias and variance compared to traditional importance sampling methods. (Vehtari et al. 2015)

• Consider using path sampling, a flexible and efficient method for estimating the ratio of normalizing constants, which involves constructing a sequence of densities connecting the target densities and estimating the expected value of the log-derivative of the unnormalized density along the path. (Gelman and Meng 1998)

> Improved Techniques for MCMC Simulations and Convergence

>> Enhancing MCMC Accuracy through Sequence Generation & Monitoring

• Avoid making inferences based solely on a single series produced by the Gibbs sampler, as it can lead to false precision and misleading results. Instead, they recommend generating multiple independent sequences to accurately estimate the target distribution. (Craiu, Gong, and Meng 2023)

• Carefully monitor the convergence of Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms by comparing both within-chain and between-chain variability, aiming for a potential scale reduction factor (R.hat) of less than 1.1 to ensure adequate mixing and precise inferences. (Hobert 2011)

• Carefully consider the choice of Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm, pay attention to convergence diagnostics, and be mindful of potential issues such as multi-modality and slow mixing when implementing MCMC methods. (Kass et al. 1998)

• Utilize existing methods and software for parameter estimation as starting points for more complex simulation procedures, particularly when attempting to implement Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations for hierarchical generalized linear models with censoring and missing data. (Gelman and Rubin 1996)

• Use multiple independent sequences with overdispersed starting points when performing iterative simulations to accurately estimate the target distribution and monitor convergence. (Meng 1994)

>> Enhanced Diagnostics for Assessing MCMC Algorithm Convergence

• Consider using a localized version of the potential scale reduction factor () to improve the diagnostic power of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) convergence tests, particularly for identifying convergence issues in different quantiles of the target distribution. (Moins et al. 2023)

• Replace traditional trace plots with rank plots from multiple chains and use a rank-based diagnostic for monitoring convergence of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms, rather than relying solely on the traditional R-hat statistic, which can fail to detect convergence issues in heavy-tailed distributions or varying variances across chains. (Vehtari et al. 2021)

• Consider using the \(R^{*}\) metric, which leverages machine learning classifiers to assess MCMC convergence by distinguishing between individual chains, providing a comprehensive view of convergence compared to traditional methods that rely solely on within-chain and between-chain summaries. (NA?)

>> Dynamic Systems & State Space Model Estimation via Advanced Sampling Algorithms

• Consider using the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) as a faster and potentially more accurate alternative to the particle filter (PF) in particle Markov chain Monte Carlo (pMCMC) for state space models, particularly when dealing with large datasets or complex models. (Drovandi et al. 2022)

• Consider using sequential importance sampling (SIS) methods for dynamic systems, which involve recursively generating samples from a sequence of distributions and adjusting your weights based on the likelihood of observing the current data given the previous samples, leading to improved estimates compared to traditional static methods. (NA?)

>> Adaptive Sampling Algorithms for High Dimensional Posteriors

• Consider using slice sampling methods, which can adapt to the local properties of the density function and avoid inefficiencies caused by small, randomly directed steps in traditional Markov chain methods. (Neal 2003)

>> Efficient Adaptation Strategies for Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

• Consider using adaptive tuning procedures for Hamiltonian Monte Carlo kernels within Sequential Monte Carlo samplers to improve the efficiency and accuracy of Bayesian computations. (Buchholz, Chopin, and Jacob 2021)

• Consider using mixed HMC (M-HMC) as a general framework for sampling from distributions with mixed discrete and continuous variables, as it enables simultaneous updates of both types of variables while retaining the benefits of HMC in reducing random-walk behavior. (Betancourt 2017)

• Consider using the No-U-Turn Sampler (NUTS) algorithm for Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations, as it eliminates the need to manually set the number of steps taken in each iteration, improving computational efficiency and reducing the risk of biased estimates caused by poorly chosen step sizes. (Beskos et al. 2010)

>> Bayesian Haplotype Reconstruction with Approximate Coalescent Prior

• Carefully consider the choice of prior distribution in Bayesian haplotype reconstruction methods, as the use of an approximate coalescent prior can lead to more accurate estimates than a Dirichlet prior, especially when the genetic sequence of a mutant offspring differs only slightly from the progenitor sequence. (NA?)

> Improving Model Selection & Validation Techniques

>> Enhancing Bayesian Goodness-of-Fit Testing & Predictions

• Utilize posterior predictive assessments to evaluate the fit of Bayesian models to observed data, as they enable the construction of a well-defined reference distribution for any test statistic and offer a principled way to account for uncertainty in model parameters. (Rodríguez-Hernández, Domínguez-Zacarías, and Lugo 2016)

• Carefully consider the context and goals of your analysis before choosing between posterior predictive p-values and calibrated p-values, as the former may be more appropriate when the focus is on accurately predicting future data, while the latter may be better suited for detecting model misfits. (Gelman 2013)

• Consider using a modified chi-squared statistic, denoted by \(R^B\), for goodness-of-fit testing in Bayesian analysis. This statistic has the advantage of having an asymptotic chi-squared distribution with \(K-1\) degrees of freedom, regardless of the dimensionality of the parameter vector, making it applicable in high-dimensional settings. (Johnson 2004)

• Prefer Bayesian \(p\) values that are asymptotically uniform, such as the conditional predictive \(p\) value and the partial posterior predictive \(p\) value, over those that are conservative, such as the posterior predictive \(p\) value and the plug-in \(p\) value, especially when the asymptotic mean of the test statistic depends on the parameter. (Robins, Vaart, and Ventura 2000)

• Consider using posterior predictive p-values instead of traditional p-values, particularly when dealing with nuisance parameters, as they offer a Bayesian justification and relevance while maintaining the familiar structure of traditional p-values. (NA?)

>> Choosing Accuracy Measures

• Employ the proposed Posterior Predictive Null Check (PPN) alongside traditional predictive checks to identify redundancy among competing models and facilitate informed model selection based on parsimony. (Moran, Cunningham, and Blei 2023)

• Carefully consider the choice of predictive accuracy measure, as different measures have different strengths and limitations depending on the specific application and data generating process. (Gelman, Hwang, and Vehtari 2013)

>> Enhanced Model Selection Strategies for Robust Inference

• Carefully choose summary statistics for use in Bayesian inference and ABC algorithms, ensuring that they meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for the corresponding Bayes factor to be convergent, specifically that the expectations of the summary statistics differ asymptotically under the two models being compared. (J. -M. Marin et al. 2011)

• Use the extended Bayes information criteria (EBIC) instead of traditional model selection approaches like AIC or BIC when dealing with high-dimensional datasets, as EBIC takes into account both the number of parameters and the complexity of the model space, resulting in improved control of false discoveries while incurring only a minor loss in positive selection rates. (J. Chen and Chen 2008)

• Choose the statistical model that maximizes the log-likelihood minus half times the number of parameters times the natural logarithm of the sample size, rather than simply maximizing the log-likelihood alone, as this adjustment accounts for model complexity and avoids overfitting. (Kliemann 1987)

>> Improved Cross-Validation Estimates for Predictive Accuracy

• Use leave-future-out cross-validation (LFO-CV) instead of leave-one-out cross-validation (LOO-CV) for time series analysis to avoid overly optimistic estimates caused by the availability of future information during the prediction of past observations. (Bürkner, Gabry, and Vehtari 2020)

• Consider using Pareto Smoothed Importance Sampling (PSIS) for computing Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation (LOO) estimates of predictive accuracy in Bayesian models, as it provides a more accurate and reliable estimate compared to traditional Importance Sampling (IS) methods, particularly when dealing with heavy-tailed importance ratio distributions. (Vehtari, Gelman, and Gabry 2016)

> Improving Robustness & Flexibility in Bayesian Modeling Approaches

>> Optimal Prior Selection & Robustness Enhancement Techniques

• Carefully consider the choice of learning rate when using generalized Bayes methods to address model misspecification, as an appropriate learning rate can help ensure accurate and reliable estimates, while an improperly chosen learning rate can lead to inconsistent estimates and poor performance. (P.-S. Wu and Martin 2023)

• Aim to identify a reference prior distribution that maximizes the expected information gain from k independent replications of an experiment, allowing for the derivation of a reference posterior distribution that approximates the inferences that can be made with limited initial information. (Bernardo 1979)

• Consider using fractional posteriors, which raise the likelihood function to a fractional power, as they offer improved robustness to model misspecification compared to traditional methods, particularly in situations where the model is complex or the data is non-iid. (NA?)

• Use a reference Bayesian testing procedure with a proper prior on the parameter of interest, specifically the Schwarz criterion, which provides an approximate Bayes factor and a potentially useful quantification of evidence for large samples. (NA?)

>> Incorporating Informative Priors in Hierarchical Pooling Models

• Consider using a hierarchical prior distribution when assigning weights in logarithmic pooling, as this approach allows for learning about the weights from data and accommodating prior-data conflicts in complex models. (Carvalho et al. 2023)

• Carefully consider incorporating informative prior beliefs in the Bayesian Mallows model for ranking data, as doing so allows for the integration of subjective knowledge and can improve the accuracy of inferences. (Crispino and Antoniano-Villalobos 2023)

>> Enhancing Bayesian Computational Techniques via Augmentation

• Consider expanding your models through data and parameter augmentation, even if initially seen as mere computational tools, as these methods can provide new insights into the data and improve the efficiency of Bayesian computations. (Gelman 2004a)

• Consider using a Bayesian framework with a Student-\(t\) distribution for your error terms instead of a traditional normal distribution, particularly when dealing with heavy-tailed data, as it provides a more flexible and robust model that can better capture the underlying uncertainty. (J. Geweke 1993)

• Incorporate prior knowledge about parameters when conducting confirmatory factor analysis, leading to improved estimates through the use of Bayesian methods. (S.-Y. Lee 1981)

• Consider using Bayesian data augmentation methods, specifically Gibbs sampling, when analyzing binary and polychotomous response data, as it provides a flexible framework for incorporating prior knowledge and handling complex models, while avoiding issues with small sample sizes and intractable likelihood functions. (NA?)

• Utilize the Basic Marginal Likelihood Identity (BMI) when computing the marginal likelihood of your model, which involves expressing the marginal likelihood as the ratio of the product of the sampling density and prior to the posterior density of the parameter. (NA?)

• Consider using data augmentation techniques to simplify complex statistical analyses, particularly when calculating posterior distributions. Specifically, the authors suggest generating multiple values of latent data from the predictive distribution, and then averaging the resulting posterior densities to approximate the true posterior distribution. They also emphasize the importance of being able to sample from the required distributions, and offer guidance on how to do so in certain cases. (NA?)

>> Skewed Student Distribution for Heavy Tail Analysis

• Consider incorporating skewness and heavy tails in your statistical models, specifically through the use of a Skewed Student distribution, which offers greater flexibility and interpretability compared to existing approaches while remaining computationally feasible. (Fernández and Steel 1998)

>> Addressing Bias and Uncertainty in Bayesian Decision Making

• Account for selection bias when performing Bayesian inference on parameters selected after viewing the data, especially when using non-informative priors, by employing adjusted Bayesian inference techniques like those presented in the paper. (Yekutieli 2008)

• Consider using a nonparametric Bayesian approach to avoid strong distributional assumptions and reduce sensitivity to the prior distribution, especially when dealing with complex decision-making problems under uncertainty. (NA?)

>> Informative Priors for Variance Parameters in Hierarchical Models

• Use a maximum penalized likelihood approach to avoid boundary estimates of zero for variance parameters in multilevel models, specifically by employing a weakly informative log-gamma prior distribution with shape parameter greater than 1, which ensures positive estimates and remains consistent with the data while providing improved estimates of model parameters and standard errors compared to traditional maximum likelihood or restricted maximum likelihood estimators. (Chung et al. 2013)

• Carefully choose your prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models, as the choice of prior can significantly impact inferences, particularly when the number of groups is small or the group-level variance is close to zero. The author suggests using a uniform prior on the hierarchical standard deviation, specifically the half-t family when the number of groups is small and in other settings where a weakly informative prior is desired. (Gelman 2006)

>> Bayesian Lasso for Efficient Computation & Credible Interval Estimation

• Consider using the Bayesian Lasso, a hierarchical model that combines the strengths of the Lasso (a popular regularization technique for linear regression) and Bayesian statistics, allowing for efficient computation via Gibbs sampling and providing interval estimates (credible intervals) that can inform variable selection. (Trevor Park and Casella 2008)

• Consider using the Bayesian Lasso, a hierarchical model that combines the strengths of the Lasso (a popular regularization technique for linear regression) and Bayesian statistics, allowing for efficient computation via Gibbs sampling and providing interval estimates (credible intervals) that can inform variable selection. (NA?)

>> Robust Shrinkage Priors & Bayesian Model Selection

• Employ a Bayesian model selection approach based on fractional Bayes factors to simultaneously evaluate spatial dependence and select regressors in Gaussian hierarchical models with intrinsic conditional autoregressive (ICAR) spatial random effects. This method avoids the issue of spatial confounding and eliminates the need to specify hyperparameters for priors, allowing for reliable identification of the correct covariate structure and accurate detection of independence in the data. (Porter, Franck, and Ferreira 2023)

• Employ global-local shrinkage priors for count data analysis, specifically those that exhibit tail robustness, which ensures large signals are not excessively shrunken towards prior means, thus avoiding overlooking significant findings. (Hamura, Irie, and Sugasawa 2022)

> Dirichlet Processes and Mixtures for Flexible Modeling

>> Dirichlet Processes & Mixtures for Balanced Analytic Tractability

• Consider employing the Dirichlet process prior when addressing nonparametric problems, as it offers a balance between having a large support and being analytically tractable, while providing results comparable to those derived from classical theory. (Kliemann 1987)

• Utilize the Dirichlet process prior when making Bayesian nonparametric inferences due to its ability to generate manageable posteriors analytically while maintaining broad support over the space of probability measures. (Kliemann 1987)

• Consider using mixtures of Dirichlet processes when modeling complex data structures, as they possess the closure property (1c) and offer greater flexibility compared to traditional Dirichlet processes while still maintaining computational feasibility. (Kliemann 1987)

• Utilize the Dirichlet process prior when making Bayesian nonparametric inferences due to its ability to generate manageable posteriors analytically while maintaining broad support over the space of probability measures. (NA?)

