Skip to main content
Log in

A simulation-intensive approach for checking hierarchical models

  • Published:
Test Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent computational advances have made it feasible to fit hierarchical models in a wide range of serious applications. In the process, the question of model adequacy arises. While model checking usually addresses the entire model specification, model failures can occur at each hierarchical stage. Such failures include outliers, mean structures errors, dispersion misspecification, and inappropriate exchangeabilities. We propose an approach which is entirely simulation based. Given a model specification and a dataset, we need only be able to simulate draws from the resultant posterior. By replicating a posterior of interest using data obtained under the model we can “see” the extent of variability in such a posterior. Then, we can compare the posterior obtained under the observed data with this medley of posterior replicates to ascertain whether the former is in agreement with them and accordingly, whether it is plausible that the observed data came from the proposed model. Many such comparisons can be run, each focusing on a different potential model failure. Focusing on generalized linear mixed models, we explore the questions of when hierarchical model stages are separable and checkable and illustrate the approach with both real and simulated data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert, J.H. and S. Chib (1997). Bayesian tests and model diagnostics in conditionally independent hierarchical models.Journal of the American Statistical Association,92, 916–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, G.A. (1963). (in discussion).Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B,25, 294–295.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J.O. (1985).Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Besag, J. and Clifford (1989). Generalized Monte Carlo significance tests.Biometrika,76, 633–642.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Box, G.E.P. (1980). Sampling and Bayes's inference in scientific modeling (with discussion).Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A,143, 383–430.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Breslow, N.E. and D.G. Clayton (1993). Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models.Journal of the American Statistical Association,88, 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carota, C., G. Parmigiani and N.G. Polson (1997). Diagnostic measures for model criticism.Journal of the American Statistical Association,91, 753–762.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chaloner, K. (1994). Residual analysis and outliers in Bayesian hierarchical models. In:Aspects of Uncertainty, eds. A.F.M. Smith and P.R. Freeman. Chichester, U.K., John Wiley, 153–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaloner, K. and R. Brant (1988). A Bayesian approach to outlier detection and residual analysis.Biometrika,75, 651–659.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Efron, B. (1996). Empirical Bayes methods for combining likelihoods (with discussion).Journal of the American Statistical Association,91, 538–565.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, P.R. (1980). On the number of outliers in data from a linear model. In:Bayesian Statistics, eds. J.M. Bernardo et al., Valencia, University Press, 349–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, A.E., D.K. Dey and H. Chang (1992). Model determination using predictive distributions with implementations via sampling-based methods. In:Bayesian Statistics 4, eds. J.M. Bernardo et al., Oxford, U.K., Oxford University Press, 147–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., X-L. Meng and H.S. Stern (1995). Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies (with discussion).Statistica Sinica 6, 733–807.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, I., R. Dutter and P.R. Freeman (1978). Care and handling of multivariate outliers in the general linear model to detect spuriosity—a Bayesian approach.Technometrics,20, 187–193.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, J. (1998). Some algebra and geometry for hierarchical models, applied to diagnostics.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B,60, (to appear).

  • McCullagh, P. and J.A. Nelder (1989).Generalized Linear Models. Chapman and Hall, London.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, X-L. (1994). Posterior predictive p-values.Annals of Statistics,22, 1142–1160.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, P. and G. Parmigiani (1995). Numerical evaluation of information theoretic measures. In:Bayesian Statistics and Econometrics: Essays in Honor of A. Zellner. Eds: Berry, D.A., Chaloner, K.M., Geweke, J.F., John Wiley, New York, 397–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, L.I. and A.F.M. Smith (1985). Outliers and influential observations in linear models. In:Bayesian Statistics 2, J.M. Bernardo et al. eds., North Holland, Amsterdam, 473–494 (with discussion).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D.B. (1994). Bayesianly justifiable and relevant frequency calculations for the applied statistician.Annals of Statistics,12, 1151–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, L.D. (1990). Identification and accommodations of outliers in generalized hierarchical models.Biometrika,77, 445–452.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tallis, G.M. and P. Chesson (1982). Identifiability of mixtures.Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, Series A, 339–348.

  • Teicher, H. (1961). Identifiability of mixtures.Annals of Mathematical Statistics,32, 244–248.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Teicher, H. (1963). Identifiability of finite mixtures.Annals of Mathematical Statistics,34, 1265–1269.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, R.E. (1995). Residuals and outliers in repeated measures random effects models. Tech. Rpt. Dept. of Biostatistics, UCLA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Research supported in part by NSF SCREMS grant DMS-9506557, NSF grant DMS-9301316 and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dey, D.K., Gelfand, A.E., Swartz, T.B. et al. A simulation-intensive approach for checking hierarchical models. Test 7, 325–346 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02565116

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02565116

Key Words

AMS subject classification

Navigation