Posterior odds ratios for regression hypotheses: General considerations and some specific results

Abstract Much work is econometrics and statistics has been concerned with comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian estimation results while much less has involved comparisons of Bayesian and non- Bayesian analyses of hypotheses. Some issues arising in this latter area that are mentioned and discussed in the paper are: (1) Is it meaningful to associate probabilities with hypotheses? (2) What concept of probability is to be employed in analyzing hypotheses? (3) Is a separate theory of testing needed? (4) Must a theory of testing be capable of treating both sharp and non-sharp hypotheses? (5) How is prior information incorporated in testing? (6) Does the use of power functions in practice necessitate the use of prior information? (7) How are significance levels determined when sample sizes are large and what are the interpretations of P-values and tail areas? (8) How are conflicting results provided by asymptotically equivalent testing procedures to be reconciled? (9) What is the rationale for the ‘5% accept-reject syndrome’ that afflicts econometrics and applied statistics? (10) Does it make sense to test a null hypothesis with no alternative hypothesis present? and (11) How are the results of analyses of hypotheses to be combined with estimation and prediction procedures? Brief discussions of these issues with references to the literature are provided. Since there is much controversy concerning how hypotheses are actually analyzed in applied work, the results of a small survey relating to 22 articles employing empirical data published in leading economic and econometric journals in 1978 are presented. The major results of this survey indicate that there is wide-spread use of the 1% and 5% levels of significance in non- Bayesian testing with no systematic relation between choice of significance level and sample size. Also, power considerations are not generally discussed in empirical studies. In fact there was a discussion of power in only one of the articles surveyed. Further, there was very little formal or informal use of prior information employed in testing hypotheses and practically no attention was given to the effects of tests or pre-tests on the properties of subsequent tests or estimation results. These results indicate that there is much room for improvement in applied analyses of hypotheses. Given the findings of the survey of applied studies, it is suggested that Bayesian procedures for analyzing hypotheses may be helpful in improving applied analyses. In this connection, the paper presents a review of some Bayesian procedures and results for analyzing sharp and non-sharp hypotheses with explicit use of prior information. In general, Bayesian procedures have good sampling properties and enable investigators to compute posterior probabilities and posterior odds ratios associated with alternative hypotheses quite readily. The relationships of several posterior odds ratios to usual non-Bayesian testing procedures is clearly demonstrated. Also, a relation between the P-value or tail area and a posterior odds ratio is described in detail in the important case of hypotheses about a mean of a normal distribution. Other examples covered in the paper include posterior odds ratios for the hypotheses that (1) β i > and β i , where β i is a regression coefficient, (2) data are drawn from either of two alternative distributions, (3) θ=0 , θ> and θ where θ is the mean of a normal distribution, (4) β =0 and β ≠0 , where β is a vector of regression coefficients, (5) β 2 =0 vs. β 2 ≠0 where β' =( β' 1 β 2 ) is a vector regression coefficients and β 1 's value is unrestricted. In several cases, is a vector of regression coefficients and β 1 's value is unrestricted. In several cases, tabulations of odds ratios are provided. Bayesian versions of the Chow-test for equality of regression coefficients and of the Goldfeld-Quandt test for equality of disturbance variances are given. Also, an application of Bayesian posterior odds ratios to a regression model selection problem utilizing the Hald data is reported. In summary, the results reported in the paper indicate that operational Bayesian procedures for analyzing many hypotheses encountered in model selection problems are available. These procedures yield posterior odds ratios and posterior probabilities for competing hypotheses. These posterior odds ratios represent the weight of the evidence supporting one model or hypothesis relative to another. Given a loss structure, as is well known one can choose among hypotheses so as to minimize expected loss. Also, with posterior probabilities available and an estimation or prediction loss function, it is possible to choose a point estimate or prediction that minimizes expected loss by averaging over alternative hypotheses or models. Thus it is seen that the Bayesian approach for analyzing competing models or hypotheses provides a unified framework that is extremely useful in solving a number of model selection problems.