Schwaferts, Patrick; Augustin, Thomas (17. November 2020): Bayesian Decisions using Regions of Practical Equivalence (ROPE): Foundations. Department of Statistics: Technical Reports, No.235 |

| 454kB |

### Abstract

Kruschke [2018] proposes the so called HDI+ROPE decision rule about accepting or rejecting a parameter null value for practical purposes using a region of practical equivalence (ROPE) around the null value and the posterior highest density interval (HDI) in the context of Bayesian statistics. Further, he mentions the so called ROPE-only decision rule within his supplementary material, which is based on ROPE, but uses the full posterior information instead of the HDI. Of course, if it is about formalizing and guiding decisions then statistical decision theory is the framework to rely on, and this technical report elaborates the decision theoretic foundations of both decision rules. It appears that the foundation of the HDI+ROPE decision rule is rather artificial compared to the foundation of the ROPE-only decision rule, such that latter might be characterized as being closer to the underlying practical purpose than former. Still, the ROPE-only decision rule employs a truly arbitrary, and thus debatable, choice of loss values.

Item Type: | Paper (Technical Report) |
---|---|

Keywords: | Bayesian Decision Theory; Region of Practical Equivalence; ROPE; HDI+ROPE; ROPE-only; Imprecise Probabilities |

Faculties: | Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics > Statistics > Technical Reports |

Subjects: | 300 Social sciences > 310 Statistics |

URN: | urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-epub-74222-8 |

Language: | English |

ID Code: | 74222 |

Deposited On: | 17. Nov 2020 10:38 |

Last Modified: | 17. Nov 2020 10:39 |

References: | T. Augustin. On the suboptimality of the generalized Bayes rule and robust Bayesian procedures from the decision theoretic point of view — a cautionary note on updating imprecise priors. In J.-M. Bernard, T. Seidenfeld, and M. Zaﬀalon, editors, ISIPTA ’03: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and their Applications, pages 31–45, Lugano, Waterloo, 2003. Carleton Scientiﬁc. T. Augustin, F. P. A. Coolen, G. De Cooman, and e. Troﬀaes, Matthias C. M. Introduction to imprecise probabilities. John Wiley & Sons, 2014. J. O. Berger. Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis. 2nd edition. Springer, 1995. G. Casella, J. T. G. Hwang, and C. Robert. A paradox in decision-theoretic interval estimation. Statistica Sinica, 3(1):141–155, 1993. G. Cumming. The new statistics: why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1):7–29, 2014. D. Ellsberg. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75:643–669, 1961. J. Etner, M. Jeleva, and J.-M. Tallon. Decision theory under ambiguity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(2):234–270, 2012. J. K. Kruschke. Doing Bayesian data analysis: a tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Academic Press, 2015. J. K. Kruschke. Rejecting or accepting parameter values in Bayesian estimation. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2):270–280, 2018. I. Levi. The enterprise of knowledge: an essay on knowledge, credal probability, and chance. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1980. K. M. Rice, T. Lumley, and A. A. Szpiro. Trading bias for precision: decision theory for intervals and sets. Technical report, 2008. Retrieved from https://biostats.bepress.com/uwbiostat/paper336/. D. Rios Insua and F. Ruggeri, editors. Robust Bayesian analysis. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. C. Robert. The Bayesian choice: from decision-theoretic foundations to computational implementation. Springer, 2007. M. J. Schervish. Theory of statistics. Springer, 1995. P. Walley. Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. Chapman & Hall, 1991. |