Abstract
Bayesian model averaging in support-indexed regression induces a posterior distribution over active predictor supports. Under predictor redundancy, posterior mass can spread across many nearly interchangeable supports, making exact-support summaries unstable or hard to interpret even when prediction is stable. We study how to report an already fitted Bayesian model averaging posterior without changing the Bayesian target. A report uses hard or soft regions of support space, and its compressed reporting law is compared with the reference posterior through an explicit density ratio. This ratio gives computable total-variation and Kullback--Leibler distortion, bounds for bounded predictive summaries, retained-mass diagnostics, and fallback-weight diagnostics. The framework covers fixed hard regions, metric-ball regions, posterior-cluster regions, and pooled-pruned region dictionaries. We prove exact error formulas and validation bounds for these region reports, and give conditions under which a few regions can replace a long list of individual supports. In simulations, our region reports often give shorter and clearer summaries while preserving the main posterior information, and the density-ratio diagnostics show when too much information has been lost.
Explore similar work
Oct 18, 2024stat.ML
Vanilla variational inference finds an optimal approximation to the Bayesian posterior distribution, but even the exact Bayesian posterior is often not meaningful under model misspecification. We propose predictive variational inference (PVI): a general inference framework that seeks and samples from an optimal posterior density such that the resulting posterior predictive distribution is as close to the true data generating process as possible, while this closeness is measured by multiple scoring rules. By optimizing the objective, the predictive variational inference is generally not the same as, or even attempting to approximate, the Bayesian posterior, even asymptotically. Rather, we interpret it as implicit hierarchical expansion. Further, the learned posterior uncertainty detects heterogeneity of parameters among the population, enabling automatic model diagnosis. This framework applies to both likelihood-exact and likelihood-free models. We demonstrate its application in real data examples.
Jinlin Lai, Antonio Linero, Yuling Yao
Apr 27, 2026stat.ML
This paper uses a minimum divergence framework to introduce a new way of calculating model weights that can be used to average probabilistic predictions from statistical and machine learning models. The method is general and can be applied regardless of whether the models under consideration are fit to data using frequentist, Bayesian, or some other fitting method. The proposed method is motivated in two different ways and is shown empirically to perform better than or on a par with standard model averaging methods, including model stacking and model averaging that relies on Akaike-style negative exponentiated model weighting, especially when the sample size is small. Our theoretical analysis explains why the method has a small-sample advantage.
Olav Benjamin Vassend
May 31, 2026cs.LG
We ask: when do Bayesian model averaging (BMA) weights over decision trees carry sufficient epistemic information to justify committed exploitation of the averaging distribution? We answer this question in closed form for Bayesian decision trees (BDTs) with Dirichlet-Multinomial leaf models and a Catalan-exponential tree-size prior (Schetinin&Jakaite, 2025), establishing a complete non-asymptotic theory of rational commitment thresholds.
Livija Jakaite, Vitaly Schetinin