Generalized Power Priors for Improved Bayesian Inference with Historical Data

Howard Bondell; Masanari Kimura

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 5 references

Generalized Power Priors for Improved Bayesian Inference with Historical Data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the generalized power posterior is the unique minimizer of a weighted sum of Amari alpha-divergences, recovering the standard power prior at alpha = 1 and letting the data tune alpha.

desk verdict The variational core is correct but known; the advertised global robustness bound is vacuous as stated, and the paper's empirical support is in-sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16244 v1 pith:V6Y24XN4 submitted 2025-05-22 stat.ML cs.LGmath.STstat.TH

Masanari Kimura , Howard Bondell This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.MLcs.LGmath.STstat.TH MSC 62F1562B1062F35

keywords powerprioralpha-divergencehistoricaldataBayesianinferenceinformationgeometryrobustnesssurvivalanalysisgeodesic

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper extends the power prior from KL divergence to Amari's alpha-divergence, a one-parameter family that interpolates between forward and reverse KL. It derives the unique posterior that minimizes a weighted sum of these divergences to the no-borrowing and full-borrowing pseudo-posteriors, and shows this generalized posterior reduces to the classical power prior when alpha = 1. The extra parameter alpha changes borrowing behavior: it controls how many modes the posterior has, it enters the higher-order asymptotic variance but not the leading term, and it can be learned from data through a hierarchical prior. A survival analysis of two melanoma trials suggests that adaptive alpha improves hazard-ratio estimation and predictive concordance compared with fixed no-borrowing or full-borrowing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized power posterior, $g^*(\theta) = A(\theta)^{2/(1+\alpha)} / \int A(\theta')^{2/(1+\alpha)}d\theta'$ with $A(\theta) = (1-\xi)p_0(\theta)^{(1+\alpha)/2} + \xi p_1(\theta)^{(1+\alpha)/2}$. It is obtained by setting the Gateaux derivative of the Lagrangian for the weighted $\alpha$-divergence criterion to zero. This object does two jobs: it is the unique minimizer of the divergence criterion, and it traces an $\alpha$-geodesic between the no-borrowing and full-borrowing posteriors, so the power-prior compromise is literally a geodesic interpolation in the statistical manifold.

What would settle it

Fix any observation x and compute the supremum over $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$ of $f_N(x; \theta_H)/f_N(x; \theta)$: as $\theta \to \pm\infty$ the ratio diverges, making $R_{\max}/R_{\min}$ infinite and the Theorem 2 bound vacuous. A direct numerical check of the total variation distance on an unbounded flat-prior Gaussian problem would exceed the claimed bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the posterior density $g^*(\theta) \propto \left[(1-\xi)p_0(\theta)^z + \xi p_1(\theta)^z\right]^{1/z}$, with $z=(1+\alpha)/2$, is the unique minimizer of $(1-\xi)D_\alpha[g\|p_0] + \xi D_\alpha[g\|p_1]$, where $p_0$ and $p_1$ are the pseudo-posteriors that ignore and fully pool the historical data. This result generalizes the KL optimality theorem for power priors. The same construction is identified with the $\alpha$-geodesic connecting $p_0$ and $p_1$ on the statistical manifold, and the paper proves consistency, describes how $\alpha$ steers the posterior between uni- and multi-modality, and gives a second-order asymptotic variance whose leading term is independent of $\alpha$. The paper then reports that hierarchical adaptation of $\alpha$ and $\xi$ in a cure-rate survival model on two melanoma trials yields higher concordance than either extreme of borrowing.

