Why optional stopping can be a problem for Bayesians

Why optional stopping can be a problem for Bayesians

Recently, optional stopping has been a subject of debate in the Bayesian psychology community. Rouder (2014) argues that optional stopping is no problem for Bayesians, and even recommends the use of optional stopping in practice, as do Wagenmakers et al. (2012). This article addresses the question w...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:arXiv.org 2021-03
Hauptverfasser: de Heide, Rianne, Grünwald, Peter D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Bayesian analysis
Hypothesis testing
Mathematics - Statistics Theory
Psychology
Statistics - Methodology
Statistics - Theory
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title arXiv.org
container_volume
creator de Heide, Rianne
Grünwald, Peter D
description Recently, optional stopping has been a subject of debate in the Bayesian psychology community. Rouder (2014) argues that optional stopping is no problem for Bayesians, and even recommends the use of optional stopping in practice, as do Wagenmakers et al. (2012). This article addresses the question whether optional stopping is problematic for Bayesian methods, and specifies under which circumstances and in which sense it is and is not. By slightly varying and extending Rouder's (2014) experiments, we illustrate that, as soon as the parameters of interest are equipped with default or pragmatic priors - which means, in most practical applications of Bayes factor hypothesis testing - resilience to optional stopping can break down. We distinguish between three types of default priors, each having their own specific issues with optional stopping, ranging from no-problem-at-all (Type 0 priors) to quite severe (Type II priors).
doi_str_mv 10.48550/arxiv.1708.08278
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_arxiv</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_arxiv_primary_1708_08278</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2071195076</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a526-29d2760da84b15511179ed88369391935d3c2a92dffef14d1867103674dfe61d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotz81Kw0AUBeBBECy1D-DKAdeJc-_8L7WoFQpuCi7DpDOjKWkSZ1Ixb29tXZ3N4XA-Qm6AlcJIye5d-mm-S9DMlMygNhdkhpxDYQTiFVnkvGOModIoJZ8R8f450X4Ym75zLc1jPwxN90G3rqN1oI4Oqa_bsKexT_TRTSE3rsvX5DK6NofFf87J5vlps1wV67eX1-XDunASVYHWo1bMOyNqkBIAtA3eGK4st2C59HyLzqKPMUQQHozSwLjSwsegwPM5uT3PnkjVkJq9S1P1R6tOtGPj7tw43vw6hDxWu_6QjpJcIdMAVjKt-C-u308U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2071195076</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Why optional stopping can be a problem for Bayesians</title><source>arXiv.org</source><source>Free E- Journals</source><creator>de Heide, Rianne ; Grünwald, Peter D</creator><creatorcontrib>de Heide, Rianne ; Grünwald, Peter D</creatorcontrib><description>Recently, optional stopping has been a subject of debate in the Bayesian psychology community. Rouder (2014) argues that optional stopping is no problem for Bayesians, and even recommends the use of optional stopping in practice, as do Wagenmakers et al. (2012). This article addresses the question whether optional stopping is problematic for Bayesian methods, and specifies under which circumstances and in which sense it is and is not. By slightly varying and extending Rouder's (2014) experiments, we illustrate that, as soon as the parameters of interest are equipped with default or pragmatic priors - which means, in most practical applications of Bayes factor hypothesis testing - resilience to optional stopping can break down. We distinguish between three types of default priors, each having their own specific issues with optional stopping, ranging from no-problem-at-all (Type 0 priors) to quite severe (Type II priors).</description><identifier>EISSN: 2331-8422</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1708.08278</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</publisher><subject>Bayesian analysis ; Hypothesis testing ; Mathematics - Statistics Theory ; Psychology ; Statistics - Methodology ; Statistics - Theory</subject><ispartof>arXiv.org, 2021-03</ispartof><rights>2021. This work is published under http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>228,230,777,781,882,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01803-x$$DView published paper (Access to full text may be restricted)$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1708.08278$$DView paper in arXiv$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>de Heide, Rianne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grünwald, Peter D</creatorcontrib><title>Why optional stopping can be a problem for Bayesians</title><title>arXiv.org</title><description>Recently, optional stopping has been a subject of debate in the Bayesian psychology community. Rouder (2014) argues that optional stopping is no problem