A small-sample Bayesian information criterion that does not overstate the evidence, with an application to calibrating p-values from likelihood-ratio tests

Abstract This paper proposes a simple correction to the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) for small samples to ensure that it neither overstates nor understates the evidence against a null hypothesis or other tested model. The new correction raises the likelihood ratio in the BIC to the power of 1 minus the reciprocal of the sample size ( $$1-1/\textrm{n}, \textrm{n}&gt;1$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> <mml:mtext>n</mml:mtext> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mtext>n</mml:mtext> <mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> ). That is equivalent to multiplying the loglikelihood term of the BIC by a factor of $$1-1/\textrm{n}.$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> <mml:mtext>n</mml:mtext> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> The correction is applied to the problem of calibrating p-values by transforming them to estimated Bayes factors. The corresponding calibration in the most common case is simply sqrt(n)/exp((1−1/n)*qchisq(1−p,df=1)/2) in R syntax, where the p-value is from a likelihood-ratio test. That intersects the class of betting scores called e-values and, more specifically, admissible calibrators. While all admissible calibrators neither overstate nor understate the evidence against the null hypothesis, previous admissible calibrators are not model-selection consistent since they do not increasingly favor the null hypothesis when it is true. The proposed calibrator is consistent under general conditions, for its corrected BIC is asymptotically equivalent to the BIC.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Statistical Papers
Published
2025-03-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-025-01682-1
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.89

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A small-sample Bayesian information criterion that does not overstate the evidence, with an application to calibrating p-values from likelihood-ratio tests

David R. Bickel
3 citations
Statistical Papers
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
7.89
article

A small-sample Bayesian information criterion that does not overstate the evidence, with an application to calibrating p-values from likelihood-ratio tests

David R. Bickel
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Abstract This paper proposes a simple correction to the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) for small samples to ensure that it neither overstates nor understates the evidence against a null hypothesis or other tested model. The new correction raises the likelihood ratio in the BIC to the power of 1 minus the reciprocal of the sample size ( $$1-1/\textrm{n}, \textrm{n}&gt;1$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> <mml:mtext>n</mml:mtext> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mtext>n</mml:mtext> <mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> ). That is equivalent to multiplying the loglikelihood term of the BIC by a factor of $$1-1/\textrm{n}.$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> <mml:mtext>n</mml:mtext> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> The correction is applied to the problem of calibrating p-values by transforming them to estimated Bayes factors. The corresponding calibration in the most common case is simply sqrt(n)/exp((1−1/n)*qchisq(1−p,df=1)/2) in R syntax, where the p-value is from a likelihood-ratio test. That intersects the class of betting scores called e-values and, more specifically, admissible calibrators. While all admissible calibrators neither overstate nor understate the evidence against the null hypothesis, previous admissible calibrators are not model-selection consistent since they do not increasingly favor the null hypothesis when it is true. The proposed calibrator is consistent under general conditions, for its corrected BIC is asymptotically equivalent to the BIC.

Statistical PapersVol. 66(3)
The Graduate Center, CUNY (US), University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
7.89
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.