>> Caution with Prior Selection in Nonparametric Settings

• Be cautious when choosing your priors, as certain types of priors, including those based on the Dirichlet distribution, can lead to inconsistent estimates in nonparametric settings. (Kliemann 1987)

>> Size-Biased Sampling Techniques

• Use the stick-breaking representation for homogeneous normalized random measures with independent increments (hNRMIs) to develop efficient algorithms for slice sampling mixture models, as this representation provides a computationally convenient way to express the joint distribution of the random weights and locations in the model. (Favaro et al. 2016)

• Consider using size-biased sampling techniques when working with Poisson point processes, as they allow for the derivation of general formulae that explain the behavior of certain types of data (such as gamma and stable distributions) and enable accurate modeling of complex phenomena (like length-biased sampling of excursions of a Markov process). (Perman, Pitman, and Yor 1992)

>> Flexibly Structured Hierarchies via Partitions and Degeneracy Mitigation

• Consider using the semi-hierarchical Dirichlet process (semi-HDP) prior for clustering homogeneous distributions, as it addresses the degeneracy issues associated with nested processes and provides a more nuanced understanding of homogeneity compared to simple yes/no answers. (Beraha, Guglielmi, and Quintana 2021)

• Consider using hierarchical Dirichlet processes (HDPs) to share information across multiple groups or datasets, allowing for more efficient estimation and improved predictive accuracy. (Teh and Jordan 2010)

• Consider using partially exchangeable random partitions instead of only exchangeable ones, as they allow for more flexibility in modeling complex data structures through asymmetric functions p(n1,…,nk), while still maintaining the essential property of exchangeability within each subset of the partition. (Pitman 1995)

> Quantile Regression Techniques for Robust Analysis

>> Quantile Regression with Alternative Likelihood Function Approaches

• Consider using Bayesian quantile regression with an asymmetrical Laplace distribution likelihood function, regardless of the underlying distribution of the data, because it yields a proper joint posterior distribution even with improper uniform priors. (Feldman and Kowal 2023)

• Consider using a score-based working likelihood function for quantile regression analysis, as it enables valid frequentist inference for multiple conditional quantiles while avoiding the need for corrections associated with the commonly used asymmetric Laplace working likelihood. (T. Wu and Narisetty 2021)

• Consider using a semi-parametric Bayesian framework for simultaneous analysis of multiple linear quantile regression models, which allows for likelihood-based inference while accounting for the monotonicity constraint inherent in quantile regression. (Tokdar and Kadane 2012)

> Bayesian Mixture Modeling Approaches for Clustering and Density Estimation

>> Bayesian Mixture Models: Uncertainty Quantification & Prior Selection

• Carefully consider the choice of prior distribution and the construction of estimators when working with mixture models due to your inherent complexity and the presence of multiple modes in the likelihood function. (Modrák et al. 2023)

• Carefully distinguish between the number of components in a mixture model and the number of clusters in the data, recognizing that these quantities are not necessarily identical and that your relationship depends on the prior assumptions made about the model. (Frühwirth-Schnatter, Malsiner-Walli, and Grün 2021)

• Employ a fully Bayesian approach to mixture modeling, incorporating uncertainty about the number of components and utilizing reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods to estimate model parameters and predictive densities. (Richardson and Green 1997)

• Consider using Bayesian inference in models for density estimation using mixtures of Dirichlet processes, which provide natural settings for density estimation and allow for direct inference on practical issues such as local vs. global smoothing, uncertainty about density estimates, assessment of modality, and inference on the numbers of components. (Escobar and West 1995)

• Consider using Bayesian inference in models for density estimation using mixtures of Dirichlet processes, which provide natural settings for density estimation and allow for direct inference on practical issues such as local vs. global smoothing, uncertainty about density estimates, assessment of modality, and inference on the numbers of components. (Escobar and West 1995)

• Consider using Bayesian methods, specifically Gibbs sampling, for analyzing normal-mixture models for classification and discrimination because it allows for exact analyses that can handle complex settings with multiple components and varying covariance matrices, while providing exact posterior classification probabilities and assessments of uncertainty. (Lavine and West 1992)

>> Bayesian Hybrid System Identification via Joint Probability Density Function

• Adopt a Bayesian approach to identifying hybrid systems, treating unknown parameters as random vectors and describing them in terms of your joint probability density function, allowing for easy inference of various parameter estimates and enabling informed comparisons between competing models. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Melding Techniques for Integration of Information Sources

• Consider using chained Markov melding to combine multiple Bayesian submodels that share common quantities in a chain-like structure, allowing for the integration of diverse data sources while properly accounting for dependencies and uncertainty. (Manderson and Goudie 2023)

• Consider using latent Bayesian melding, a novel approach that enables the integration of individual-level and population-level models through the merging of your respective latent variable distributions within a logarithmic opinion pool framework, leading to improved accuracy in prediction tasks compared to traditional moment matching techniques. (Myerscough, Frank, and Leimkuhler 2014)

• Consider combining Bayesian computational methods with clustering algorithms to make inferences about an unobserved partition of a large dataset, particularly when evaluating every possible partition is infeasible and many individuals are difficult to assign. (DAWSON and BELKHIR 2001)

• Avoid the Borel paradox by coherizing multiple prior distributions on the same quantity through logarithmic pooling, which ensures external Bayesianity and allows for standard Bayesian inference. (Poole and Raftery 2000)

>> Bayesian Simulation Framework for Uncertainty Quantification in Dirichlet Regression

• Utilize a Bayesian simulation framework for estimating Dirichlet regression models, as it enables easy quantification of uncertainty in both the coefficients and the means, straightforward construction of predictive densities, and the ability to switch between x in c and c across x perspectives. (Sennhenn-Reulen 2018)

>> Bayesian Transformations and Joint Semi-Parametric Multi-State Processes

• Consider using a joint semiparametric model for seemingly unrelated multi-state processes (SUMS) to analyze complex systems with multiple interacting components, allowing for clustering of individuals and capturing overdispersion and outliers through a flexible joint prior distribution on transition rates, while also utilizing a graph structure to describe the dependence among processes. (Cremaschi et al. 2023)

• Consider transforming multiple response-type data into a format suitable for your preferred Bayesian statistical model, treating the transformations as unknown and employing a Bayesian approach to model this uncertainty. (Bradley 2022)

>> Nonparametric Bayesian Models for Robust and Efficient Inferences

• Consider using an importance sampling algorithm for nonparametric models with binary response data, specifically one that leverages the symmetries introduced by exchangeability to generate samples and evaluate the permanent of a (0,1)-matrix to compute importance weights, resulting in efficient and accurate estimation of the model parameters. (D. Christensen 2024)

• Consider using Bayesian nonparametric methods for survival regression analysis that combine modulated BART (MBART) with submodel shrinkage, which allows for flexible adaptation to complex data structures while maintaining interpretability and minimizing loss of predictive accuracy when the prior guess is accurate. (Linero et al. 2022)

• Carefully consider the choice of your statistical model, as restricting to a parametric model may limit the scope and type of inferences that can be drawn, while nonparametric and semiparametric models offer greater modeling flexibility and robustness against mis-specification. (Müller et al. 2015)

• Consider using nonparametric Bayesian models, specifically those based on Dirichlet processes or Polya trees, when they want to make flexible inferences without relying on strict parametric assumptions, while still maintaining analytic tractability and computational feasibility. (NA?)

>> Robustness and Sensitivity Analysis in BNP Mixture Models

• Evaluate the sensitivity of your Bayesian nonparametric models to the choice of prior distribution through the use of variational Bayesian methods, which allow for efficient computation of sensitivities and can help ensure robustness in the face of uncertain prior information. (Giordano et al. 2023)

• Consider using Bayesian nonparametric (BNP) models, which avoid the challenge of model selection by allowing the data to determine the complexity of the model through the use of priors that favor simpler models and allow for the possibility of adding new components as more data is observed. (Gershman and Blei 2011)

• Consider using a Bayesian nonparametric approach to k-means clustering, specifically a Gibbs sampling algorithm for the Dirichlet process mixture, which approaches a hard clustering algorithm in the limit and minimizes an elegant underlying k-means-like clustering objective that includes a penalty for the number of clusters. (Kulis and Jordan 2011)

> Bayesian Hierarchical Clustering and Ensemble Learning

>> Bayesian Posterior Odds Calculation for Query-based Cluster Analysis

• Consider framing your data analysis as a Bayesian inference problem, specifically by calculating the posterior odds of an item belonging to a cluster given a query set of items, which can be efficiently computed for certain types of data and models. (Ponte and Croft 1998)

>> Bayesian Rose Trees vs Distance-based Methods for Hierarchical Clustering

• Consider using Bayesian rose trees instead of traditional binary trees for hierarchical clustering tasks, as rose trees can capture more complex hierarchical structures and lead to simpler, easier-to-interpret models with higher marginal likelihoods. (Blundell, Teh, and Heller 2012)

• Consider using Bayesian hierarchical clustering instead of traditional distance-based methods because it offers a principled probabilistic framework for making inferences about group membership, including the ability to compute predictive distributions, assess the strength of evidence for merges, and select the optimal depth of the tree using Bayesian hypothesis testing. (Cooke et al. 2011)

>> Monotonicity Constraints & Bayesian Forest Improvements

• Consider incorporating monotonicity constraints in your models when there is prior knowledge suggesting that certain predictors have a consistently increasing or decreasing relationship with the outcome variable. This can lead to improved interpretability, reduced uncertainty, and better out-of-sample predictive performance. (H. A. Chipman et al. 2022)

• Consider using Bayesian forests (BFs) as a powerful tool for interpreting and improving the performance of traditional random forests (RFs), particularly in situations involving massive distributed datasets, where the empirical Bayesian forest (EBF) algorithm can offer significant improvements in efficiency and accuracy. (Taddy et al. 2014)

• Consider using Bayesian ensemble learning methods, specifically the Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART) model, which combines multiple weak learners through a sum-of-trees structure and uses a regularization prior to prevent overfitting, resulting in improved predictive accuracy and uncertainty quantification. (H. A. Chipman, George, and McCulloch 2007)

>> Advanced Bayesian Techniques for Regression, Classification, and Time Series Analysis

• Consider using the Bayesian Context Trees (BCT) framework for analyzing discrete time series data because it enables efficient and accurate inference through the use of a novel branching process representation of the model prior and posterior, which facilitates direct Monte Carlo (MC) sampling from the joint posterior distribution on models and parameters. (Papageorgiou and Kontoyiannis 2023)

• Consider using a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) for computing marginal posterior probabilities in model selection priors, as it allows for reliable and efficient computation in O(n^2) operations, regardless of the specific prior used. (Erven and Szabó 2021)

• Consider using a map-based approach to Bayesian inference, which involves finding a measure-preserving map that pushes forward the prior measure to the posterior measure, thereby avoiding the need for Markov chain simulations and providing advantages such as analytical expressions for posterior moments and the ability to generate independent posterior samples without additional likelihood evaluations or forward solves. (Moselhy and Marzouk 2012)

• Consider using the Bayesian bridge estimator for regularized regression and classification tasks, as it offers improved estimation and prediction accuracy compared to classical methods and other popular Bayesian techniques, and can effectively explore complex multimodal surfaces through its efficient MCMC algorithms. (Polson, Scott, and Windle 2011)

>> Bayesian Stacking Techniques for Model Averaging

• Consider using Bayesian hierarchical stacking, a method that frames the estimation of stacking weights as a Bayesian inference problem, expands to a hierarchical model allowing variation in stacking weights over the population, and enables flexibility in handling discrete and continuous inputs, ultimately leading to improved predictions by accounting for heterogeneity in model performance across different parts of the input space. (Yao et al. 2022)

• Consider using stacking of predictive distributions instead of traditional Bayesian model averaging techniques when working in an M-open framework, where the true data-generating process is not among the candidate models being considered. (Yao et al. 2018b)

> Bayesian Forecasting and Model Evaluation

>> Bayesian Calibration & Proper Scoring Rules

• Use strictly proper scoring rules in your analyses because these rules encourage honesty and careful assessment among forecasters, and they provide attractive loss and utility functions that can be tailored to specific scientific problems. (Gneiting and Raftery 2007)

• Strive for well-calibrated forecasts, meaning that the long-run proportion of events that actually occur should match the forecasted probabilities, and that this expectation arises naturally from the principles of coherent Bayesianism. (Dawid 1982)

• Utilize proper scoring rules, such as the Brier score, to objectively evaluate the accuracy of probabilistic forecasts, as these rules encourage honest reporting and discourage hedging behavior. (NA?)

>> Assumptions Validation in Multivariate Gaussian RML Context

• Carefully evaluate the assumptions underlying your chosen statistical methods, such as the assumption of multivariate Gaussian distributions in the context of the Randomized Maximum Likelihood (RML) method, and ensure that these assumptions hold before drawing conclusions about the validity of your findings. (Gao, Zafari, and Reynolds 2005)

>> Bayesian Reconstruction of Prehistoric Climate and Chronology

• Utilize Bayesian statistics to combine calendar and relative date information in chronological studies, allowing for the incorporation of prior knowledge and the calculation of posterior probabilities for specific hypotheses. (Ramsey 2009)

• Employ a hierarchical Bayesian modelling approach to reconstruct prehistoric climates using fossil data, explicitly modelling uncertainty and reconstructing entire climate histories while taking into account the unique characteristics of compositional data and the temporal structure of missing covariates. (Haslett et al. 2006)

> Uncertainty Quantification and Model Selection Strategies

>> Uncertainty Quantification & Model Evaluation Techniques

• Adopt a “source framework” to identify potential routes for uncertainty to enter the modelling process, followed by model type specific criteria for quantifying or addressing those uncertainties, in order to promote cross-disciplinary consistency and completeness in model-related uncertainty quantification. (Simmonds et al. 2022)

• Carefully distinguish between variability (real differences among individuals or entities) and uncertainty (lack of knowledge about the true value of a parameter or its variability), as they require different approaches for analysis and communication, and failure to differentiate them can lead to misleading interpretations and decisions. (Hattis and Burmaster 1994)

• Carefully consider the trade-offs between model complexity and prediction accuracy when building Bayesian Network models, using metrics such as number of variables, links, states, conditional probabilities, and node cliques to assess model complexity, and metrics such as confusion tables, ROC curves, AUC, k-fold cross-validation, spherical payoff, Schwarz Bayesian information criterion, and true skill statistic to evaluate model prediction performance. (NA?)

>> Integrating Hierarchy, Context, and Hybridization in Bayesian Modeling

• Consider using hierarchical Bayesian modeling when analyzing ecological data because it allows for the incorporation of multiple levels of variation and uncertainty, leading to more robust and accurate estimates of ecological parameters. (Parent and Rivot 2012)

• Carefully consider the decision context when choosing a Bayesian network (BN) modeling approach, as the appropriateness of methods like deduction, induction, subjectivity, and heuristics depends on whether the decision context is operational, tactical, strategic, or directive. (NA?)

• Consider combining Bayesian Networks (BNs) with other modeling frameworks and tools, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), Dynamic Object-Oriented Bayesian Networks (DOOBNs), and Quantum Bayesian Networks (QBNs), to enhance the accuracy, robustness, and applicability of your models. (NA?)

> Spatial Statistics & Designs for Natural Resources

>> Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling for Spatial Count Analysis

• Adopt a fully model-based framework for areal Wombling using Bayesian hierarchical models with posterior summaries computed using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, as this approach offers superior utility and average mean square error behavior compared to existing nonstochastic alternatives. (Lu and Carlin 2005)

• Consider using a Bayesian nonparametric approach based on the Bayesian partition methodology for analyzing spatial count data, as it enables estimation of disease risk without making parametric assumptions about the influence of point sources, and offers flexibility in handling complex spatial patterns. (Denison and Holmes 2001)

>> Spatial Sampling Techniques for Natural Resource Assessment

• Choose a Bayesian design criterion focused on efficient spatial prediction while acknowledging the uncertainty around model parameters, which leads to selecting a wide range of inter-point distances instead of relying solely on regular designs. (Nowak, Barros, and Rubin 2010)

• Consider using a Generalized Random-Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) design when sampling natural resources, as it allows for the creation of a function that maps two-dimensional space into one-dimensional space, thus defining an ordered spatial address. By employing restricted randomization to randomly order the addresses and transforming them to induce an equiprobable linear structure, systematic sampling along the randomly ordered linear structure results in a spatially well-balanced random sample. This design (Stevens and Olsen 2004)

>> Bayesian Space-Time Interactions for Disease Risk Modeling

• Carefully consider incorporating space-time interactions in your statistical models using a Bayesian framework, particularly when dealing with disease risk data that exhibits inseparable space-time variation. (Yan and Clayton 2006)

> Bayesian Approaches for Improved Model Selection & Performance

>> Advantages of Bayesian Methods for Econometric Model Comparison

• Consider using Bayesian methods for estimating Agent-Based (AB) models, as they offer several advantages over traditional calibration and SMD estimation techniques, including the ability to incorporate prior information and avoid pre-selection of summary statistics or auxiliary models. However, researchers should be aware of potential issues related to identification and computational cost, and consider using efficient sampling schemes and appropriate approximations to address these challenges. (Grazzini, Richiardi, and Tsionas 2017)

• Follow two fundamental principles when conducting Bayesian inference and forecasting: (1) clearly state all assumptions using formal probability statements about the joint distribution of future events of interest and relevant events observed at the time decisions must be made, and (2) use the distribution of future events conditional on observed relevant events and an explicit loss function when making predictions. (John Geweke and Whiteman 2006)

• Incorporate subjective Bayesian methods into your workflow, allowing them to make formal comparisons between fully specified and incomplet Question mark tely specified models, thereby facilitating better informed decisions based on predictive distributions derived from simulations. (John Geweke 1999)

• Consider employing Bayesian methods for estimating and comparing dynamic equilibrium models, as these methods provide a classical interpretation, are applicable to nonnested and misspecified models, and offer superior small sample performance compared to maximum likelihood estimates. (Diebold, Ohanian, and Berkowitz 1998)

• Consider using predictive odds ratios instead of traditional posterior odds ratios for model comparison in econometrics, as predictive odds ratios allow for more accurate and efficient estimation of model performance while avoiding issues related to improper priors and data mining. (John Geweke 1994)

>> Bayesian vs Classical Estimation for Marketing Research

• Consider adopting a Bayesian approach to marketing problems due to its ability to provide a unified treatment of within-unit behavior, across-unit behavior, and decision-making, while also allowing for the incorporation of prior knowledge and providing a coherent framework for handling uncertainty. (P. E. Rossi and Allenby 2003)

• Not worry about choosing between Bayesian and classical estimation methods for estimating individual mean partworths, as both methods yield virtually equivalent results, making the decision largely a matter of personal preference or computational convenience. (Huber and Train 2001)

>> Bayesian vs Frequentist Methods for Model Evaluation

• Employ both Bayesian predictive likelihoods and frequentist probability integral transforms to assess the accuracy of your statistical models, as each method offers unique insights into the strengths and limitations of the models. (John Geweke and Amisano 2008)

• Consider using Bayesian methods in portfolio analysis, as they allow for the incorporation of prior information and the explicit consideration of parameter and model uncertainty, leading to improved decision-making. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Inference for Efficiency Estimation with MCMC

• Employ Bayesian inference procedures using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques to estimate costs related to technical and allocative inefficiency within a translog cost system, allowing for more accurate estimates of input price distortions and over- or under-use of resources. (Kreif et al. 2015)

>> Incorporating Uncertainty in Bayesian Model Selection

• Utilize Bayesian model uncertainty to account for model selection uncertainty in complex data analyses, allowing them to evaluate the relative merits of multiple models and make informed decisions based on the posterior probabilities of those models. (Mattei 2019)

• Utilize Bayesian model selection techniques due to your ability to automatically incorporate Occams Razor, avoid overfitting, and produce consistent results, even when compared to traditional hypothesis testing methods. (J. O. Berger and Pericchi 2001)

• Carefully consider the choice of prior distributions in Bayesian model selection, balancing subjectivity and objectivity, and evaluate the performance of your selected models using frequentist criteria such as simulation studies or cross-validation. (H. Chipman, George, and McCulloch 2001)

• Carefully consider the choice of prior distribution and tuning parameters when selecting a Bayesian variable selection method, as these choices can significantly impact the performance of the method in terms of sparseness, mixing efficiency, and identifiability. (NA?)

• Avoid relying solely on cross-validation scores for model selection, as this approach can result in overfitting and biased performance evaluations. Instead, researchers should consider incorporating model uncertainty through methods such as Bayesian model averaging or the projection method, which have been shown to produce more reliable results. (NA?)

• Employ Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) to account for model uncertainty in linear regression models, as it provides better predictive performance compared to relying on a single selected model, while avoiding the impracticality of averaging over all possible models. (NA?)

>> Strategies for Robustness and Accuracy in Bayesian Estimation

• Carefully select insufficient statistics that capture the main features of interest in your data, allowing for more robust and focused inferences while reducing sensitivity to outliers and model misspecifications. (Lewis, MacEachern, and Lee 2021)

• Carefully evaluate the assumptions underlying each module of a complex model and consider implementing modularization techniques, such as partial likelihood or cutting feedback, to prevent potentially flawed modules from unduly influencing other modules in the analysis. (Bayarri, Berger, and Liu 2009)

• Consider using calibrated composite likelihoods for Bayesian inference in complex statistical models where the full likelihood is impractical to compute or unknown, as this approach offers the right asymptotic properties for the posterior probability distribution and can improve estimation accuracy compared to traditional methods. (Varin 2008)

• Carefully consider the trade-off between computational efficiency and accuracy when choosing the number of simulations (tuning parameter n) in Bayesian synthetic likelihood estimation, as the method relies on a multivariate normal approximation of the distribution of summary statistics and is therefore sensitive to deviations from normality. (NA?)

• Consider using a localized model, which involves estimating a separate parameter for each data point rather than sharing information through a global parameter, and then applying empirical Bayes estimation to fit the hyperparameter, resulting in a more robust model that can handle outliers and model misspecifications. (NA?)

> Advanced Bayesian Techniques for Modeling Complex Systems

>> Bayesian Approaches for Efficient Analysis of Complex Systems

• Utilize Bayesian emulation and calibration techniques to analyze complex computer models, allowing for efficient and robust estimates of model outputs and associated uncertainties while incorporating observational data. (Hankin 2005)

• Utilize hierarchical Bayesian time series models to decompose complex joint probability distributions into manageable conditional probabilities, allowing for informed predictions and inferences. (“Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods” 1996)

• View data assimilation as a Bayesian inference problem, where they construct a full probability model of the system being studied, conditionally update your prior beliefs using Bayes theorem, and evaluate the fit of the resulting model to the observed data. (NA?)

• Consider utilizing the spTimer package for efficient and flexible Bayesian modeling of large, complex space-time data sets, allowing for customizable covariance functions, distance calculations, and prior selections while providing accurate predictions even with missing data. (NA?)

>> Advanced Bayesian Techniques for Improved Decision Making

• Incorporate visualization throughout the entire Bayesian workflow, including model development, model checking, and model evaluation, to facilitate informed decision making and improve the interpretability of results. (Gabry et al. 2019)

• Consider using Bayesian networks to infer joint probability distributions for population synthesis, as they allow for compact representation of complex dependencies and avoidance of overfitting. (Sun and Erath 2015)

• Prefer Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods over Bayesian Monte Carlo (BMC) for Bayesian inference due to the inefficiency of BMC in accurately estimating the posterior distribution, especially when dealing with highly correlated parameters. (S. S. Qian, Stow, and Borsuk 2003)

• Consider using Bayesian inference, which enables the incorporation of prior knowledge and avoids assumptions required by classical statistical methods, leading to potentially more accurate and robust conclusions. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Multinomial Probit Analysis for Discrete Choices

• Consider using marginal data augmentation techniques in your Bayesian analyses of multinomial probit models, as this approach offers significant improvements in computational efficiency compared to alternative methods. (Imai and Dyk 2005b)

• Consider using the MNP software package to estimate the Bayesian multinomial probit model for analyzing discrete choices made by individuals, particularly when dealing with different choice sets for each individual and complete or partial individual choice orderings of the available alternatives from the choice set. (Imai and Dyk 2005a)

>> Bayesian Computation Tools for Efficient Analysis

• Utilize Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) for efficient and accurate estimation of posterior probabilities in Bayesian analysis, particularly when dealing with complex models involving multiple parameters. (Caldwell, Kollár, and Kröninger 2009)

• Consider utilizing the WinBUGS software package for conducting Bayesian analysis of stochastic frontier models due to its accessibility, flexibility, and ability to handle complex models, despite its potential lack of efficiency compared to tailor-made solutions. (Griffin and Steel 2007)

>> Bayesian Approaches for Long Memory Processes & High Dimensionality

• Utilize a dynamic factor model to reduce the complexity of the covariance matrix in high-dimensional state space models, allowing for accurate and efficient estimation of the joint posterior density of the state vectors. (Quiroz, Nott, and Kohn 2023)

• Consider using the Max-and-Smooth two-step approach for approximate Bayesian inference in latent Gaussian models, which combines maximum likelihood estimation with smoothing techniques to efficiently and accurately estimate model parameters while accounting for uncertainty. (Hrafnkelsson et al. 2021)

• Consider using Bayesian methods with time-varying conditional heteroscedastic (CH) models to improve the accuracy of financial dataset analysis, particularly when frequent changes occur due to market variability. (Karmakar and Roy 2021)

• Consider employing a hierarchical Bayesian model with a variable dimension approach (such as reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo) to estimate the long memory parameter in long-range dependent processes, as this method enables integration over all possible models within a certain class and reduces uncertainty at the model-selection stage. (Chakraborty, Holan, and McElroy 2009)

>> Optimization of MCMC Algorithms for Hierarchical Models

• Consider using the Gibbs zig-zag sampler, a novel combination of piecewise deterministic Markov processes (PDMPs) and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques, to improve the efficiency and accuracy of posterior sampling for complex statistical models. (Sachs et al. 2023)

• Utilize multigrid decompositions to analyze the convergence rates of Gibbs Samplers in Bayesian hierarchical models, as this approach enables the derivation of explicit analytic results for optimizing practical implementations, such as choosing the best parametrization and monitoring relevant parameters during the diagnostic process. (Zanella and Roberts 2021)

> Assumptions of Normality & Independence in Financial Data Analysis

>> Assumptions Validation for Skewed & Heavy Tailed Finance Data

• Carefully consider the underlying assumptions of your chosen statistical methods, particularly when dealing with financial data that may exhibit characteristics such as skewness, kurtosis, and heavy tails, which can violate common assumptions of normality and independence. (Plerou et al. 1999)

> Bayesian Approaches for Robust Decision Making and Model Selection

>> Incorporating Prior Knowledge and Measurement Error

• Adopt a Bayesian framework for your analyses, which allows for the incorporation of prior knowledge and the sequential updating of inferences as new data becomes available. (M. D. Lee and Wagenmakers 2014)

• Incorporate subjective probabilities into your analyses, following the rules of probability to ensure coherence, and use Bayes theorem to update your beliefs based on observed data. This allows for the calculation of posterior distributions, which serve as the foundation for making inferences about population parameters. (Greenberg 2012)

• Carefully specify your prior beliefs through a prior distribution when conducting Bayesian inference, as this enables them to incorporate existing knowledge and improve the accuracy of your conclusions based on observed data. (Hoff 2009)

• Consider adopting a Bayesian framework for your analyses, as it provides a principled and flexible approach to decision-making under uncertainty, allowing for the incorporation of prior knowledge and the quantification of uncertainty in estimates. (“The Bayesian Choice” 2007)

• Carefully consider the role of measurement error when estimating the impact of class sizes on student achievement, as failing to account for this source of uncertainty can lead to biased estimates. (John Geweke 2005)

• Consider using Bayesian methods for model selection and hypothesis testing, particularly when dealing with complex models or limited sample sizes, due to the flexibility and robustness of these approaches. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Statistics Optimization & Prior Distribution Choices

• Consider using model-specific MCMC algorithms implemented in packages like MCMCpack, as they can be significantly more efficient and robust compared to general-purpose black-box approaches like those found in the BUGS language, while still providing flexibility for model specification and estimation. (Plummer 2023)

• Consider using advanced computational methods like Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), importance sampling, and Sampling Importance Resampling (SIR) to estimate complex Bayesian models, especially when dealing with non-standard functional forms of posterior distributions. (Demirtas 2017)

• Consider adopting Bayesian statistics instead of relying solely on traditional Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST), as Bayesian methods allow for incorporation of prior knowledge and updating of beliefs based on new evidence, leading to more robust and interpretable results. (“Supplemental Material for a Systematic Review of Bayesian Articles in Psychology: The Last 25 Years” 2017)

• Carefully consider the appropriateness of your choice of prior distribution in Bayesian analysis, as it can significantly impact the resulting posterior distribution and subsequent inferences. (“Introduction to Applied Bayesian Statistics and Estimation for Social Scientists” 2007)

>> Informative Priors & Efficient Computational Techniques

• Consider utilizing data augmentation techniques for implementing Bayesian regression analyses in SAS software, as it offers comparable results to Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) while significantly reducing computational time and avoiding complex convergence concerns. (Sullivan and Greenland 2012)

• Carefully specify informative priors based on domain knowledge and use Bayesian inference to update beliefs about parameters in light of observed data, allowing for more accurate predictions and informed decision making. (R. Christensen et al. 2010)

>> ArviZ Library for Exploratory Analysis of Bayesian Models

• Use the open-source Python library ArviZ to facilitate exploratory analysis of Bayesian models, enabling efficient diagnosis of inference quality, model criticism, comparison, and communication of results through various visualization tools and statistical metrics. (Kumar et al. 2019)

>> Bayesian Hypothesis Testing & Uncertainty Quantification

• Consider using Bayesian methods for data analysis, such as computing the Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) estimate, calculating credible intervals like the Highest Density Interval (HDI) and the Equal-Tailed Interval (ETI), and performing hypothesis tests using tools like the Region Of Practical Equivalence (ROPE), the Probability of Direction (pd), and the Bayes Factor. (NA?)

Bayesian Approaches for Data Analysis

> Adaptive Experimental Design and Decision Theory

>> Bayesian Optimization & Sampling Norm Justification

• Carefully consider and justify your choice of sampling norm when studying human decision-making processes, as different norms such as Bayesian diagnosticity, information gain, probability gain, and impact can lead to conflicting results and interpretations. (Nelson 2005)

• Utilize Bayesian estimation techniques to optimize the placement of trials in psychophysics experiments, taking advantage of prior knowledge about the shape of the psychometric function and the likely location of the threshold, while avoiding bias in the final estimate of the threshold by dividing out the prior density. (Watson and Pelli 1983)

>> Adaptive Bayesian Optimization of Utility Functions

• Employ an iterative Observe-Infer-Design cycle, utilizing Bayesian inference to update beliefs after each round of data collection and Bayesian decision theory to select the next optimal data collection strategy, thereby enabling adaptive scientific exploration that continually refines hypotheses and observing protocols based on accumulating evidence. (Loredo 2004)

• Consider using fully Bayesian experimental designs, which optimize a utility function based on the posterior distribution, rather than pseudo-Bayesian or classical designs, as they allow for the incorporation of prior information and uncertainties regarding the statistical model. (Chaloner and Verdinelli 1995)

> Bayesian Modeling Techniques for Complex Systems

>> Bayesian Model Integration: Expert Knowledge & Uncertainty Quantification

• Consider utilizing Bayesian networks for theory refinement tasks, as they offer a principled approach to belief updating that balances prior knowledge provided by domain experts with new data, allowing for incremental learning and robust handling of uncertainty. (Buntine 2013)

• Employ a subjective Bayesian inference method in rule-based systems, which allows for the incorporation of expert opinions and the handling of inconsistencies in subjective statements, while still utilizing the benefits of probabilistic reasoning. (Duda, Hart, and Nilsson 1976)

• Adopt a Bayesian probabilistic numerical methods (PNMs) framework for solving complex numerical tasks, as it enables them to incorporate prior knowledge and quantify uncertainty in a principled way, leading to improved accuracy and robustness in your findings. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Non-Parametrics & Probabilistic Machine Learning

• Adopt a Bayesian non-parametric approach to modeling, which allows for greater flexibility in handling uncertainty and avoiding overfitting, while still maintaining interpretability and coherence within the probabilistic framework. (Wolpert, Ghahramani, and Jordan 1995)

>> Bayesian Models for Enhancing Cognitive Research

• Consider adopting a hierarchical Bayesian framework for individual learning under uncertainty, which uses variational Bayes and a mean-field approximation to efficiently estimate trial-by-trial updates while incorporating individual differences through precision-weighting of prediction error. (Mathys 2011)

• Consider adopting a Bayesian approach to cognition, which views the brain as a probabilistic processor that uses Bayesian inference to combine prior knowledge with current sensory input to estimate the likelihood of various hypotheses about the world. (Chater et al. 2010)

• Carefully consider the assumptions underlying Bayesian models, including the choice of priors, likelihoods, and utility functions, and compare the predictions of Bayesian models to those of alternative non-Bayesian models to ensure robustness and validity of conclusions drawn from data. (NA?)

• Consider employing hierarchical Bayesian methods for model evaluation due to your ability to address multiple criteria simultaneously, including descriptive adequacy, parameter inference, prediction, and generalizability, while also allowing for principled and coherent decision-making. (NA?)

• Adopt a Bayesian approach to analyze cognitive models, as it enables them to fully utilize the information contained in the data, handle complex model comparisons, and avoid biases introduced by traditional frequentist methods. (NA?)

• Consider utilizing exemplar models as a potential mechanism for performing Bayesian inference, specifically through the use of importance sampling as a sophisticated form of Monte Carlo approximation. (NA?)

• Consider using Bayesian inference as a tool for understanding cognitive development, particularly in scenarios where learners must make inferences based on limited data, as it enables the integration of prior knowledge and observed data through the calculation of posterior probabilities using Bayes theorem. (NA?)

• Consider using hierarchical Bayesian models to account for complex patterns of variability in cognitive data, such as individual differences and the interplay of multiple cognitive processes, leading to more comprehensive and nuanced theories. (NA?)

• Utilize Bayesian methods in cognitive modeling due to your ability to handle complex model structures, such as hierarchical, latent-mixture, and common-cause models, while providing a principled foundation for statistical inference and promoting creativity and flexibility in model development. (NA?)

• Utilize Bayesian decision models to optimize behavioral performance in decision tasks common or important in the natural world, due to your ability to incorporate prior knowledge, generate interpretable results, and require minimal free parameters. (NA?)

> Bayesian Inference: Benefits, Limitations, and Best Practices

>> Incorporating Prior Knowledge and Model Selection

• Utilize Bayesian model selection techniques, particularly the calculation of Bayes factors or odds ratios, to compare the relative merits of alternative models and make informed inferences about the underlying processes generating observed data. (Knuth et al. 2015)

• Utilize Bayes theorem to update your beliefs about parameters based on new data, allowing them to make informed decisions using the resulting posterior distribution, rather than relying solely on traditional frequentist methods. (Jackman 2009)

• Carefully choose your prior distributions in Bayesian analysis, as this choice can significantly impact the resulting estimates and conclusions. (Hanson 1993)

• Incorporate prior knowledge through the use of Bayesian probability theory to improve the accuracy of your estimates, particularly in situations involving noisy, sparse, or uncertain data. (Cox 1946)

• Carefully consider the choice of prior distribution in Bayesian analysis, as it can significantly impact the results, and conduct sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of your findings to alternative priors. (NA?)

>> Leveraging Prior Knowledge via Bayesian Updating Techniques

• Consider incorporating prior knowledge into your statistical analyses through the use of Bayesian inference, which allows for the updating of beliefs based on observed data and prior information. (Box and Tiao 1992)

>> Bayesian Model Selection: Complexity vs Fit Trade-offs

• Adopt a Bayesian approach to model selection, which allows for a principled trade-off between model complexity and fit to the data, and enables the comparison of models with varying numbers of parameters without overfitting. (Hand and Yu 2001)

>> Bayesian Inference: Advantages, Challenges, and Subjectivity

• Consider the limitations of the Bayesian approach when dealing with uncertainty, as it may not always be appropriate to assign probabilities to events when the underlying information is incomplete or ambiguous. (Y. Zhang, Zhang, and Jiang 2023)

• Consider incorporating Bayesian methods into your workflow due to your ability to handle complex models, sparse or incomplete data, and provide richer inferences compared to traditional frequentist methods, while also allowing for the integration of prior knowledge in a principled and transparent manner. (Bijak and Bryant 2016)

• Incorporate prior information about parameters in your statistical models using Bayes theorem to update your beliefs in light of new data, allowing for more accurate and robust estimates compared to traditional frequentist methods. (Zyphur and Oswald 2013)

• Be aware of the historical origins and evolving definitions of statistical terminologies, particularly the shift from the method of inverse probability to Bayesian inference, as it highlights the importance of understanding the underlying assumptions and implications of different statistical frameworks. (D. Spiegelhalter and Rice 2009)

• Carefully consider the potential drawbacks of Bayesian methods, including the difficulty of selecting appropriate prior distributions, the subjectivity inherent in Bayesian inference, and the potential for misuse by unscrupulous researchers seeking to confirm your preconceptions. (Gelman 2008)

• Employ formal objective Bayesian techniques confidently, but exercise caution when using casual objective Bayesian techniques due to potential pitfalls and limitations. (J. Berger 2006)

• Embrace subjectivism in Bayesian analysis, incorporating your prior beliefs and expert judgment alongside data when making inferences, especially in complex situations where traditional methods may be insufficient or intractable. (Goldstein 2006)

• Consider adopting a Bayesian approach to statistical analysis, which involves interpreting statistical parameters probabilistically and updating prior beliefs about those parameters using sample data according to Bayes rule, allowing for a more comprehensive account of all sources of uncertainty in the analysis. (WESTERN 1999)

• Incorporate prior beliefs (i.e., prior probabilities) into your analysis using Bayes theorem, allowing for the updating of these beliefs in light of new data, leading to more accurate and robust conclusions. (Edwards, Lindman, and Savage 1963)

>> Bayesian vs Frequentist Approach: Comparison & Integration

• Incorporate Bayesian methods into your statistical toolkit, particularly in observational studies where traditional frequentist methods may be less appropriate due to the lack of random sampling or treatment assignment, and the potential presence of unmeasured confounding variables. (Greenland 2006)

• Prioritize using statistical methods that condition on the observed data, rather than relying solely on frequentist approaches that do not account for the actual data at hand. (Ashby 2006)

• Adopt a Bayesian approach to statistical inference, which involves comparing the probabilities of competing hypotheses given the observed data, instead of the frequentist approach, which focuses on the distribution of data under a fixed hypothesis and ignores the need to average over hypotheses. (“Statistical Challenges in Modern Astronomy” 1992)

• Embrace a joint Bayesian-frequentist approach in inherently joint situations, such as design or preposterior analysis, where both frequentist and Bayesian expectations are needed for optimal decision making. (NA?)

>> Philosophy and Application of Bayesian Statistics

• Carefully consider the assumptions and limitations of both frequentist and Bayesian approaches when analyzing data in animal breeding, taking into account factors such as sample size, availability of prior information, and computational feasibility. (Blasco 2001)

• Consider employing Bayesian statistical inference instead of traditional hypothesis testing, as it enables the explicit incorporation of uncertainty, facilitates communication of results, and supports informed decision-making by allowing for the specification of losses associated with different error types. (Wade 2000)

• Carefully consider your epistemological stance when selecting statistical methods, particularly whether they view model parameters as fixed or random variables, as this choice impacts the validity and interpretation of results. (NA?)

>> Common Priors Assumptions: Implications and Generalizability Concerns

• Carefully consider the implications of assuming common priors in Bayesian models, as it may introduce unwarranted restrictions and limit the generalizability of results. (Aumann 1976)

> Advantages and Limitations of Bayesian Inference

>> Bayesian Inference: Assumptions, Applications, and Quantification

• Consider using Bayes factors as a tool for quantifying the evidence in favor of a scientific theory, as they offer advantages such as allowing for the evaluation of evidence in favor of the null hypothesis, incorporating external information, providing a general framework without requiring nested alternatives, and offering multiple methods for computation, including asymptotic approximations and simulation-based techniques. (D. J. Spiegelhalter et al. 2002)

• Carefully consider the assumptions and limitations of Bayesian inference when using it as a normative framework for evaluating hypotheses, including the potential for biases in hypothesis formation, assessment of component probabilities, aggregation of evidence, and decision making. (Fischhoff and Beyth-Marom 1983)

• Consider using Bayesian inference instead of traditional statistical methods when dealing with complex problems that involve non-simple distributions, prior information, or limited data, as Bayesian inference offers a principled and flexible framework for incorporating these elements. (NA?)

• Carefully consider the role of Bayesian inference in your studies, particularly whether the task being investigated necessarily involves probabilistic inference, as this affects the normative or rational status bestowed by Bayesian inference and the resulting models falsifiability. (NA?)

• Carefully consider and explicitly state your hypotheses, including the null hypothesis, as well as the alternative hypothesis, and understand that the results of statistical tests depend heavily on the specific definitions of these hypotheses. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Inference Benefits in Comparative Research and Model Selection

• Consider using Bayesian methods, particularly for comparing models and assigning probabilities to hypotheses, as these methods provide a coherent framework for updating beliefs based on new data and can help mitigate issues related to pretesting and researcher bias. (Strnad 2007)

• Consider employing Bayesian inference in comparative research, especially when dealing with nonstochastic data and weak data, as it enables the integration of prior information and subjective probability assessments to improve the precision of estimates and overcome limitations of frequentist inference. (Western and Jackman 1994)

• Consider using Bayesian methods, specifically Bayes factors for hypothesis testing and Bayesian parameter estimation, as they offer numerous practical advantages including the ability to incorporate prior knowledge, quantify evidence, and monitor evidence as data accumulates, while avoiding issues associated with traditional Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) such as misinterpretation and reliance on arbitrary thresholds. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Inference: Benefits, Applications, and Best Practices

• Consider using Bayesian statistics when they possess prior knowledge about likely relationships between variables, as it allows them to incorporate this background knowledge into the estimation of the model, leading to more informed and precise estimates. (Ng et al. 2013)

• Adopt Bayesian methods for data analysis due to your ability to provide rich and complete information regarding all parameters, coherently estimate the probability of achieving experimental goals, and solve the problems associated with traditional methods such as p-values, impoverished estimates, and computational constraints. (Kruschke 2010)

• Carefully choose between Bayesian model comparison and Bayesian parameter estimation when assessing null values, as the former provides information on the relative credibility of two models while the latter offers a full posterior distribution of credibilities over candidate parameter values. (NA?)

• Consider using robust Bayesian estimation, which involves estimating parameters using a flexible and robust model that can handle outliers, combined with a noncommittal prior distribution that allows the data to dominate the inference, leading to more accurate and reliable estimates of the true population parameters. (NA?)

• Prioritize Bayesian methods for estimation over frequentist methods for hypothesis testing, as Bayesian methods offer more direct, intuitive, and informative results for understanding the magnitude and uncertainty of statistical effects. (NA?)

>> Sensitivity of Results to Prior Choices

• Carefully evaluate the suitability of your prior distributions using prior predictive checking to ensure alignment with the observed data, as the choice of priors can significantly affect the posterior estimates in Bayesian analysis. (Schoot et al. 2021)

• Carefully consider the relationship between your prior distribution and the likelihood function when conducting Bayesian analyses, as the choice of prior can significantly impact the results, especially in complex models with small effects or limited data. (Gelman 2017)

• Carefully consider your choice of prior distribution when performing Bayesian regression analysis, as it plays a crucial role in determining the posterior distribution of the parameters. (NA?)

• Carefully consider the choice of prior distribution and likelihood function in Bayesian analyses, and perform robustness checks to ensure that results are not unduly influenced by these choices. (NA?)

• Carefully consider your goals before choosing between Bayesian hypothesis testing and parameter estimation, and ensure that your chosen statistical model aligns with your research question and data characteristics. (NA?)

• Avoid selective reporting and p-hacking by transparently documenting all analytical decisions, including those made during the exploratory phase, and by acknowledging the limitations of statistical significance testing. (NA?)

>> Posterior Predictive Checks and Model Selection

• Adopt a comprehensive Bayesian workflow approach, incorporating model building, inference, model checking/improvement, and comparison of different models, to gain deeper insights into your data and avoid common pitfalls associated with traditional statistical methods. (Devezer et al. 2020)

• Carefully consider the trade-offs between simplicity and complexity when choosing a statistical method, particularly when dealing with complex computer models. The authors argue that while fully Bayesian analyses can offer greater insights, they may also be computationally expensive and require extensive domain knowledge to specify priors. On the other hand, simplified methods like Bayes Linear may be less precise but are more efficient and require less expert input. Therefore, researchers must balance the benefits and drawbacks of each approach depending on (Bower, Goldstein, and Vernon 2010)

• Utilize posterior predictive model checking to evaluate the fit of your models, comparing observed data to replications generated under the model, and visually inspecting plots of the data to identify patterns that do not generally appear in the replications, indicating potential misfits of the model to the data. (Gelman 2004b)

• Incorporate posterior predictive checks into your workflow, allowing them to compare your actual data to replicated data generated from your estimated model, thereby enabling a deeper understanding of model fit and opportunities for model improvement. (NA?)

>> Improving Bayesian Knowledge Tracing Models with Student-Specific Parameters

• Consider incorporating student-specific parameters into Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) models, particularly those related to the speed of learning, as doing so leads to improvements in predicting the data of unseen students. (“Artificial Intelligence in Education” 2013)

>> Modeling False Positives & Negatives Separately in Data Integration

• Model both false positives and false negatives separately when assessing source quality in data integration tasks, rather than relying solely on metrics such as precision or accuracy, which can fail to capture important differences in error patterns across sources. (Zhao et al. 2012)

>> Bayesian ANOVA vs Frequentist Methods

• Consider utilizing the Bayesian framework for data analysis due to its ability to incorporate prior information and provide more informative results compared to classical statistical approaches, especially when using tools like JASP that simplify the implementation process. (Marsman and Wagenmakers 2016)

• Utilize Bayes factors to evaluate evidence for or against hypotheses in ANOVA studies, allowing them to make statements about invariances instead of merely reporting the absence of evidence for an effect. (NA?)

• Consider using Bayesian ANOVA instead of traditional frequentist methods because it allows for simultaneous updating of beliefs about models and parameters, accounts for model uncertainty through Bayesian model averaging, makes direct probabilistic statements about parameters, and favors parsimony by automatically penalizing for complexity. (NA?)

>> Promoting User-Friendly Software for Transparent Bayesian Analytics

• Carefully consider the choice of statistical software tools, particularly those offering both frequentist and Bayesian methods, such as JASP, to ensure accurate and interpretable results. (Goss-Sampson 2022)

• Consider incorporating Bayesian methods into your workflow via user-friendly software like JASP, which enables transparent and reproducible statistical analyses while providing rich insights beyond traditional frequentist approaches. (Wagenmakers et al. 2017)

> Bayesian Methods Enhance Interpretations Across Various Research Contexts

>> Bayesian Methods Address Limitations of Frequentist Statistics

• Consider utilizing Bayesian methods in addition to traditional frequentist approaches, particularly when incorporating prior knowledge and making probabilistic statements about parameters is desirable, as Bayesian methods offer a coherent framework for updating beliefs in light of new data. (Austin, Brunner, and SM 2002)

• Consider utilizing Bayesian methods for analyzing epidemiologic data due to your ability to handle complex models, incorporate prior information, and provide interpretable results via posterior probabilities. (Dunson 2001)

• Consider using Bayesian methods, specifically the use of uniform priors, to estimate posterior probabilities and make intuitive inferential statements, especially in cases where traditional frequentist approaches may lead to misleading conclusions due to low statistical power or lack of clinical significance. (Burton, Gurrin, and Campbell 1998)

• Consider utilizing Bayesian statistical methods, particularly in cases involving complex data or sequential analyses, due to your ability to incorporate prior knowledge and provide intuitive probabilistic results, despite concerns around subjectivity in specifying priors. (Freedman 1996)

• Consider utilizing Bayesian methodologies in clinical trials to update knowledge as results accumulate, enabling efficient adaptation of trial parameters such as sample size, treatment arms, and randomization proportions, ultimately leading to improved patient care and more precise estimates of treatment effects. (NA?)

• Carefully consider the impact of your chosen study design on the interpretation of results, particularly in terms of the P-value, as changing the design can significantly alter the strength of evidence against the null hypothesis, even when the results remain the same. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Addresses Uncertainty & Prior Information

• Consider utilizing Bayesian methods for cost-effectiveness analysis, particularly when dealing with uncertainty, as they offer a more natural interpretation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and allow for the incorporation of prior information, while still maintaining the robustness of frequentist approaches. (Briggs 2001)

> Bayesian Philosophy and Limitations

>> Bayesian Belief Updating & Concerns on Convergence

• Be cautious about assuming Bayesian convergence to the truth, as it may not hold for typical sequences, leading to potential issues of overconfidence and arrogance in decision making. (Belot 2013)

• Adopt a Bayesian framework for measuring evidence, which involves interpreting degrees of belief as probabilities, updating beliefs through Bayesian conditionalization, and utilizing the Principal Principle to connect objective probabilities with rational degrees of belief. (Armendt 1980)

>> Cognitive Limits & Rational Violations of Temporal Conditioning

• Consider whether your subjects apparent violations of the joint principles of Temporal Conditionalization and Future Reflection are actually instances of rational behavior given the limitations of human cognitive abilities, rather than assuming that such violations necessarily indicate irrationality. (Talbott 1991)

>> Challenging Traditional Statistics with Dynamic Keynesian Models

• Be open to challenging established statistical methods and models, especially when they conflict with compelling philosophical arguments, and consider expanding your toolkit to incorporate alternative approaches, such as dynamic Keynesian models, that may better capture the complexity of real-world epistemological situations. (Weatherson 2007)

>> Bayesian Confirmation Measures & Probabilistic Screening-Off

• Be mindful of the potential impact of choosing one Bayesian confirmation measure over another when making inferences, as different measures may yield different results and thus affect the conclusions drawn from data. (Fitelson 1999)

• Pay close attention to the concept of “probabilistic screening-off” when evaluating the independence of evidence, as it provides a sufficient condition for two pieces of evidence to be mutually confirmationally independent regarding a hypothesis. (NA?)

Bayesian Approaches Enhance Data Analysis and Model Selection

> Bayesian Techniques Address Challenges in Geophysics & Cosmology

>> Bayesian Inference for Uniqueness Half in Geophysical Problems

• Carefully distinguish between the existence and uniqueness halves of a geophysical inverse problem, and ensure that your choice of regularization technique and damping parameter reflects this distinction. Specifically, the author argues that Bayesian inference is more appropriate for the uniqueness half of the problem, where incorporation of prior beliefs is essential, and that the choice of damping parameter should be based on a thorough examination of these prior beliefs. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Evidence Ratios and Model Selection

• Utilize Bayesian evidence ratios to assess the compatibility of multiple datasets, as it provides a principled and coherent framework for evaluating the relative plausibility of competing hypotheses regarding the underlying generative process. (Marshall, Rajguru, and Slosar 2006)

• Carefully consider the use of Bayesian model selection techniques when evaluating results with significance levels around two to four sigma, as these methods can sometimes contradict traditional number of sigmas approaches and provide a more nuanced understanding of the evidence. (Parkinson, Mukherjee, and Liddle 2006)

>> Bayesian Inference Optimizes Parameterizations & Weightings in Cosmology

• Carefully consider the choice of parameterization when analyzing cosmological data, as expanding the deceleration parameter \(q(z)\) rather than the jerk \(j(z)\) requires fewer assumptions and provides comparability with existing studies. (Elgarøy and Multamäki 2006)

>> Minimizing Biases vs Understanding Gravity for Cosmology

• Prioritize minimizing biases in your measurement methods, even at the cost of increased noise, as even small biases can significantly impact cosmological parameter estimation when averaging over a large number of galaxies. (Bridle et al. 2009)

> Bayesian Techniques Optimize Astronomy Research Design

>> Bayesian methods refine astronomical parameter estimation

• Incorporate prior knowledge through Bayesian inference when estimating photometric redshifts, allowing for more accurate and reliable results. (Benitez 2000)

>> Bayesian & Non-Parametric Methods Boost Astronomical Data Analysis

• Employ a Bayesian framework to accurately estimate hardness ratios in low-count regimes, incorporating the Poissonian nature of the observations and avoiding the pitfalls of traditional Gaussian error propagation methods. (Taeyoung Park et al. 2006)

>> Bayesian MCMC Algorithms Boost Stellar Evolution Models

• Consider using Bayesian methods, specifically Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms, to estimate the parameters of complex systems like stellar evolution models. By incorporating prior information and allowing for probabilistic inferences, MCMC methods offer improved efficiency and accuracy compared to traditional grid-based strategies, particularly when dealing with a larger number of parameters. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Optimization for Pulsar Timing Observations

• Carefully consider the choice of telescopes and backends when conducting pulsar timing observations, taking into account factors such as center frequency, bandwidth, polarization capabilities, and data processing techniques, in order to optimize the quality and reliability of the resulting data. (NA?)

> Image Alignment Techniques Mitigate Cosmic Ray Artifacts

>> Customized Source-Finding Parameters Filter Extended Sources

• Consider using separate source-finding parameters for input and reference images, along with new parameters to filter out extended sources and hot pixels, in order to improve the accuracy of image alignment in the presence of cosmic rays and other image artifacts. (Avila et al. 2014)

> Statistical Techniques Boost Particle Physics Research

>> Bayesian Statistics and Experimental Design in Particle Physics

• Prioritize the use of experimental data with full covariance matrices to ensure accurate and robust estimates of parton distribution functions (PDFs). (Ball et al. 2013)

• Consider employing a Bayesian approach to particle identification (PID) in high-energy physics experiments, as it allows for the combination of signals from multiple detectors and improves the accuracy of identifying particle types by incorporating prior knowledge of your expected abundances. (NA?)

> Bayesian Inference Applied to Particle Physics Models

>> Bayesian Priors Quantifying Fine-Tuning & Uncertainty Estimation

• Employ Bayesian naturalness priors to quantify fine-tuning in the (N)MSSM, as they arise automatically in Bayesian model comparison and generalize traditional measures such as the Barbieri-Giudice measure. (Kim et al. 2014)

Bayesian Methods Enhancing Reinforcement Learning Efficiency

> Multi-Agent Systems Optimizing Coordination through Novel Approaches

>> Sequential Decision Making & Cooperative Behavior in Negotiations

• Consider adopting a sequential decision making paradigm for studying negotiation, as it allows for modeling the iterative nature of inter-agent interactions, handling incomplete information, and supporting online incremental learning behavior. (“Complex Automated Negotiations: Theories, Models, and Software Competitions” 2013)

> Reinforcement Learning Optimizations via Data Selection & Algorithm Design

>> Optimizing Reinforcement Learning through Data Preprocessing & Technique Combinations

• Carefully select and preprocess your training data to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, specifically by focusing on periods of high price activity, which can lead to better performance of reinforcement learning algorithms in high frequency trading applications. (Briola et al. 2021)

> Bayesian Techniques Balancing Exploration and Exploitation

>> Optimizing Policy Selection with Bayesian Dynamic Programming

• Consider using Bayesian dynamic programming (BDP) for reinforcement learning tasks, as it enables goal-directed exploratory behavior without requiring heuristic design decisions, accurately represents all uncertainty, and guarantees accurate convergence. (NA?)

>> Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification for Informed Action Selection

• Approach inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) from a Bayesian perspective, treating the observed behavior of an expert as evidence to update your prior beliefs about the underlying reward function, rather than seeking a single “best” explanation for the behavior. (R. Wei et al. 2023)

• Consider incorporating a Bayesian approach to Q-learning, specifically by maintaining and propagating probability distributions over the Q-values, in order to compute a myopic approximation to the value of information for each action and thus select the action that best balances exploration and exploitation. (Che et al. 2022)

• Consider adopting a Bayesian approach to model-based reinforcement learning, allowing them to represent the posterior distribution over possible models given your past experience, and thereby quantifying your uncertainty as to what are the best actions to perform, ultimately improving the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. (Dearden, Friedman, and Andre 2013)

• Consider using a Bayesian sampling approach called BOSS (Best of Sampled Set) for reinforcement learning tasks, which involves maintaining a posterior distribution over models, sampling multiple models from this distribution, and taking actions optimistically based on the best performing sampled model. (Asmuth et al. 2012)

• Consider using a Bayesian approach to reinforcement learning, specifically the Bayesian Exploration Bonus (BEB) algorithm, which achieves near-optimal performance compared to the intractable Bayesian solution, with a lower sample complexity and greedier exploration strategy than traditional PAC-MDP algorithms. (Kolter and Ng 2009)

>> Bayesian Prior Knowledge Integration & Policy Optimization

• Consider using Bayesian methods in reinforcement learning to elegantly address the exploration/exploitation dilemma and incorporate prior knowledge into algorithms. (NA?)

• Consider using Bayesian optimization techniques to efficiently search for the best policy among a library of pre-trained policies, balancing exploration and exploitation, when faced with the challenge of rapidly responding to novel instances of tasks from a familiar domain. (NA?)

> Bayesian & Optimization Techniques for Robust RL

>> Bayesian Quadrature & Variance Reduction for Gradient Estimation

• Consider using Bayesian quadrature instead of traditional Monte Carlo methods when estimating gradients in reinforcement learning, as it enables more efficient and accurate estimation by incorporating prior knowledge and reducing the variance of the estimates. (Ghavamzadeh and Engel 2007)

References

Abeida, Habti, Qilin Zhang, Jian Li, and Nadjim Merabtine. 2013. “Iterative Sparse Asymptotic Minimum Variance Based Approaches for Array Processing.” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 61 (February). https://doi.org/10.1109/tsp.2012.2231676.

“Advanced Lectures on Machine Learning.” 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/b100712.

Ahn, Sungjin, Anoop Korattikara, and Max Welling. 2012. “Bayesian Posterior Sampling via Stochastic Gradient Fisher Scoring.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1206.6380.

Alquier, Pierre. 2021. “User-Friendly Introduction to PAC-Bayes Bounds.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2110.11216.

Armendt, Brad. 1980. “Is There a Dutch Book Argument for Probability Kinematics?” Philosophy of Science 47 (December). https://doi.org/10.1086/288958.

“Artificial Intelligence in Education.” 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5.

Arulampalam, M. S., S. Maskell, N. Gordon, and T. Clapp. 2002. “A Tutorial on Particle Filters for Online Nonlinear/Non-Gaussian Bayesian Tracking.” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 50. https://doi.org/10.1109/78.978374.

Ashby, Deborah. 2006. “Bayesian Statistics in Medicine: A 25 Year Review.” Statistics in Medicine 25 (August). https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2672.

Asmuth, John, Lihong Li, Michael L. Littman, Ali Nouri, and David Wingate. 2012. “A Bayesian Sampling Approach to Exploration in Reinforcement Learning.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1205.2664.

Aumann, Robert J. 1976. “Agreeing to Disagree.” The Annals of Statistics 4 (November). https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176343654.

Austin, Peter C., Lawrence J. Brunner, and Janet E. Hux MD SM. 2002. “Bayeswatch: An Overview of Bayesian Statistics.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 8 (May). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2002.00338.x.

Avila, Roberto J., Warren Hack, Mihai Cara, David Borncamp, Jennifer Mack, Linda Smith, and Leonardo Ubeda. 2014. “DrizzlePac 2.0 - Introducing New Features.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1411.5605.

Ba, Shan, and V. Roshan Joseph. 2012. “Composite Gaussian Process Models for Emulating Expensive Functions.” The Annals of Applied Statistics 6 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/12-aoas570.

Ball, Richard D., Valerio Bertone, Stefano Carrazza, Christopher S. Deans, Luigi Del Debbio, Stefano Forte, Alberto Guffanti, et al. 2013. “Parton Distributions with LHC Data.” Nuclear Physics B 867 (February). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003.

Banerjee, Arindam. 2006. “On Bayesian Bounds.” Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning - ICML ’06. https://doi.org/10.1145/1143844.1143855.

Bayarri, M. J., J. O. Berger, and F. Liu. 2009. “Modularization in Bayesian Analysis, with Emphasis on Analysis of Computer Models.” Bayesian Analysis 4 (March). https://doi.org/10.1214/09-ba404.

Beaumont, M. A., J.-M. Cornuet, J.-M. Marin, and C. P. Robert. 2009. “Adaptive Approximate Bayesian Computation.” Biometrika 96 (October). https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asp052.

Belot, Gordon. 2013. “Bayesian Orgulity.” Philosophy of Science 80 (October). https://doi.org/10.1086/673249.

Benitez, Narciso. 2000. “Bayesian Photometric Redshift Estimation.” The Astrophysical Journal 536 (June). https://doi.org/10.1086/308947.

Beraha, Mario, Alessandra Guglielmi, and Fernando A. Quintana. 2021. “The Semi-Hierarchical Dirichlet Process and Its Application to Clustering Homogeneous Distributions.” Bayesian Analysis 16 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1278.

Berger, James. 2006. “The Case for Objective Bayesian Analysis.” Bayesian Analysis 1 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/06-ba115.

Berger, James O., and Luis R. Pericchi. 2001. “Objective Bayesian Methods for Model Selection: Introduction and Comparison.” Institute of Mathematical Statistics Lecture Notes - Monograph Series. https://doi.org/10.1214/lnms/1215540968.

Bernardo, Jose M. 1979. “Reference Posterior Distributions for Bayesian Inference.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 41 (January). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1979.tb01066.x.

Beskos, Alexandros, Natesh S. Pillai, Gareth O. Roberts, Jesus M. Sanz-Serna, and Andrew M. Stuart. 2010. “Optimal Tuning of the Hybrid Monte-Carlo Algorithm.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1001.4460.

Betancourt, Michael. 2017. “A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1701.02434.

Bijak, Jakub, and John Bryant. 2016. “Bayesian Demography 250 Years After Bayes.” Population Studies 70 (January). https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2015.1122826.

Bishop, Christopher M., and Markus Svensen. 2012. “Bayesian Hierarchical Mixtures of Experts.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1212.2447.

Blasco, A. 2001. “The Bayesian Controversy in Animal Breeding.” Journal of Animal Science 79. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7982023x.

Blundell, Charles, Yee Whye Teh, and Katherine A. Heller. 2012. “Bayesian Rose Trees.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1203.3468.

Bottou, Léon, Frank E. Curtis, and Jorge Nocedal. 2016. “Optimization Methods for Large-Scale Machine Learning.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1606.04838.

Bourgault, F., T. Furukawa, and H. F. Durrant-Whyte. n.d. “Coordinated Decentralized Search for a Lost Target in a Bayesian World.” Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No.03CH37453). https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.2003.1250604.

Bower, Richard G., Michael Goldstein, and Ian Vernon. 2010. “Rejoinder.” Bayesian Analysis 5 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/10-ba524rej.

Box, George E. P., and George C. Tiao. 1992. “Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis,” April. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118033197.

Bradley, Jonathan R. 2022. “Joint Bayesian Analysis of Multiple Response-Types Using the Hierarchical Generalized Transformation Model.” Bayesian Analysis 17 (March). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-ba1246.

Bridle, Sarah, Mandeep Gill, Alan Heavens, Catherine Heymans, F. William High, Henk Hoekstra, Mike Jarvis, et al. 2009. “Handbook for the GREAT08 Challenge: An Image Analysis Competition for Cosmological Lensing.” The Annals of Applied Statistics 3 (March). https://doi.org/10.1214/08-aoas222.

Briggs, Andrew H. 2001. “A BAYESIAN APPROACH TO STOCHASTIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS.” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 17 (January). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462301104071.

Briola, Antonio, Jeremy Turiel, Riccardo Marcaccioli, Alvaro Cauderan, and Tomaso Aste. 2021. “Deep Reinforcement Learning for Active High Frequency Trading.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2101.07107.

Buchholz, Alexander, Nicolas Chopin, and Pierre E. Jacob. 2021. “Adaptive Tuning of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Within Sequential Monte Carlo.” Bayesian Analysis 16 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-ba1222.

Buntine, Wray L. 2013. “Theory Refinement on Bayesian Networks.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1303.5709.

Bürkner, Paul-Christian, Jonah Gabry, and Aki Vehtari. 2020. “Approximate Leave-Future-Out Cross-Validation for Bayesian Time Series Models.” Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 90 (June). https://doi.org/10.1080/00949655.2020.1783262.

Burton, P. R., L. C. Gurrin, and M. J. Campbell. 1998. “Clinical Significance Not Statistical Significance: A Simple Bayesian Alternative to p Values.” Journal of Epidemiology &Amp; Community Health 52 (May). https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.5.318.

Caldwell, Allen, Daniel Kollár, and Kevin Kröninger. 2009. “BAT – the Bayesian Analysis Toolkit.” Computer Physics Communications 180 (November). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.06.026.

Carvalho, Luiz M., Daniel A. M. Villela, Flavio C. Coelho, and Leonardo S. Bastos. 2023. “Bayesian Inference for the Weights in Logarithmic Pooling.” Bayesian Analysis 18 (March). https://doi.org/10.1214/22-ba1311.

Chakraborty, Sounak, Scott Holan, and Tucker McElroy. 2009. “A Bayesian Approach to Estimating the Long Memory Parameter.” Bayesian Analysis 4 (March). https://doi.org/10.1214/09-ba406.

Chaloner, Kathryn, and Isabella Verdinelli. 1995. “Bayesian Experimental Design: A Review.” Statistical Science 10 (August). https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177009939.

Chater, Nick, Mike Oaksford, Ulrike Hahn, and Evan Heit. 2010. “Bayesian Models of Cognition.” WIREs Cognitive Science 1 (May). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.79.

Che, Fengdi, Xiru Zhu, Doina Precup, David Meger, and Gregory Dudek. 2022. “Bayesian q-Learning with Imperfect Expert Demonstrations.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2210.01800.

Chen, J., and Z. Chen. 2008. “Extended Bayesian Information Criteria for Model Selection with Large Model Spaces.” Biometrika 95 (September). https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asn034.

Chen, Ming-Hui, and Qi-Man Shao. 1999. “Monte Carlo Estimation of Bayesian Credible and HPD Intervals.” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 8 (March). https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.1999.10474802.

Chipman, Hugh A., Edward I. George, and Robert E. McCulloch. 2007. “Bayesian Ensemble Learning.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19, September. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7503.003.0038.

Chipman, Hugh A., Edward I. George, Robert E. McCulloch, and Thomas S. Shively. 2022. “mBART: Multidimensional Monotone BART.” Bayesian Analysis 17 (June). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1259.

Chipman, Hugh A., Eric D. Kolaczyk, and Robert E. McCulloch. 1997. “Adaptive Bayesian Wavelet Shrinkage.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 92 (December). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1997.10473662.

Chipman, Hugh, Edward I. George, and Robert E. McCulloch. 2001. “The Practical Implementation of Bayesian Model Selection.” Institute of Mathematical Statistics Lecture Notes - Monograph Series. https://doi.org/10.1214/lnms/1215540964.

Choudalakis, Georgios. 2012. “Fully Bayesian Unfolding.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1201.4612.

Christensen, Dennis. 2024. “Inference for Bayesian Nonparametric Models with Binary Response Data via Permutation Counting.” Bayesian Analysis 19 (March). https://doi.org/10.1214/22-ba1353.

Christensen, Ronald, Wesley Johnson, Adam Branscum, and Timothy E Hanson. 2010. “Bayesian Ideas and Data Analysis,” July. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781439894798.

Chung, Yeojin, Sophia Rabe-Hesketh, Vincent Dorie, Andrew Gelman, and Jingchen Liu. 2013. “A Nondegenerate Penalized Likelihood Estimator for Variance Parameters in Multilevel Models.” Psychometrika 78 (March). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9328-2.

“Complex Automated Negotiations: Theories, Models, and Software Competitions.” 2013. Studies in Computational Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30737-9.

Cook, Samantha R, Andrew Gelman, and Donald B Rubin. 2006. “Validation of Software for Bayesian Models Using Posterior Quantiles.” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15 (September). https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006x136976.

Cooke, Emma J, Richard S Savage, Paul DW Kirk, Robert Darkins, and David L Wild. 2011. “Bayesian Hierarchical Clustering for Microarray Time Series Data with Replicates and Outlier Measurements.” BMC Bioinformatics 12 (October). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-399.

Cox, R. T. 1946. “Probability, Frequency and Reasonable Expectation.” American Journal of Physics 14 (January). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1990764.

Craiu, Radu V., Ruobin Gong, and Xiao-Li Meng. 2023. “Six Statistical Senses.” Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 10 (March). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040220-015348.

Cremaschi, Andrea, Raffaele Argiento, Maria De Iorio, Cai Shirong, Yap Seng Chong, Michael Meaney, and Michelle Kee. 2023. “Seemingly Unrelated Multi-State Processes: A Bayesian Semiparametric Approach.” Bayesian Analysis 18 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/22-ba1326.

Crispino, Marta, and Isadora Antoniano-Villalobos. 2023. “Informative Priors for the Consensus Ranking in the Bayesian Mallows Model.” Bayesian Analysis 18 (June). https://doi.org/10.1214/22-ba1307.

Cui, Tianyu, Aki Havulinna, Pekka Marttinen, and Samuel Kaski. 2022. “Informative Bayesian Neural Network Priors for Weak Signals.” Bayesian Analysis 17 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1291.

D’Agostini, G. 2010. “Improved Iterative Bayesian Unfolding.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1010.0632.

Dashti, Masoumeh, and Andrew M. Stuart. 2013. “The Bayesian Approach to Inverse Problems.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1302.6989.

Dawid, A. P. 1982. “The Well-Calibrated Bayesian.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 77 (September). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1982.10477856.

DAWSON, KEVIN J., and KHALID BELKHIR. 2001. “A Bayesian Approach to the Identification of Panmictic Populations and the Assignment of Individuals.” Genetical Research 78 (August). https://doi.org/10.1017/s001667230100502x.

Dearden, Richard, Nir Friedman, and David Andre. 2013. “Model-Based Bayesian Exploration.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1301.6690.

Demirtas, Hakan. 2017. “Bayesian Computation with <i>r</i> (2nd Edition).” Journal of Statistical Software 79. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v079.b01.

Denison, D. G. T., and C. C. Holmes. 2001. “Bayesian Partitioning for Estimating Disease Risk.” Biometrics 57 (March). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00143.x.

Devezer, Berna, Danielle J. Navarro, Joachim Vandekerckhove, and Erkan Ozge Buzbas. 2020. “The Case for Formal Methodology in Scientific Reform,” April. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.26.048306.

Diebold, Francis X., Lee L. Ohanian, and Jeremy Berkowitz. 1998. “Dynamic Equilibrium Economies: A Framework for Comparing Models and Data.” Review of Economic Studies 65 (July). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937x.00052.

Doucet, Arnaud, Simon Godsill, and Christophe Andrieu. 2000. Statistics and Computing 10. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008935410038.

Drovandi, Christopher, Richard G. Everitt, Andrew Golightly, and Dennis Prangle. 2022. “Ensemble MCMC: Accelerating Pseudo-Marginal MCMC for State Space Models Using the Ensemble Kalman Filter.” Bayesian Analysis 17 (March). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-ba1251.

Duda, Richard O., Peter E. Hart, and Nils J. Nilsson. 1976. “Subjective Bayesian Methods for Rule-Based Inference Systems.” Proceedings of the June 7-10, 1976, National Computer Conference and Exposition on - AFIPS ’76. https://doi.org/10.1145/1499799.1499948.

Dunson, D. B. 2001. “Commentary: Practical Advantages of Bayesian Analysis of Epidemiologic Data.” American Journal of Epidemiology 153 (June). https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/153.12.1222.

Edwards, Ward, Harold Lindman, and Leonard J. Savage. 1963. “Bayesian Statistical Inference for Psychological Research.” Psychological Review 70 (May). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044139.

Elgarøy, Ø, and T Multamäki. 2006. “Bayesian Analysis of Friedmannless Cosmologies.” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2006 (September). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2006/09/002.

Erven, Tim van, and Botond Szabó. 2021. “Fast Exact Bayesian Inference for Sparse Signals in the Normal Sequence Model.” Bayesian Analysis 16 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-ba1227.

Escobar, Michael D., and Mike West. 1995. “Bayesian Density Estimation and Inference Using Mixtures.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 90 (June). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476550.

Faul, Anita C., and Michael E. Tipping. 2002. “Analysis of Sparse Bayesian Learning.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14, November. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1120.003.0054.

Favaro, S., A. Lijoi, C. Nava, B. Nipoti, I. Prünster, and Y. W. Teh. 2016. “On the Stick-Breaking Representation for Homogeneous NRMIs.” Bayesian Analysis 11 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/15-ba964.

Feldman, Joseph, and Daniel Kowal. 2023. “Bayesian Quantile Regression with Subset Selection: A Posterior Summarization Perspective.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2311.02043.

Fernández, Carmen, and Mark F. J. Steel. 1998. “On Bayesian Modeling of Fat Tails and Skewness.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 93 (March). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1998.10474117.

Fischhoff, Baruch, and Ruth Beyth-Marom. 1983. “Hypothesis Evaluation from a Bayesian Perspective.” Psychological Review 90 (July). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.90.3.239.

Fitelson, Branden. 1999. “The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity.” Philosophy of Science 66. https://doi.org/10.1086/392738.

Foresee, F. Dan, and M. T. Hagan. n.d. “Gauss-Newton Approximation to Bayesian Learning.” Proceedings of International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN’97). https://doi.org/10.1109/icnn.1997.614194.

Fox, D., J. Hightower, Lin Liao, D. Schulz, and G. Borriello. 2003. “Bayesian Filtering for Location Estimation.” IEEE Pervasive Computing 2 (July). https://doi.org/10.1109/mprv.2003.1228524.

Fox, Emily B., Erik B. Sudderth, Michael I. Jordan, and Alan S. Willsky. 2011. “A Sticky HDP-HMM with Application to Speaker Diarization.” The Annals of Applied Statistics 5 (June). https://doi.org/10.1214/10-aoas395.

Freedman, L. 1996. “Bayesian Statistical Methods.” BMJ 313 (September). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7057.569.

Frühwirth-Schnatter, Sylvia, Gertraud Malsiner-Walli, and Bettina Grün. 2021. “Generalized Mixtures of Finite Mixtures and Telescoping Sampling.” Bayesian Analysis 16 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1294.

Gabry, Jonah, Daniel Simpson, Aki Vehtari, Michael Betancourt, and Andrew Gelman. 2019. “Visualization in Bayesian Workflow.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society 182 (January). https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12378.

Gao, G., M. Zafari, and A. C. Reynolds. 2005. “Quantifying Uncertainty for the PUNQ-S3 Problem in a Bayesian Setting with RML and EnKF.” All Days, January. https://doi.org/10.2118/93324-ms.

Gelman, Andrew. 2004a. “Parameterization and Bayesian Modeling.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 99 (June). https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000000458.

———. 2004b. “Exploratory Data Analysis for Complex Models.” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 13 (December). https://doi.org/10.1198/106186004x11435.

———. 2006. “Prior Distributions for Variance Parameters in Hierarchical Models (Comment on Article by Browne and Draper).” Bayesian Analysis 1 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/06-ba117a.

———. 2008. “Objections to Bayesian Statistics.” Bayesian Analysis 3 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/08-ba318.

———. 2013. “Two Simple Examples for Understanding Posterior p-Values Whose Distributions Are Far from Uniform.” Electronic Journal of Statistics 7 (January). https://doi.org/10.1214/13-ejs854.

———. 2017. “The Failure of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing When Studying Incremental Changes, and What to Do about It.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44 (September). https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217729162.

Gelman, Andrew, Jessica Hwang, and Aki Vehtari. 2013. “Understanding Predictive Information Criteria for Bayesian Models.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1307.5928.

