Posterior predictive checks

One of the nice elements of the Bayesian toolkit is that once we have a posterior, it is possible to use the posterior, , to generate predictions, , based on the data, , and the estimated parameters, . The posterior predictive distribution is:

Thus, the posterior predictive distribution is an average of conditional predictions over the posterior distribution of . Conceptually (and computationally), we approximate this integral 1.17 as an iterative two-step process:

1. We sample a value of from the posterior,
2. We feed that value of to the likelihood (or sampling distribution if you wish), thus obtaining a data point,

The generated predictions, , can be used when we need to make, ahem, predictions. But also we can use them to criticize the models by comparing the observed data, , and the predicted data, , to spot differences between these two sets, this is known as posterior predictive checks. The main goal is to check for auto-consistency. The generated data and the observed data should look more or less similar, otherwise there was some problem during the modeling or some problem feeding the data to the model. But even in the absence of mistakes, differences could arise. Trying to understand the mismatch could lead us to improve models or at least to understand their limitations. Knowing which parts of our problem/data the model is capturing well and which it is not is valuable information even if we do not know how to improve the model. Maybe the model captures the mean behavior of our data well but fails to predict rare values. This could be problematic for us, or maybe we only care about the mean, so this model will be OK to us. The general aim is not to declare that a model is false. We just want to know which part of the model we can trust, and try to test whether the model is a good fit for our specific purpose. How confident one can be about a model is certainly not the same across disciplines. Physics can study systems under highly-controlled conditions using high-level theories, so models are often seen as good descriptions of reality. Other disciplines, such as sociology and biology, study complex, difficult-to-isolate systems, and thus models usually have a weaker epistemological status. Nevertheless, independent of which discipline you are working in, models should always be checked, and posterior predictive checks together with ideas from exploratory data analysis are a good way to check our models.