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.

Comparative investigation of three Bayesian p values

A Bayesian Approach To Histogram Comparison

Bayesian questions with frequentist answers

P-value: A Bless or A Curse for Evidence-Based Studies?

The flaw of averages: Bayes factors as posterior means of the likelihood ratio

Interval estimation, point estimation, and null hypothesis significance testing calibrated by an estimated posterior probability of the null hypothesis

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

Bayesian tests of two proportions: A tutorial with R and JASP

Fiducialize statistical significance: transforming p-values into conservative posterior probabilities and Bayes factors

A Comparative Review of Methods for Comparing Means Using Partially Paired Data

Comparing researchers' degree of dichotomous thinking using frequentist versus Bayesian null hypothesis testing

Dempster-Shafer P-values: Thoughts on an Alternative Approach for Multinomial Inference

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

When are Bayesian model probabilities overconfident?

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

Model Comparison in Approximate Bayesian Computation

Fully Bayesian Benchmarking of Small Area Estimation Models

Bagged Empirical Null p-values: A Method to Account for Model Uncertainty in Large Scale Inference

Inference with Sequential Monte-Carlo Computation of $p$-values: Fast and Valid Approaches

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

A new approach for approximating the p-value of a class of bivariate sign tests