alt Hacker News> I’ve never personally worked on a problem that I felt wasn’t adequately approached with frequentist methods
Multilevel models are one example of problem were Bayesian methods are hard to avoid as otherwise inference is unstable, particularly when available observations are not abundant. Multilevel models should be used more often as shrinking of effect sizes is important to make robust estimates.
Lots of flashy results published in Nature Medicine and similar journals turn out to be statistical noise when you look at them from a rigorous perspective with adequate shrinking. I often review for these journals, and it's a constant struggle to try to inject some rigor.
From a more general perspective, many frequentist methods fall prey to Lindley's Paradox. In simple terms, their inference is poorly calibrated for large sample sizes. They often mistake a negligible deviation from the null for a "statistically significant" discovery, even when the evidence actually supports the null. This is quite typical in clinical trials. (Spiegelhalter et al, 2003) is a great read to learn more even if you are not interested in medical statistics [1].
[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0470092602
Replies
I agree Bayesian approaches to multilevel modeling situations are clearly quite useful and popular.
Ironically this has been one of the primary examples of, in my personal experience, with the problems I have worked on, frequentist mixed & random effects models have worked just fine. On rare occasions I have encountered a situation where the data was particularly complex or I wanted to use an unusual compound probability distribution and thought Bayesian approaches would save me. Instead, I have routinely ended up with models that never converge or take unpractical amounts of time to run. Maybe it’s my lack of experience jumping into Bayesian methods only on super hard problems. That’s totally possible.
But I have found many frequentist approaches to multilevel modeling perfectly adequate. That does not, of course, mean that will hold true for everyone or all problems.
One of my hot takes is that people seriously underestimate the diversity of data problems such that many people can just have totally different experiences with methods depending on the problems they work on.
The evidence "actually supports the null" over what alternative?
In a Bayesian analysis, the result of an inference, e.g. about the fairness of a coin as in Lindley's paradox, depends completely on the distribution of the alternative specified in the analysis. The frequentist analysis, for better and worse, doesn't need to specify a distribution for the alternative.
The classic Lindley's paradox uses a uniform alternative, but there is no justification for this at all. It's not as though a coin is either perfectly fair or has a totally random heads probability. A realistic bias will be subtle and the prior should reflect that. Something like this is often true of real-world applicaitons too.
Thank you for Lindley's paradox! TIL