Load-bearing premise

The robustness guarantee in Theorem 2 rests on the claim that the ratio of contaminated to clean Gaussian likelihoods is bounded uniformly over the parameter, which is false when the parameter is unrestricted; the proof therefore needs an unstated compact parameter space or bounded likelihood ratio.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At $\alpha = 1$ the generalized posterior reduces to the standard power-prior posterior, so the construction contains the classical method as a special case.
Because the leading asymptotic variance does not depend on $\alpha$, the extra parameter can be tuned for robustness or shape without changing first-order efficiency.
The $\alpha$ parameter controls whether the posterior is unimodal or multimodal when the no-borrowing and full-borrowing targets have distinct modes, which tells practitioners when borrowing will create a bimodal compromise.
In the survival analysis, adaptive hierarchical priors on $\alpha$ and $\xi$ produced higher C-index values than either no borrowing or full borrowing, suggesting the generalization can improve predictive accuracy on real historical-data problems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The authors stop short of proposing a direct estimator of $\alpha$; a natural extension is to select $\alpha$ by posterior predictive validation or empirical Bayes, which the $\alpha$-free leading variance makes cheap.
The geodesic view suggests the same formula could be used outside Bayesian updating, for example to interpolate between two fitted densities in density-ratio estimation or domain adaptation, though the paper itself restricts attention to historical-data borrowing.
The robustness bound in Theorem 2 implicitly requires a compact parameter space or a bounded likelihood ratio; on the unbounded Gaussian parameter space used in the examples, the claimed supremum of the likelihood ratio is infinite, so the guarantee needs restatement.
The one-dimensional unimodality result could be tested in higher dimensions, where the same threshold behavior of the ratio $p_1/p_0$ should still create mode-splitting for large $\alpha$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper's central result is the characterization of Eq. (1) as the unique minimizer of a weighted alpha-divergence. That derivation is correct: the Lagrange multiplier argument checks out, and the resulting posterior is exactly the alpha-geodesic between the no-borrowing and full-borrowing pseudo-posteriors. The decomposition into a proper prior, Eq. (2), is neat and makes the generalized power prior a usable object. The Gaussian, Beta-Bernoulli, and Dirichlet-Multinomial examples are worked out in detail, and the information-geometric interpretation is clearly explained. If you work on historical-data borrowing, this is a useful way to think about tuning robustness. The soft spots are real. Theorem 2's bound is advertised as a global prior--data robustness guarantee, but the proof in Section B.3 uses a false uniform bound on the Gaussian likelihood ratio over unbounded theta. For fixed x, f(x; theta_H)/f(x; theta) grows without bound as theta moves away from theta_H, so the claimed exponential envelope does not exist. As stated, Rmax/Rmin is infinite and the total-variation bound is vacuous. The theorem needs an explicit compactness assumption or a bounded likelihood ratio to be meaningful. This is load-bearing because the paper explicitly claims global robustness as a theoretical contribution. Theorem 3 is also not proven rigorously. The large-alpha argument relies on informal threshold behavior of R(theta)^z; that might be true under the assumptions, but the proof does not establish it. The small-alpha unimodality claim is similarly asserted via a sign-change argument that is not made precise. This is fixable, but as written the shape theorem is a conjecture with a sketch. The empirical section is the weakest part. The C-index improvements in Table 1 come from fitting alpha and xi on the same data used to evaluate concordance. That is in-sample; there is no held-out validation or cross-validation. The C-index increases could easily reflect overfitting or increased model flexibility rather than genuine predictive gains. The survival application is a nice worked example, but the performance claim is not supported as presented. Who is this for? Practitioners of Bayesian borrowing who want a tunable, divergence-based alternative to the standard power prior, and readers interested in information geometry. The core idea is sound and the flaws are fixable. I would not desk reject it, but I would ask for a revision that fixes Theorem 2's compactness issue, rewrites Theorem 3 as a rigorous statement, and adds out-of-sample evaluation. The paper deserves a serious referee.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper generalizes the classical power prior by replacing the KL criterion with Amari's α-divergence. The main object is the generalized power posterior g*(θ) ∝ [(1−ξ) p0(θ)^((1+α)/2) + ξ p1(θ)^((1+α)/2)]^(2/(1+α)) in Eq. (1), which is derived as the minimizer of (1−ξ)D_α[g∥p0] + ξD_α[g∥p1]. The authors claim this construction yields global prior–data robustness bounds, shape control (unimodality vs. multimodality) via α, consistency and higher-order asymptotics, an information-geometric interpretation as an α-geodesic, and improved hazard-ratio and concordance performance in an ECOG melanoma survival analysis.