for Bayesians, and even recommends the use of optional stopping in practice, as do Wagenmakers et al. (2012). This article addresses the question whether optional stopping is problematic for Bayesian methods, and specifies under which circumstances and in which sense it is and is not. By slightly varying and extending Rouder's (2014) experiments, we illustrate that, as soon as the parameters of interest are equipped with default or pragmatic priors - which means, in most practical applications of Bayes factor hypothesis testing - resilience to optional stopping can break down. We distinguish between three types of default priors, each having their own specific issues with optional stopping, ranging from no-problem-at-all (Type 0 priors) to quite severe (Type II priors).</description><subject>Bayesian analysis</subject><subject>Hypothesis testing</subject><subject>Mathematics - Statistics Theory</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Statistics - Methodology</subject><subject>Statistics - Theory</subject><issn>2331-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GOX</sourceid><recordid>eNotz81Kw0AUBeBBECy1D-DKAdeJc-_8L7WoFQpuCi7DpDOjKWkSZ1Ixb29tXZ3N4XA-Qm6AlcJIye5d-mm-S9DMlMygNhdkhpxDYQTiFVnkvGOModIoJZ8R8f450X4Ym75zLc1jPwxN90G3rqN1oI4Oqa_bsKexT_TRTSE3rsvX5DK6NofFf87J5vlps1wV67eX1-XDunASVYHWo1bMOyNqkBIAtA3eGK4st2C59HyLzqKPMUQQHozSwLjSwsegwPM5uT3PnkjVkJq9S1P1R6tOtGPj7tw43vw6hDxWu_6QjpJcIdMAVjKt-C-u308U</recordid><startdate>20210325</startdate><enddate>20210325</enddate><creator>de Heide, Rianne</creator><creator>Grünwald, Peter D</creator><general>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>AKZ</scope><scope>EPD</scope><scope>GOX</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210325</creationdate><title>Why optional stopping can be a problem for Bayesians</title><author>de Heide, Rianne ; Grünwald, Peter D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a526-29d2760da84b15511179ed88369391935d3c2a92dffef14d1867103674dfe61d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Bayesian analysis</topic><topic>Hypothesis testing</topic><topic>Mathematics - Statistics Theory</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Statistics - Methodology</topic><topic>Statistics - Theory</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>de Heide, Rianne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grünwald, Peter D</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>arXiv Mathematics</collection><collection>arXiv Statistics</collection><collection>arXiv.org</collection><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>de Heide, Rianne</au><au>Grünwald, Peter D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Why optional stopping can be a problem for Bayesians</atitle><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle><date>2021-03-25</date><risdate>2021</risdate><eissn>2331-8422</eissn><abstract>Recently, optional stopping has been a subject of debate in the Bayesian psychology community. Rouder (2014) argues that optional stopping is no problem for Bayesians, and even recommends the use of optional stopping in practice, as do Wagenmakers et al. (2012). This article addresses the question whether optional stopping is problematic for Bayesian methods, and specifies under which circumstances and in which sense it is and is not. By slightly varying and extending Rouder's (2014) experiments, we illustrate that, as soon as the parameters of interest are equipped with default or pragmatic priors - which means, in most practical applications of Bayes factor hypothesis testing - resilience to optional stopping can break down. We distinguish between three types of default priors, each having their own specific issues with optional stopping, ranging from no-problem-at-all (Type 0 priors) to quite severe (Type II priors).</abstract><cop>Ithaca</cop><pub>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</pub><doi>10.48550/arxiv.1708.08278</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 2331-8422
ispartof arXiv.org, 2021-03
issn 2331-8422
language eng
recordid cdi_arxiv_primary_1708_08278
source arXiv.org; Free E- Journals
subjects Bayesian analysis
Hypothesis testing
Mathematics - Statistics Theory
Psychology
Statistics - Methodology
Statistics - Theory
title Why optional stopping can be a problem for Bayesians
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T20%3A15%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_arxiv&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Why%20optional%20stopping%20can%20be%20a%20problem%20for%20Bayesians&rft.jtitle=arXiv.org&rft.au=de%20Heide,%20Rianne&rft.date=2021-03-25&rft.eissn=2331-8422&rft_id=info:doi/10.48550/arxiv.1708.08278&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_arxiv%3E2071195076%3C/proquest_arxiv%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2071195076&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true