Bayesian Inference with Probability Matrix Decomposition Models
Abstract
Probability Matrix Decomposition models may be used to model observed binary associations between two sets of elements. More specifically, to explain observed associations between two elements, it is assumed that B latent Bernoulli variables are realized for each element and that these variables are subsequently mapped into an observed data point according to a prespecified deterministic rule. In this paper, we present a fully Bayesian analysis for the PMD model making use of the Gibbs sampler. This approach is shown to yield three distinct advantages: (a) in addition to posterior mean estimates it yields (1 — α)% posterior intervals for the parameters, (b) it allows for an investigation of hypothesized indeterminacies in the model's parameters and for the visualization of the best possible reduction of the posterior distribution in a low-dimensional space, and (c) it allows for a broad range of goodness-of-fit tests, making use of the technique of posterior predictive checks. To illustrate the approach, we applied the PMD model to opinions of respondents of different countries concerning the possibility of contracting AIDS in a specific situation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Structuring parameters into batches is useful in many different sorts of models, including nonlinear differential equations in toxicology and Boolean latent-data models in psychometrics.
“We have found the method of structuring parameters into batches to be useful in many different sorts of models, including nonlinear differential equations in toxicology, where population variability can be expressed in terms of a distribution of person-level parameters [e.g., Gelman, Bois and Jiang (1996)] and Boolean latent-data models in psychometrics, which have batches of parameters indexed by”
From Analysis of variance—why it is more important than ever (2005) · cites this paper as Meulders et al. (2001)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Analysis of variance—why it is more important than ever
Gelman, A. (2005) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/009053604000001048 · Cited by 861 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Meulders, M., De Boeck, P., Van Mechelen, I., Gelman, A., & Maris, E.
- Affiliations
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
- Columbia University (US)
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Venue
- Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 153-179
- ISSN
- 1076-9986 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1054
- OpenAlex
- W2140430901
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 1.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Methods and Mixture Models
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Keywords
- Bayesian inference, Gibbs sampling, posterior predictive checks, goodness-of-fit tests, model reduction, AIDS risk perception
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