• In objective Bayesian model selection, no single criterion has emerged as dominant in defining objective prior distributions. Indeed, many criteria have been separately proposed and utilized to propose differing prior choices. We first formalize the most general and compelling of the various criteria that have been suggested, together with a new criterion. We then illustrate the potential of these criteria in determining objective model selection priors by considering their application to the problem of variable selection in normal linear models. This results in a new model selection objective prior with a number of compelling properties.
  • The Poisson distribution is often used as a standard model for count data. Quite often, however, such data sets are not well fit by a Poisson model because they have more zeros than are compatible with this model. For these situations, a zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) distribution is often proposed. This article addresses testing a Poisson versus a ZIP model, using Bayesian methodology based on suitable objective priors. Specific choices of objective priors are justified and their properties investigated. The methodology is extended to include covariates in regression models. Several applications are given.
  • Hierarchical models are increasingly used in many applications. Along with this increased use comes a desire to investigate whether the model is compatible with the observed data. Bayesian methods are well suited to eliminate the many (nuisance) parameters in these complicated models; in this paper we investigate Bayesian methods for model checking. Since we contemplate model checking as a preliminary, exploratory analysis, we concentrate on objective Bayesian methods in which careful specification of an informative prior distribution is avoided. Numerous examples are given and different proposals are investigated and critically compared.
  • Rejoinder: Bayesian Checking of the Second Levels of Hierarchical Models [arXiv:0802.0743]
  • A key question in evaluation of computer models is Does the computer model adequately represent reality? A six-step process for computer model validation is set out in Bayarri et al. [Technometrics 49 (2007) 138--154] (and briefly summarized below), based on comparison of computer model runs with field data of the process being modeled. The methodology is particularly suited to treating the major issues associated with the validation process: quantifying multiple sources of error and uncertainty in computer models; combining multiple sources of information; and being able to adapt to different, but related scenarios. Two complications that frequently arise in practice are the need to deal with highly irregular functional data and the need to acknowledge and incorporate uncertainty in the inputs. We develop methodology to deal with both complications. A key part of the approach utilizes a wavelet representation of the functional data, applies a hierarchical version of the scalar validation methodology to the wavelet coefficients, and transforms back, to ultimately compare computer model output with field output. The generality of the methodology is only limited by the capability of a combination of computational tools and the appropriateness of decompositions of the sort (wavelets) employed here. The methods and analyses we present are illustrated with a test bed dynamic stress analysis for a particular engineering system.