Gelman, Andrew, and Xiao-Li Meng. 1998. “Simulating Normalizing Constants: From Importance Sampling to Bridge Sampling to Path Sampling.” Statistical Science 13 (May). https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1028905934.

Gelman, Andrew, and Donald B Rubin. 1996. “Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods in Biostatistics.” Statistical Methods in Medical Research 5 (December). https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029600500402.

Gershman, Samuel J., and David M. Blei. 2011. “A Tutorial on Bayesian Nonparametric Models.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1106.2697.

Geweke, J. 1993. “Bayesian Treatment of the Independent Student-t Linear Model.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 8 (December). https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.3950080504.

Geweke, John. 1989. “Bayesian Inference in Econometric Models Using Monte Carlo Integration.” Econometrica 57 (November). https://doi.org/10.2307/1913710.

———. 1994. “Bayesian Comparison of Econometric Models,” July. https://doi.org/10.21034/wp.532.

———. 1999. “Using Simulation Methods for Bayesian Econometric Models: Inference, Development,and Communication.” Econometric Reviews 18 (January). https://doi.org/10.1080/07474939908800428.

———. 2005. “Contemporary Bayesian Econometrics and Statistics.” Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, September. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471744735.

Geweke, John, and Gianni Amisano. 2008. “Comparing and Evaluating Bayesian Predictive Distributions of Asset Returns.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1299538.

Geweke, John, and Charles Whiteman. 2006. “Chapter 1 Bayesian Forecasting.” Handbook of Economic Forecasting. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1574-0706(05)01001-3.

Ghavamzadeh, Mohammad, and Yaakov Engel. 2007. “Bayesian Policy Gradient Algorithms.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19, September. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7503.003.0062.

Gilson, Marion, and Paul Van den Hof. 2005. “Instrumental Variable Methods for Closed-Loop System Identification.” Automatica 41 (February). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2004.09.016.

Giordano, Ryan, Runjing Liu, Michael I. Jordan, and Tamara Broderick. 2023. “Evaluating Sensitivity to the Stick-Breaking Prior in Bayesian Nonparametrics (with Discussion).” Bayesian Analysis 18 (March). https://doi.org/10.1214/22-ba1309.

Gneiting, Tilmann, and Adrian E Raftery. 2007. “Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 102 (March). https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000001437.

Goldstein, Michael. 2006. “Subjective Bayesian Analysis: Principles and Practice.” Bayesian Analysis 1 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/06-ba116.

Goss-Sampson, Mark. 2022. “New Bayesian Guide.” Open Science Framework, August. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CKNXM.

Gramacy, Robert B., and Herbert K. H. Lee. 2007. “Bayesian Treed Gaussian Process Models with an Application to Computer Modeling.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.0710.4536.

Grazzini, Jakob, Matteo G. Richiardi, and Mike Tsionas. 2017. “Bayesian Estimation of Agent-Based Models.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 77 (April). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2017.01.014.

Greenberg, Edward. 2012. “Introduction to Bayesian Econometrics,” November. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139058414.

Greenland, Sander. 2006. “Bayesian Perspectives for Epidemiological Research: I. Foundations and Basic Methods.” International Journal of Epidemiology 35 (January). https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyi312.

Griffin, Jim E., and Mark F. J. Steel. 2007. “Bayesian Stochastic Frontier Analysis Using WinBUGS.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 27 (April). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-007-0033-y.

Gu, Mengyang, and Hanmo Li. 2022. “Gaussian Orthogonal Latent Factor Processes for Large Incomplete Matrices of Correlated Data.” Bayesian Analysis 17 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1295.

Hamura, Yasuyuki, Kaoru Irie, and Shonosuke Sugasawa. 2022. “On Global-Local Shrinkage Priors for Count Data.” Bayesian Analysis 17 (June). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1263.

Hand, David J., and Keming Yu. 2001. “Idiot’s Bayes: Not so Stupid After All?” International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique 69 (December). https://doi.org/10.2307/1403452.

Hankin, Robin K. S. 2005. “Introducing<b>BACCO</b>, an<i>r</i>bundle for Bayesian Analysis of Computer Code Output.” Journal of Statistical Software 14. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v014.i16.

Hanson, Kenneth M. 1993. “&Lt;title&gt;introduction to Bayesian Image Analysis&lt;/Title&gt;” SPIE Proceedings, September. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.154577.

Haslett, J., M. Whiley, S. Bhattacharya, M. Salter-Townshend, Simon P. Wilson, J. R. M. Allen, B. Huntley, and F. J. G. Mitchell. 2006. “Bayesian Palaeoclimate Reconstruction.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society 169 (June). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985x.2006.00429.x.

Hattis, Dale, and David E. Burmaster. 1994. “Assessment of Variability and Uncertainty Distributions for Practical Risk Analyses.” Risk Analysis 14 (October). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00282.x.

Ho, Y., and R. Lee. 1964. “A Bayesian Approach to Problems in Stochastic Estimation and Control.” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 9 (October). https://doi.org/10.1109/tac.1964.1105763.

Hobert, James P. 2011. “The Data Augmentation Algorithm: Theory and Methodology.” Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo, May. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10905-11.

Hoff, Peter D. 2009. “A First Course in Bayesian Statistical Methods.” Springer Texts in Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-92407-6.

Hrafnkelsson, Birgir, Stefan Siegert, Raphaël Huser, Haakon Bakka, and Árni V. Jóhannesson. 2021. “Max-and-Smooth: A Two-Step Approach for Approximate Bayesian Inference in Latent Gaussian Models.” Bayesian Analysis 16 (June). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-ba1219.

Huber, Joel, and Kenneth Train. 2001. Marketing Letters 12. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011120928698.

Iba, Yukito. 1999. “The Nishimori Line and Bayesian Statistics.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 32 (January). https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/32/21/302.

Imai, Kosuke, and David A. van Dyk. 2005a. “<B>MNP</b>:<i>r</i>package for Fitting the Multinomial Probit Model.” Journal of Statistical Software 14. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v014.i03.

———. 2005b. “A Bayesian Analysis of the Multinomial Probit Model Using Marginal Data Augmentation.” Journal of Econometrics 124 (February). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.02.002.

“Independent Component Analysis and Signal Separation.” 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00599-2.

“Introduction to Applied Bayesian Statistics and Estimation for Social Scientists.” 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71265-9.

Ioffe, Sergey, and Christian Szegedy. 2015. “Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1502.03167.

Jackman, Simon. 2009. “Bayesian Analysis for the Social Sciences.” Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, October. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470686621.

Järvenpää, Marko, Michael U. Gutmann, Aki Vehtari, and Pekka Marttinen. 2018. “Gaussian Process Modelling in Approximate Bayesian Computation to Estimate Horizontal Gene Transfer in Bacteria.” The Annals of Applied Statistics 12 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/18-aoas1150.

Johnson, Valen E. 2004. “A Bayesian Χ2 Test for Goodness-of-Fit.” The Annals of Statistics 32 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/009053604000000616.

Karmakar, Sayar, and Arkaprava Roy. 2021. “Bayesian Modelling of Time-Varying Conditional Heteroscedasticity.” Bayesian Analysis 16 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1267.

Kass, Robert E., Bradley P. Carlin, Andrew Gelman, and Radford M. Neal. 1998. “Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice: A Roundtable Discussion.” The American Statistician 52 (May). https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1998.10480547.

Kim, Doyoun, Peter Athron, Csaba Balázs, Benjamin Farmer, and Elliot Hutchison. 2014. “Bayesian Naturalness of the CMSSM and CNMSSM.” Physical Review D 90 (September). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.90.055008.

Kliemann, Wolfgang. 1987. “Recurrence and Invariant Measures for Degenerate Diffusions.” The Annals of Probability 15 (April). https://doi.org/10.1214/aop/1176992166.

Knuth, Kevin H., Michael Habeck, Nabin K. Malakar, Asim M. Mubeen, and Ben Placek. 2015. “Bayesian Evidence and Model Selection.” Digital Signal Processing 47 (December). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsp.2015.06.012.

Kolter, J. Zico, and Andrew Y. Ng. 2009. “Near-Bayesian Exploration in Polynomial Time.” Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, June. https://doi.org/10.1145/1553374.1553441.

Korattikara, Anoop, Vivek Rathod, Kevin Murphy, and Max Welling. 2015. “Bayesian Dark Knowledge.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1506.04416.

Kreif, Noémi, Richard Grieve, Dominik Hangartner, Alex James Turner, Silviya Nikolova, and Matt Sutton. 2015. “Examination of the Synthetic Control Method for Evaluating Health Policies with Multiple Treated Units.” Health Economics 25 (October). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3258.

Kruschke, John K. 2010. “What to Believe: Bayesian Methods for Data Analysis.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14 (July). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.001.

Kulis, Brian, and Michael I. Jordan. 2011. “Revisiting k-Means: New Algorithms via Bayesian Nonparametrics.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1111.0352.

Kumar, Ravin, Colin Carroll, Ari Hartikainen, and Osvaldo Martin. 2019. “ArviZ a Unified Library for Exploratory Analysis of Bayesian Models in Python.” Journal of Open Source Software 4 (January). https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01143.

Lavine, Michael, and Mike West. 1992. “A Bayesian Method for Classification and Discrimination.” Canadian Journal of Statistics 20 (December). https://doi.org/10.2307/3315614.

Lee, Michael D., and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers. 2014. “Bayesian Cognitive Modeling,” April. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139087759.

Lee, Sik-Yum. 1981. “A Bayesian Approach to Confirmatory Factor Analysis.” Psychometrika 46 (June). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02293896.

Levi, Evgeny, and Radu V. Craiu. 2022. “Finding Our Way in the Dark: Approximate MCMC for Approximate Bayesian Methods.” Bayesian Analysis 17 (March). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-ba1250.

Lewis, John R., Steven N. MacEachern, and Yoonkyung Lee. 2021. “Bayesian Restricted Likelihood Methods: Conditioning on Insufficient Statistics in Bayesian Regression (with Discussion).” Bayesian Analysis 16 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1257.

Linero, Antonio R., Piyali Basak, Yinpu Li, and Debajyoti Sinha. 2022. “Bayesian Survival Tree Ensembles with Submodel Shrinkage.” Bayesian Analysis 17 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1285.

Loredo, Thomas J. 2004. “Bayesian Adaptive Exploration.” AIP Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1751377.

Lu, Haolan, and Bradley P. Carlin. 2005. “Bayesian Areal Wombling for Geographical Boundary Analysis.” Geographical Analysis 37 (July). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.2005.00624.x.

MacKay, David J. C. 1992a. “Bayesian Methods for Adaptive Models.” https://doi.org/10.7907/H3A1-WM07.

———. 1992b. “A Practical Bayesian Framework for Backpropagation Networks.” Neural Computation 4 (May). https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1992.4.3.448.

Maddison, Chris J. 2016. “A Poisson Process Model for Monte Carlo.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1602.05986.

Manderson, Andrew A., and Robert J. B. Goudie. 2023. “Combining Chains of Bayesian Models with Markov Melding.” Bayesian Analysis 18 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/22-ba1327.

Marin, J. -M., N. Pillai, C. P. Robert, and J. Rousseau. 2011. “Relevant Statistics for Bayesian Model Choice.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1110.4700.

Marin, Jean-Michel, Pierre Pudlo, Christian P. Robert, and Robin Ryder. 2011. “Approximate Bayesian Computational Methods.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1101.0955.

Marin, Jean-Michel, and Christian P. Robert. 2008. “On Some Difficulties with a Posterior Probability Approximation Technique.” Bayesian Analysis 3 (June). https://doi.org/10.1214/08-ba316.

Marmin, Sébastien, and Maurizio Filippone. 2022. “Deep Gaussian Processes for Calibration of Computer Models (with Discussion).” Bayesian Analysis 17 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1293.

Marshall, Phil, Nutan Rajguru, and Anže Slosar. 2006. “Bayesian Evidence as a Tool for Comparing Datasets.” Physical Review D 73 (March). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.73.067302.

Marsman, Maarten, and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers. 2016. “Bayesian Benefits with JASP.” European Journal of Developmental Psychology 14 (December). https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1259614.

Mathys, Christoph. 2011. “A Bayesian Foundation for Individual Learning Under Uncertainty.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00039.

Mattei, Pierre-Alexandre. 2019. “A Parsimonious Tour of Bayesian Model Uncertainty.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1902.05539.

“Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods.” 1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5430-7.

Meng, Xiao-Li. 1994. “Multiple-Imputation Inferences with Uncongenial Sources of Input.” Statistical Science 9 (November). https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177010269.

Modrák, Martin, Angie H. Moon, Shinyoung Kim, Paul Bürkner, Niko Huurre, Kateřina Faltejsková, Andrew Gelman, and Aki Vehtari. 2023. “Simulation-Based Calibration Checking for Bayesian Computation: The Choice of Test Quantities Shapes Sensitivity.” Bayesian Analysis -1 (January). https://doi.org/10.1214/23-ba1404.

Moins, Théo, Julyan Arbel, Anne Dutfoy, and Stéphane Girard. 2023. “On the Use of a Local Rˆ to Improve MCMC Convergence Diagnostic.” Bayesian Analysis -1 (January). https://doi.org/10.1214/23-ba1399.

Moran, Gemma E., John P. Cunningham, and David M. Blei. 2023. “The Posterior Predictive Null.” Bayesian Analysis 18 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/22-ba1313.

Moselhy, Tarek A. El, and Youssef M. Marzouk. 2012. “Bayesian Inference with Optimal Maps.” Journal of Computational Physics 231 (October). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2012.07.022.

Müller, Peter, and David Rios Insua. 1998. “Issues in Bayesian Analysis of Neural Network Models.” Neural Computation 10 (April). https://doi.org/10.1162/089976698300017737.

Müller, Peter, Fernando Andres Quintana, Alejandro Jara, and Tim Hanson. 2015. “Bayesian Nonparametric Data Analysis.” Springer Series in Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18968-0.

Myerscough, Keith, Jason Frank, and Benedict Leimkuhler. 2014. “Least-Biased Correction of Extended Dynamical Systems Using Observational Data.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1411.6011.

Neal, Radford M. 2003. “Slice Sampling.” The Annals of Statistics 31 (June). https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1056562461.

Nelson, Jonathan D. 2005. “Finding Useful Questions: On Bayesian Diagnosticity, Probability, Impact, and Information Gain.” Psychological Review 112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.112.4.979.

Ng, Johan Y. Y., Nikos Ntoumanis, Cecilie Thøgersen‐Ntoumani, Kyle Stott, and Linda Hindle. 2013. “Predicting Psychological Needs and Well‐being of Individuals Engaging in Weight Management: The Role of Important Others.” Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 5 (May). https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12011.

Nounou, Mohamed N., Bhavik R. Bakshi, Prem K. Goel, and Xiaotong Shen. 2002. “Bayesian Principal Component Analysis.” Journal of Chemometrics 16 (October). https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.759.

Nowak, W., F. P. J. de Barros, and Y. Rubin. 2010. “Bayesian Geostatistical Design: Task‐driven Optimal Site Investigation When the Geostatistical Model Is Uncertain.” Water Resources Research 46 (March). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009wr008312.

