Papers › Laplace Power-expected-posterior priors for generalized linear models with...
Laplace Power-expected-posterior priors for generalized linear models with applications to logistic regression
Anupreet Porwal, Abel Rodriguez
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Power-expected-posterior (PEP) methodology, which borrows ideas from the literature on power priors, expected-posterior priors and unit information priors, provides a systematic way to construct objective priors. The basic idea is to use imaginary training samples to update a noninformative prior into a minimally-informative prior. In this work, we develop a novel definition of PEP priors for generalized linear models that relies on a Laplace expansion of the likelihood of the imaginary training sample. This approach has various computational, practical and theoretical advantages over previous proposals for non-informative priors for generalized linear models. We place a special emphasis on logistic regression models, where sample separation presents particular challenges to alternative methodologies. We investigate both asymptotic and finite-sample properties of the procedures, showing that is both asymptotic and intrinsic consistent, and that its performance is at least competitive and, in some settings, superior to that of alternative approaches in the literature.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections