Abstract:Recent likelihood theory produces $p$-values that have remarkable accuracy and wide applicability. The calculations use familiar tools such as maximum likelihood values (MLEs), observed information and parameter rescaling. The usual evaluation of such $p$-values is by simulations, and such simulations do verify that the global distribution of the $p$-values is uniform(0, 1), to high accuracy in repeated sampling. The derivation of the $p$-values, however, asserts a stronger statement, that they have a uniform(0, 1) distribution conditionally, given identified precision information provided by the data. We take a simple regression example that involves exact precision information and use large sample techniques to extract highly accurate information as to the statistical position of the data point with respect to the parameter: specifically, we examine various $p$-values and Bayesian posterior survivor $s$-values for validity. With observed data we numerically evaluate the various $p$-values and $s$-values, and we also record the related general formulas. We then assess the numerical values for accuracy using Markov chain Monte Carlo (McMC) methods. We also propose some third-order likelihood-based procedures for obtaining means and variances of Bayesian posterior distributions, again followed by McMC assessment. Finally we propose some adaptive McMC methods to improve the simulation acceptance rates. All these methods are based on asymptotic analysis that derives from the effect of additional data. And the methods use simple calculations based on familiar maximizing values and related informations. The example illustrates the general formulas and the ease of calculations, while the McMC assessments demonstrate the numerical validity of the $p$-values as percentage position of a data point. The example, however, is very simple and transparent, and thus gives little indication that in a wide generality of models the formulas do accurately separate information for almost any parameter of interest, and then do give accurate $p$-value determinations from that information. As illustration an enigmatic problem in the literature is discussed and simulations are recorded; various examples in the literature are cited.

Frequentist properties of Bayesian inequality tests

Bayesian questions with frequentist answers

Bayesian Hypothesis Tests Using Nonparametric Statistics

A frequentist two-sample test based on Bayesian model selection

Matching Bayesian and frequentist coverage probabilities when using an approximate data covariance matrix

On the Frequentist Coverage of Bayes Posteriors in Nonlinear Inverse Problems

A puzzle of proportions: Two popular Bayesian tests can yield dramatically different conclusions

Bayesian Inference for Multivariate Monotone Densities

The Bayesian Hypothesis Testing of a Few Non-normal Parameters

Higher Accuracy for Bayesian and Frequentist Inference: Large Sample Theory for Small Sample Likelihood

Doublethink: simultaneous Bayesian-frequentist model-averaged hypothesis testing

Strictly Frequentist Imprecise Probability

PAC-Bayesian Theory Meets Bayesian Inference

Statistical significance testing for mixed priors: a combined Bayesian and frequentist analysis

Bayesian, frequentist and fiducial intervals for the difference between two binomial proportions

The Bayesian Infinitesimal Jackknife for Variance

Bayesian Inference for $k$-Monotone Densities with Applications to Multiple Testing

Quantitative comparisons between finitary posterior distributions and Bayesian posterior distributions

Further properties of frequentist confidence intervals in regression that utilize uncertain prior information

Towards a theory for testing statistical hypothesis: Multivariate mean with nuisance covariance matrix