Significance. The variational characterization of Eq. (1) is a clean and potentially useful extension: it subsumes the classical power prior at α = −1 and provides a concrete family of posteriors indexed by a robustness parameter. The closed-form Gaussian, Beta–Bernoulli, and Dirichlet–multinomial examples in Section 4 are helpful, and the reported MCMC diagnostics (R-hat and ESS) are good practice. However, the advertised theoretical guarantees are currently not supported: Theorem 2's robustness bound rests on a false uniform likelihood-ratio bound, the proof of Lemma 2/Theorem 6 has an invalid inequality, and Theorem 3's shape argument is heuristic. The empirical claims in Section 6 use in-sample C-index without held-out evaluation. These issues affect core contributions, so the present form is not publishable; the underlying variational idea is defensible and a revision could make the paper sound.

major comments (4)

[Section B.3, Theorem 2] The proof of Theorem 2 asserts max_{x,θ} f_N(x; θ_H, σ²)/f_N(x; θ, σ²) = exp(Δ_H²/(2σ²)). This is false for θ ∈ R: for fixed x, the ratio equals exp(((x−θ)² − (x−θ_H)²)/(2σ²)), which is unbounded above as |θ|→∞ and can be made arbitrarily small by varying x. Consequently a0(θ) = L(θ)/L_F(θ) is not bounded between the claimed constants m0 and M0, and the ratio R(θ) can be both arbitrarily large and arbitrarily small. Thus Rmax/Rmin is infinite and the stated bound d_TV ≤ 1/2[(Rmax/Rmin)^{1/z} − 1] is vacuous. The theorem's claim that the bound 'remains finite and explicit for all parameter values' is contradicted by the proof. A compact parameter space or a bounded-likelihood-ratio assumption would repair the argument, but no such assumption is stated.
[Section B.2, Lemma 2 and Theorem 6] The proof of Lemma 2 applies the mean-value inequality |a^t − b^t| ≤ t max(a^{t−1}, b^{t−1})|a − b| with t = 1/z. This inequality is false for t < 1, i.e. for z > 1, which is included in the stated range α ∈ (−1, ∞). For example, with a = 1, b = 4, and t = 1/2 the left side is 1 while the right side is 0.5. The subsequent bound using m_H^{1/z−1} for z > 1 is therefore invalid, and the monotonicity conclusion for K(α) in Theorem 6 is not established.
[Section 5.2, Theorem 3] The proof of Theorem 3 is heuristic rather than a proof. For large α it argues that R(θ)^z behaves like a threshold and that F(θ) 'approximates' p_0 near m_0 and p_1 near m_1, but no uniform error bounds are given and the possible effect of the normalizing constant is not analyzed. For small α the statement that 'this ensures only one sign change in L'_z(θ)' is asserted without a derivation from Assumptions 1–3; no argument rules out multiple crossings of the derivative. Thus the claimed unimodality/multimodality dichotomy is not rigorously supported.
[Section 6, Table 1] The C-index in Table 1 is computed on the same sample D = 100 used to fit the posterior, without a held-out set or cross-validation. The hyperprior configurations for α and ξ are then compared on this in-sample predictive measure. Reported increases such as 0.9624 to 0.9942 therefore reflect in-sample fit and selection bias, not predictive accuracy. No uncertainty interval or repeated-seed variability is given for the C-index, and the conclusion of 'improved predictive accuracy' is not supported by the experiments as presented.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2 heading] The section heading contains a typo: 'Backgroud' should be 'Background'.
[Example 1 and Section C] In the displayed Gaussian posterior, the exponent in the first factor should contain θ²: the term should read −(1/2)(n/σ² + 1/τ₀²)θ² + (S_X/σ² + μ₀/τ₀²)θ. The same missing square appears in the Supplementary Material derivation.
[Theorem 5] In the variance formula, the Fisher information matrix for the historical data is written as I(θ₀) in both terms; the second occurrence should be I₀(θ₀) (or another distinct symbol) to distinguish historical and current information.
[Definition 2] The sentence 'it is known that Amari's α-divergence corresponds to KL divergence and its dual, respectively, at α → ±1' is correct only up to a constant factor and orientation; stating the exact limits (e.g., 1/4 times KL for the two orientations) would avoid confusion.
[Section 6, MCMC description] The text mentions a 'Gibbs sampler' and a '95% acceptance rate'; the description would be clearer if the actual sampling algorithm and target acceptance criterion were specified, since a 95% acceptance rate is atypical for many MCMC schemes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the generalized power posterior is derived from first principles, not assumed.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (1) is obtained by solving the weighted alpha-divergence minimization via a Lagrange multiplier / Gateaux derivative calculation in Section 3; it is not assumed as an ansatz and does not presuppose the conclusion. The subsequent factorization in Eq. (2) is algebra: factoring L(theta|D) out of the (1+alpha)/2-power mixture yields a prior that depends only on historical data and the baseline prior. The theoretical results, including consistency, asymptotic variance, and the geodesic interpretation, follow from standard expansions of that formula rather than from importing the conclusion. The self-citations that appear are related-work pointers and are not load-bearing. Two evaluation concerns are noted but are not circularity: Theorem 2's proof uses the claim max_{x,theta} f_N(x; theta_H)/f_N(x; theta) = exp(Delta_H^2/(2 sigma^2)), which is false for unbounded theta and makes the stated bound vacuous without an unstated compactness assumption; and the survival analysis reports C-index on the same data used to fit the hierarchical parameters. Neither concern makes the central derivation equivalent to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation introduces no invented entities. Free parameters are alpha and xi, both estimated from data in the application, plus hand-set hyperpriors. The main implicit axiom is the unstated compactness needed for the robustness bound.

