IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/sprchp/978-3-7908-2413-1_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Posterior and Cross-validatory Predictive Checks: A Comparison of MCMC and INLA

In: Statistical Modelling and Regression Structures

Author

Listed:
  • Leonhard Held

    (University of Zurich, Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine)

  • Birgit Schrödle

    (University of Zurich, Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine)

  • Håvard Rue

    (Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Mathematical Science)

Abstract

Model criticism and comparison of Bayesian hierarchical models is often based on posterior or leave-one-out cross-validatory predictive checks. Cross-validatory checks are usually preferred because posterior predictive checks are difficult to assess and tend to be too conservative. However, techniques for statistical inference in such models often try to avoid full (manual) leave-one-out cross-validation, since it is very time-consuming. In this paper we will compare two approaches for estimating Bayesian hierarchical models: Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and integrated nested Laplace approximations (INLA). We review how both approaches allow for the computation of leave-one-out cross-validatory checks without re-running the model for each observation in turn. We then empirically compare the two approaches in an extensive case study analysing the spatial distribution of bovine viral diarrhoe (BVD) among cows in Switzerland.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonhard Held & Birgit Schrödle & Håvard Rue, 2010. "Posterior and Cross-validatory Predictive Checks: A Comparison of MCMC and INLA," Springer Books, in: Thomas Kneib & Gerhard Tutz (ed.), Statistical Modelling and Regression Structures, pages 91-110, Springer.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-7908-2413-1_6
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-7908-2413-1_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-7908-2413-1_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.