Bayesian inference for misspecified generative models

David J. Nott, Christopher C. Drovandi, David T. Frazier

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Bayesian inference is a powerful tool for combining information in complex settings, a task of increasing importance in modern applications. However, Bayesian inference with a flawed model can produce unreliable conclusions. This review discusses approaches to performing Bayesian inference when the model is misspecified, where, by misspecified, we mean that the analyst is unwilling to act as if the model is correct. Much has been written about this topic, and in most cases we do not believe that a conventional Bayesian analysis is meaningful when there is serious model misspecification. Nevertheless, in some cases it is possible to use a well-specified model to give meaning to a Bayesian analysis of a misspecified model, and we focus on such cases. Three main classes of methods are discussed: restricted likelihood methods, which use a model based on an insufficient summary of the original data; modular inference methods, which use a model constructed from coupled submodels, with some of the submodels correctly specified; and the use of a reference model to construct a projected posterior or predictive distribution for a simplified model considered to be useful for prediction or interpretation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)179-202
Number of pages24
JournalAnnual Review of Statistics and Its Application
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 22 Apr 2024

Keywords

  • Bayesian model criticism
  • Bayesian modular inference
  • cutting feedback
  • likelihood-free inference
  • restricted likelihood

Cite this