free parameters (3)

alpha = posterior means 0.58-3.36 in Table 1
Divergence parameter; estimated hierarchically in the application, tuned by hand in the theory.
xi = posterior means 0.25-0.79 in Table 1
Power parameter controlling historical borrowing; estimated in the application.
hyperprior parameters for alpha and xi = mu_alpha = 0, sigma_alpha in {1,3}; alpha_xi, beta_xi in {(2,2),(6,1), uniform}
Hand-selected prior means and variances used in Section 6; results are sensitive to these choices.

assumptions (6)

standard math Gateaux derivative and Lagrange multiplier are valid for the variational problem
Used to derive the minimizer in Eq. (1).
domain assumption Base distributions p0 and p1 are strictly unimodal (Assumption 1)
Required for Theorem 3 on the shape of the generalized power posterior.
domain assumption Mode locations satisfy m0 < m1 and the densities swap dominance on (m0, m1) (Assumptions 2, 3)
Required for the unimodality/multimodality trade-off in Theorem 3.
domain assumption Suitable regularity conditions for Laplace-type expansion
Theorem 5 assumes these conditions without specifying them; the proof is a formal expansion.
domain assumption Compact parameter space or bounded likelihood ratio (implicit)
Theorem 2's proof requires sup_{x,theta} f_N(x;theta_H)/f_N(x;theta) finite, which is false on unbounded theta. This assumption is not stated.
domain assumption Identifiable, strictly positive, continuous likelihoods and positive prior near theta0
Assumed in Theorem 4 for consistency.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized Power Priors for Improved Bayesian Inference with Historical Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6Y24XN4

