-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Clarification on using loo_moment_match() with non-Stan objects #209
Comments
Are there other convenient ways to make approximate LOO more robust? |
Hi, you might have some luck with using the generic moment matching functions from https://github.com/topipa/iwmm |
Thanks, @n-kall. Is |
Yes, it is the same underlying mechanism, just generic (i.e. not tied to importance weights for leave-one-out posteriors). Given a If you want to use it for the leave-one-out case, the |
I am working on a model averaging problem with very simple models, and I am getting intermittently high Pareto k values even on simple well-behaved simulated datasets. I would like to apply the moment matching correction to both non-longitudinal JAGS models and longitudinal Stan models. The latter case is trivially easy with
moment_match = TRUE
inloo()
, but I do not have astanfit
object in the former case.Would you help me understand how to use
loo_moment_match()
in the case where my model fit is aposterior::as_draws_df()
data frame with columns for parameters and pointwise log likelihoods? To set up a sufficiently motivating scenario, I converted the roaches example from the vignette into JAGS. I also put constrained priors on the scale parameters for the sake of learning what to do with theunconstrain_pars
,log_prob_upars
, andlog_lik_i_upars
arguments ofloo_moment_match()
. (Is it even appropriate to consider "unconstrained parameters" without HMC?)Created on 2022-12-01 with reprex v2.0.2
Session info
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: