Abstract:Our article described an experiment that adjudicates between different causal accounts of Bell inequality violations by a comparison of their predictive power, finding that certain types of models that are structurally radical but parametrically conservative, of which a class of superdeterministic models are an example, overfit the data relative to models that are structurally conservative but parametrically radical in the sense of endorsing an intrinsically quantum generalization of the framework of causal modelling. In their comment (<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="2206.10619" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.10619">arXiv:2206.10619</a>), Hance and Hossenfelder argue that we have misrepresented the purpose of superdeterministic models. We here dispute this claim by recalling the different classes of superdeterministic models we defined in our article and our conclusions regarding which of these are disfavoured by our experimental results. Their confusion on this point seems to have arisen in part from the fact that we characterized superdeterministic models within a causal modelling framework and from the fact that we referred to this framework as "classical" in order to contrast it with an intrinsically quantum alternative. In this reply, therefore, we take the opportunity to clarify these points. They also claim that if one is adjudicating between a pair of models, where one model can account for strictly more operational statistics than the other, the first model will tend to overfit the data relative to the second. Because this model inclusion relation can arise for pairs of models in a reductionist heirarchy, they conclude that overfitting should not be taken as evidence against the first model. We point out here that, contrary to this claim, one does not expect overfitting to arise generically in cases of model inclusion, so that it is indeed sometimes appropriate to consider overfitting as a criterion for adjudicating between such models.

The paper "How proper are Bayesian models in the astronomical literature?" [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1712.03549" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03549">arXiv:1712.03549</a>] by Tak, Ghosh and Ellis is improper

Comment on `Tainted evidence: cosmological model selection versus fitting', by Eric V. Linder and Ramon Miquel (<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="astro-ph/0702542v2" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702542v2">astro-ph/0702542v2</a>)

A Bayesian Approach to Direct and Inverse Abstract Argumentation Problems

Erratum: NIHAO IV: Core creation and destruction in dark matter density profiles across cosmic time (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv2856)

A Bayesian Approach to Forward and Inverse Abstract Argumentation Problems

Are all models wrong? Falsifying binary formation models in gravitational-wave astronomy

"Not only defended but also applied": The perceived absurdity of Bayesian inference

Conditional probability and improper priors

Reply to "Comment on 'Experimentally adjudicating between different causal accounts of Bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection'"

Comments on Struyve and Baere's paper on experiments to distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics

A discussion of "Bayesian model selection based on proper scoring rules" by A.P. Dawid and M. Musio

Thomas Bayes's Bayesian Inference

Bayesian reasoning in cosmology

Erratum: “Multiwavelength Monitoring of the Dwarf Seyfert 1 Galaxy NGC 4395. I. A Reverberation‐based Measurement of the Black Hole Mass” (ApJ, 632, 799 [2005])

An introduction to Bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy: Parameter estimation, model selection, and hierarchical models

Ensuring Consistency between Noise and Detection in Hierarchical Bayesian Inference

Inconsistency and Acausality in Bayesian Inference for Physical Problems

Retracted: Statistical Inferences of Burr XII Lifetime Models under Joint Type-1 Competing Risks Samples

Comment on "Experimentally adjudicating between different causal accounts of Bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection"

Robust Bayesian regression in astronomy

Rebuttal to a Paper on Wormholes