@misc{pith2026250516244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized Power Priors for Improved Bayesian Inference with Historical Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6Y24XN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16244}
}

abstract

The power prior is a class of informative priors designed to incorporate historical data alongside current data in a Bayesian framework. It includes a power parameter that controls the influence of historical data, providing flexibility and adaptability. A key property of the power prior is that the resulting posterior minimizes a linear combination of KL divergences between two pseudo-posterior distributions: one ignoring historical data and the other fully incorporating it. We extend this framework by identifying the posterior distribution as the minimizer of a linear combination of Amari's $\alpha$-divergence, a generalization of KL divergence. We show that this generalization can lead to improved performance by allowing for the data to adapt to appropriate choices of the $\alpha$ parameter. Theoretical properties of this generalized power posterior are established, including behavior as a generalized geodesic on the Riemannian manifold of probability distributions, offering novel insights into its geometric interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16244 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Upper bound MTV(α) of dTV(g ∗ (·; PH), g∗ (·; P)) with respect to α. L F (θ) = Yn i=1 fN (Xi ; θ, σ2 ), π0 is the base prior and fN (·; θ, σ2 ) denotes the density of N (θ, σ2 ). Also, write posterior densities as g ∗ (θ; PH) = h (1 − ξ)p0(θ) 1+α 2 + ξp1(θ) 1+α 2 i 2 1+α R ∞ −∞ h (1 − ξ)p0(θ ′ ) 1+α 2 + ξp1(θ ′ ) 1+α 2 i 2 1+α dθ′ , g ∗ (θ; P) = h (1 − ξ)p F 0 (θ) 1+α 2 + ξpF 1 (θ) 1+α 2 i 2 1+α R ∞ −∞ h (1 − ξ)p F … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of empirical dTV and theoretical bounds. The total variation distance between these two posteriors satisfies dTV g ∗ (·; PH), g∗ (·; P) = 1 2 Z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Empirical dT V under reverse contamination. Corollary 2. Under the contamination setting in Theorem 2 and its reverse setting, let B(α) = 1 2 " Rmax(α) Rmin(α) 1/z − 1 # , z = 1 + α 2 , where R(θ) (and hence Rmax(α), Rmin(α)) is defined in terms of the likelihoods an…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Role of the parameter α for the shape of generalized power posterior (Gaussian distributions with same variance, ξ = 0.5). For the case of α → ±1, α = ±1 − 10−4 are used. shows the empirical total variation distance under reverse contamination such that the current dat…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Role of the parameter α for the shape of generalized power posterior (Gaussian distributions, p0 = N (1, 1) and p1 = N (−1, 0.25)). 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Role of the parameter α for the shape of generalized power posterior (LogGamma distributions, p0 = LogGamma(0.5) and p1 = LogGamma(3)). 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Role of the parameter α for the shape of generalized power posterior (Beta distributions, p0 = Beta(2, 5) and p1 = Beta(5, 1)). 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: An example of MCMC trace for the model, with ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Survival plots for the E1690 trial. Experimental results under different hierarchical prior configurations for (µα, σα) and (αξ, βξ) are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: MCMC posteriors for α and ξ. 34 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

(2004), The e-pca and m-pca: Dimension reduction of parameters by information geometry, in ‘2004 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE Cat

Akaho, S. (2004), The e-pca and m-pca: Dimension reduction of parameters by information geometry, in ‘2004 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37541)’, Vol. 1, IEEE, pp. 129–134. Alt, E. M., Nifong, B., Chen, X., Psioda, M. A. & Ibrahim, J. G. (2023), ‘The scale 35 transformed power prior for use with historical data ...

work page 2004
[131]

(2020), ‘New insights and perspectives on the natural gradient method’,Journal of Machine Learning Research 21(146), 1–76

Martens, J. (2020), ‘New insights and perspectives on the natural gradient method’,Journal of Machine Learning Research 21(146), 1–76. Matteucci, M. & Veldkamp, B. P. (2014), Bayesian estimation of irt models with power priors, in ‘Advances in latent variables’, Springer. Mu, W. & Xiong, S. (2023), ‘On huber’s contaminated model’, Journal of Complexity 77...