Oh, Hyun-Jung, Ana Muriel, Hari Balasubramanian, Katherine Atkinson, and Thomas Ptaszkiewicz. 2013. “Guidelines for Scheduling in Primary Care Under Different Patient Types and Stochastic Nurse and Provider Service Times.” IIE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering 3 (October). https://doi.org/10.1080/19488300.2013.858379.

Opper, Manfred. 1999. “A Bayesian Approach to on-Line Learning.” On-Line Learning in Neural Networks, January. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511569920.017.

Owhadi, Houman. 2015. “Bayesian Numerical Homogenization.” Multiscale Modeling &Amp; Simulation 13 (January). https://doi.org/10.1137/140974596.

Papageorgiou, Ioannis, and Ioannis Kontoyiannis. 2023. “Posterior Representations for Bayesian Context Trees: Sampling, Estimation and Convergence.” Bayesian Analysis -1 (January). https://doi.org/10.1214/23-ba1362.

Parent, Eric, and Etienne Rivot. 2012. “Introduction to Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling for Ecological Data,” August. https://doi.org/10.1201/b12501.

Park, Taeyoung, Vinay L. Kashyap, Aneta Siemiginowska, David A. van Dyk, Andreas Zezas, Craig Heinke, and Bradford J. Wargelin. 2006. “Bayesian Estimation of Hardness Ratios: Modeling and Computations.” The Astrophysical Journal 652 (November). https://doi.org/10.1086/507406.

Park, Trevor, and George Casella. 2008. “The Bayesian Lasso.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 103 (June). https://doi.org/10.1198/016214508000000337.

Parkinson, David, Pia Mukherjee, and Andrew R. Liddle. 2006. “Bayesian Model Selection Analysis of WMAP3.” Physical Review D 73 (June). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.73.123523.

Perman, Mihael, Jim Pitman, and Marc Yor. 1992. “Size-Biased Sampling of Poisson Point Processes and Excursions.” Probability Theory and Related Fields 92 (March). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01205234.

Pitman, Jim. 1995. “Exchangeable and Partially Exchangeable Random Partitions.” Probability Theory and Related Fields 102 (June). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01213386.

Plerou, Vasiliki, Parameswaran Gopikrishnan, Luís A. Nunes Amaral, Martin Meyer, and H. Eugene Stanley. 1999. “Scaling of the Distribution of Price Fluctuations of Individual Companies.” Physical Review E 60 (December). https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.60.6519.

Plummer, Martyn. 2023. “Simulation-Based Bayesian Analysis.” Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 10 (March). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-122121-040905.

Polson, Nicholas G., James G. Scott, and Jesse Windle. 2011. “The Bayesian Bridge.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1109.2279.

Polzehl, Jörg, and Vladimir Spokoiny. 2005. “Propagation-Separation Approach for Local Likelihood Estimation.” Probability Theory and Related Fields 135 (September). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00440-005-0464-1.

Ponte, Jay M., and W. Bruce Croft. 1998. “A Language Modeling Approach to Information Retrieval.” Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, August. https://doi.org/10.1145/290941.291008.

Poole, David, and Adrian E. Raftery. 2000. “Inference for Deterministic Simulation Models: The Bayesian Melding Approach.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 95 (December). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10474324.

Porter, Erica M., Christopher T. Franck, and Marco A. R. Ferreira. 2023. “Objective Bayesian Model Selection for Spatial Hierarchical Models with Intrinsic Conditional Autoregressive Priors.” Bayesian Analysis -1 (January). https://doi.org/10.1214/23-ba1375.

Pourzanjani, Arya A., Richard M. Jiang, Brian Mitchell, Paul J. Atzberger, and Linda R. Petzold. 2021. “Bayesian Inference over the Stiefel Manifold via the Givens Representation.” Bayesian Analysis 16 (June). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-ba1202.

Qian, Peter Z. G., and C. F. Jeff Wu. 2008. “Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling for Integrating Low-Accuracy and High-Accuracy Experiments.” Technometrics 50 (May). https://doi.org/10.1198/004017008000000082.

Qian, Song S., Craig A. Stow, and Mark E. Borsuk. 2003. “On Monte Carlo Methods for Bayesian Inference.” Ecological Modelling 159 (January). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3800(02)00299-5.

Quiroz, Matias, David J. Nott, and Robert Kohn. 2023. “Gaussian Variational Approximations for High-Dimensional State Space Models.” Bayesian Analysis 18 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/22-ba1332.

Ramsey, Christopher Bronk. 2009. “Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates.” Radiocarbon 51. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033822200033865.

Richardson, Sylvia., and Peter J. Green. 1997. “On Bayesian Analysis of Mixtures with an Unknown Number of Components (with Discussion).” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 59 (November). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00095.

Robert, Christian P., and Wu Changye. 2020. “Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods, a Survey with Some Frequent Misunderstandings.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2001.06249.

Robins, James M., Aad van der Vaart, and Valerie Ventura. 2000. “Asymptotic Distribution of p Values in Composite Null Models.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 95 (December). https://doi.org/10.2307/2669750.

Rodríguez-Hernández, Gabriela, Galileo Domínguez-Zacarías, and Carlos Juárez Lugo. 2016. “Bayesian Posterior Predictive Probability Happiness.” Applied Mathematics 07. https://doi.org/10.4236/am.2016.78068.

Rossi, Peter E., and Greg M. Allenby. 2003. “Bayesian Statistics and Marketing.” Marketing Science 22 (August). https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.22.3.304.17739.

Rossi, V., and J.-P. Vila. 2006. “Bayesian Multioutput Feedforward Neural Networks Comparison: A Conjugate Prior Approach.” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 17 (January). https://doi.org/10.1109/tnn.2005.860883.

Sachs, Matthias, Deborshee Sen, Jianfeng Lu, and David Dunson. 2023. “Posterior Computation with the Gibbs Zig-Zag Sampler.” Bayesian Analysis 18 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/22-ba1319.

Särkkä, Simo. 2013. “Bayesian Filtering and Smoothing,” September. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139344203.

Schoot, Rens van de, Sarah Depaoli, Ruth King, Bianca Kramer, Kaspar Märtens, Mahlet G. Tadesse, Marina Vannucci, et al. 2021. “Bayesian Statistics and Modelling.” Nature Reviews Methods Primers 1 (January). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-020-00001-2.

Senekane, Makhamisa, and Benedict Molibeli Taele. 2016. “Prediction of Solar Irradiation Using Quantum Support Vector Machine Learning Algorithm.” Smart Grid and Renewable Energy 07. https://doi.org/10.4236/sgre.2016.712022.

Sennhenn-Reulen, Holger. 2018. “Bayesian Regression for a Dirichlet Distributed Response Using Stan.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1808.06399.

Shawe-Taylor, John, and Robert C. Williamson. 1997. “A PAC Analysis of a Bayesian Estimator.” Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory - COLT ’97. https://doi.org/10.1145/267460.267466.

Simmonds, Emily G., Kwaku Peprah Adjei, Christoffer Wold Andersen, Janne Cathrin Hetle Aspheim, Claudia Battistin, Nicola Bulso, Hannah Christensen, et al. 2022. “How Is Model-Related Uncertainty Quantified and Reported in Different Disciplines?” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2206.12179.

Simola, Umberto, Jessi Cisewski-Kehe, Michael U. Gutmann, and Jukka Corander. 2021. “Adaptive Approximate Bayesian Computation Tolerance Selection.” Bayesian Analysis 16 (June). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-ba1211.

Spiegelhalter, David J., Nicola G. Best, Bradley P. Carlin, and Angelika Van Der Linde. 2002. “Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 64 (October). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00353.

Spiegelhalter, David, and Kenneth Rice. 2009. “Bayesian Statistics.” Scholarpedia 4. https://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.5230.

“Statistical Challenges in Modern Astronomy.” 1992. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9290-3.

Stevens, Don L, and Anthony R Olsen. 2004. “Spatially Balanced Sampling of Natural Resources.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 99 (March). https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000000250.

Strnad, Jeff Frank. 2007. “Should Legal Empiricists Go Bayesian?” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.991335.

Sullivan, Sheena G, and Sander Greenland. 2012. “Bayesian Regression in SAS Software.” International Journal of Epidemiology 42 (December). https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys213.

Sun, Lijun, and Alexander Erath. 2015. “A Bayesian Network Approach for Population Synthesis.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 61 (December). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.10.010.

“Supplemental Material for a Systematic Review of Bayesian Articles in Psychology: The Last 25 Years.” 2017. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000100.supp.

Taddy, Matt, Matt Gardner, Liyun Chen, and David Draper. 2014. “A Nonparametric Bayesian Analysis of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in Digital Experimentation.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1412.8563.

Talbott, W. J. 1991. “Two Principles of Bayesian Epistemology.” Philosophical Studies 62 (May). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00419049.

Teh, Yee Whye, and Michael I. Jordan. 2010. “Hierarchical Bayesian Nonparametric Models with Applications.” Bayesian Nonparametrics, April. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511802478.006.

“The Bayesian Choice.” 2007. Springer Texts in Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-71599-1.

Tokdar, Surya T., and Joseph B. Kadane. 2012. “Simultaneous Linear Quantile Regression: A Semiparametric Bayesian Approach.” Bayesian Analysis 7 (March). https://doi.org/10.1214/12-ba702.

Toussaint, Udo v., Silvio Gori, and Volker Dose. 2006. “Invariance Priors for Bayesian Feed-Forward Neural Networks.” Neural Networks 19 (December). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2006.01.017.

Tresp, Volker. 2000. “A Bayesian Committee Machine.” Neural Computation 12 (November). https://doi.org/10.1162/089976600300014908.

Turner, Richard Eric, and Maneesh Sahani. 2011. “Two Problems with Variational Expectation Maximisation for Time Series Models.” Bayesian Time Series Models, August. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511984679.006.

Vanhatalo, Jarno, Jaakko Riihimäki, Jouni Hartikainen, Pasi Jylänki, Ville Tolvanen, and Aki Vehtari. 2012. “Bayesian Modeling with Gaussian Processes Using the GPstuff Toolbox.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1206.5754.

Varin, Cristiano. 2008. “On Composite Marginal Likelihoods.” AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis 92 (February). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10182-008-0060-7.

Vehtari, Aki, Andrew Gelman, and Jonah Gabry. 2016. “Practical Bayesian Model Evaluation Using Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation and WAIC.” Statistics and Computing 27 (August). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4.

Vehtari, Aki, Andrew Gelman, Daniel Simpson, Bob Carpenter, and Paul-Christian Bürkner. 2021. “Rank-Normalization, Folding, and Localization: An Improved Rˆ for Assessing Convergence of MCMC (with Discussion).” Bayesian Analysis 16 (June). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-ba1221.

Vehtari, Aki, Daniel Simpson, Andrew Gelman, Yuling Yao, and Jonah Gabry. 2015. “Pareto Smoothed Importance Sampling.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1507.02646.

Wade, Paul R. 2000. “Bayesian Methods in Conservation Biology.” Conservation Biology 14 (October). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99415.x.

Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Jonathon Love, Maarten Marsman, Tahira Jamil, Alexander Ly, Josine Verhagen, Ravi Selker, et al. 2017. “Bayesian Inference for Psychology. Part II: Example Applications with JASP.” Psychonomic Bulletin &Amp; Review 25 (July). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7.

Wang, Chong, and David M. Blei. 2015. “A General Method for Robust Bayesian Modeling.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1510.05078.

Wang, Shuchun, Wei Chen, and Kwok-Leung Tsui. 2009. “Bayesian Validation of Computer Models.” Technometrics 51 (November). https://doi.org/10.1198/tech.2009.07011.

Watson, Andrew B., and Denis G. Pelli. 1983. “Quest: A Bayesian Adaptive Psychometric Method.” Perception &Amp; Psychophysics 33 (March). https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202828.

Weatherson, Brian. 2007. “VII?the Bayesian and the Dogmatist.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback) 107 (August). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2007.00217.x.

Wei, Qi, Nicolas Dobigeon, and Jean-Yves Tourneret. 2013. “Bayesian Fusion of Multi-Band Images.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1307.5996.

Wei, Ran, Siliang Zeng, Chenliang Li, Alfredo Garcia, Anthony McDonald, and Mingyi Hong. 2023. “A Bayesian Approach to Robust Inverse Reinforcement Learning.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2309.08571.

WESTERN, BRUCE. 1999. “Bayesian Analysis for Sociologists.” Sociological Methods &Amp; Research 28 (August). https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124199028001002.

Western, Bruce, and Simon Jackman. 1994. “Bayesian Inference for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 88 (June). https://doi.org/10.2307/2944713.

Wolpert, Daniel M., Zoubin Ghahramani, and Michael I. Jordan. 1995. “An Internal Model for Sensorimotor Integration.” Science 269 (September). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7569931.

Wu, Pei-Shien, and Ryan Martin. 2023. “A Comparison of Learning Rate Selection Methods in Generalized Bayesian Inference.” Bayesian Analysis 18 (March). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1302.

Wu, Teng, and Naveen N. Narisetty. 2021. “Bayesian Multiple Quantile Regression for Linear Models Using a Score Likelihood.” Bayesian Analysis 16 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-ba1217.

Yan, Ping, and Murray K. Clayton. 2006. “A Cluster Model for Space–Time Disease Counts.” Statistics in Medicine 25 (February). https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2424.

Yao, Yuling, Gregor Pirš, Aki Vehtari, and Andrew Gelman. 2022. “Bayesian Hierarchical Stacking: Some Models Are (Somewhere) Useful.” Bayesian Analysis 17 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-ba1287.

Yao, Yuling, Aki Vehtari, Daniel Simpson, and Andrew Gelman. 2018a. “Yes, but Did It Work?: Evaluating Variational Inference.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1802.02538.

———. 2018b. “Using Stacking to Average Bayesian Predictive Distributions (with Discussion).” Bayesian Analysis 13 (September). https://doi.org/10.1214/17-ba1091.

Yekutieli, Daniel. 2008. “Adjusted Bayesian Inference for Selected Parameters.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.0801.0499.

Younes, Laurent. 1989. “Parametric Inference for Imperfectly Observed Gibbsian Fields.” Probability Theory and Related Fields 82 (August). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00341287.

Zanella, Giacomo, and Gareth Roberts. 2021. “Multilevel Linear Models, Gibbs Samplers and Multigrid Decompositions (with Discussion).” Bayesian Analysis 16 (December). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-ba1242.

Zhang, Jian, Zoubin Ghahramani, and Yiming Yang. 2008. “Flexible Latent Variable Models for Multi-Task Learning.” Machine Learning 73 (April). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-008-5050-1.

Zhang, Yi, Dapeng Zhang, and Haoyu Jiang. 2023. “A Review of Offshore Wind and Wave Installations in Some Areas with an Eye Towards Generating Economic Benefits and Offering Commercial Inspiration.” Sustainability 15 (May). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108429.

Zhao, Bo, Benjamin I. P. Rubinstein, Jim Gemmell, and Jiawei Han. 2012. “A Bayesian Approach to Discovering Truth from Conflicting Sources for Data Integration.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1203.0058.

Zyphur, Michael J., and Frederick L. Oswald. 2013. “Bayesian Estimation and Inference.” Journal of Management 41 (August). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313501200.