Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 724

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Model choice: a minimum posterior predictive loss approach

Gelfand, A.·1998·Biometrika

Abstract

Model choice is a fundamental and much discussed activity in the analysis of datasets. Nonnested hierarchical models introducing random effects may not be handled by classical methods. Bayesian approaches using predictive distributions can be used though the formal solution, which includes Bayes factors as a special case, can be criticised. We propose a predictive criterion where the goal is good prediction of a replicate of the observed data but tempered by fidelity to the observed values. We obtain this criterion by minimising posterior loss for a given model and then, for models under consideration, selecting the one which minirnises this criterion. For a broad range of losses, the criterion emerges as a form partitioned into a goodness-of-fit term and a penalty term. We illustrate its performance with an application to a large dataset involving residential property transactions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/biomet/85.1.1

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 724

Metadata

Authors
Gelfand, A.
Venue
Biometrika
Published
1998-03-01
Volume
85
Issue
1
Pages
1-11
ISSN
  • 0006-3444 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3510
OpenAlex
W2127874106
Cited by
724
References
0
FWCI
13.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Model choice: a minimum posterior predictive loss approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/biomet/85.1.1
The paper
Gelfand, A. (1998). Model choice: a minimum posterior predictive loss approach. Biometrika. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/85.1.1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.