work page 2020
[528]

& Hino, H

Kimura, M. & Hino, H. (2022), ‘Information geometrically generalized covariate shift adap- tation’, Neural Computation 34(9), 1944–1977. Kimura, M. & Hino, H. (2024), ‘A short survey on importance weighting for machine learning’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10175 . Kirkwood, J. M., Strawderman, M. H., Ernstoff, M. S., Smith, T. J., Borden, E. C. & Blum, R. ...

arXiv 2022
[919]

Cowles, M. K. & Carlin, B. P. (1996), ‘Markov chain monte carlo convergence diagnostics: a comparative review’, Journal of the American statistical Association 91(434), 883–904. Duan, Y., Ye, K. & Smith, E. P. (2006), ‘Evaluating water quality using power priors to incorporate historical information’, Environmetrics: The Official Journal of the Interna- t...

work page Pith review arXiv 1996
[1100]

Generalized Power Priors for Improved Bayesian Inference with Historical Data

Ollier, A., Morita, S., Ursino, M. & Zohar, S. (2020), ‘An adaptive power prior for sequential clinical trials–application to bridging studies’, Statistical methods in medical research 29(8), 2282–2294. Rietbergen, C., Klugkist, I., Janssen, K. J., Moons, K. G. & Hoijtink, H. J. (2011), ‘Incorpo- ration of historical data in the analysis of randomized the...

work page 2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

(2004), The e-pca and m-pca: Dimension reduction of parameters by information geometry, in ‘2004 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE Cat

Akaho, S. (2004), The e-pca and m-pca: Dimension reduction of parameters by information geometry, in ‘2004 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37541)’, Vol. 1, IEEE, pp. 129–134. Alt, E. M., Nifong, B., Chen, X., Psioda, M. A. & Ibrahim, J. G. (2023), ‘The scale 35 transformed power prior for use with historical data ...

work page 2004

[2] [131]

(2020), ‘New insights and perspectives on the natural gradient method’,Journal of Machine Learning Research 21(146), 1–76

Martens, J. (2020), ‘New insights and perspectives on the natural gradient method’,Journal of Machine Learning Research 21(146), 1–76. Matteucci, M. & Veldkamp, B. P. (2014), Bayesian estimation of irt models with power priors, in ‘Advances in latent variables’, Springer. Mu, W. & Xiong, S. (2023), ‘On huber’s contaminated model’, Journal of Complexity 77...

work page 2020

[3] [528]

& Hino, H

Kimura, M. & Hino, H. (2022), ‘Information geometrically generalized covariate shift adap- tation’, Neural Computation 34(9), 1944–1977. Kimura, M. & Hino, H. (2024), ‘A short survey on importance weighting for machine learning’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10175 . Kirkwood, J. M., Strawderman, M. H., Ernstoff, M. S., Smith, T. J., Borden, E. C. & Blum, R. ...

arXiv 2022

[4] [919]

Cowles, M. K. & Carlin, B. P. (1996), ‘Markov chain monte carlo convergence diagnostics: a comparative review’, Journal of the American statistical Association 91(434), 883–904. Duan, Y., Ye, K. & Smith, E. P. (2006), ‘Evaluating water quality using power priors to incorporate historical information’, Environmetrics: The Official Journal of the Interna- t...

work page Pith review arXiv 1996

[5] [1100]

Generalized Power Priors for Improved Bayesian Inference with Historical Data

Ollier, A., Morita, S., Ursino, M. & Zohar, S. (2020), ‘An adaptive power prior for sequential clinical trials–application to bridging studies’, Statistical methods in medical research 29(8), 2282–2294. Rietbergen, C., Klugkist, I., Janssen, K. J., Moons, K. G. & Hoijtink, H. J. (2011), ‘Incorpo- ration of historical data in the analysis of randomized the...

work page 2020