Scinovex
article Open AccessTop 1% cited

Moving beyond noninformative priors: why and how to choose weakly informative priors in Bayesian analyses

Oikos · 2019 · Vol. 128(7) · pp. 912–928
Nathan P. Lemoine

Abstract

Throughout the last two decades, Bayesian statistical methods have proliferated throughout ecology and evolution. Numerous previous references established both philosophical and computational guidelines for implementing Bayesian methods. However, protocols for incorporating prior information, the defining characteristic of Bayesian philosophy, are nearly nonexistent in the ecological literature. Here, I hope to encourage the use of weakly informative priors in ecology and evolution by providing a ‘consumer's guide’ to weakly informative priors. The first section outlines three reasons why ecologists should abandon noninformative priors: 1) common flat priors are not always noninformative, 2) noninformative priors provide the same result as simpler frequentist methods, and 3) noninformative priors suffer from the same high type I and type M error rates as frequentist methods. The second section provides a guide for implementing informative priors, wherein I detail convenient ‘reference’ prior distributions for common statistical models (i.e. regression, ANOVA, hierarchical models). I then use simulations to visually demonstrate how informative priors influence posterior parameter estimates. With the guidelines provided here, I hope to encourage the use of weakly informative priors for Bayesian analyses in ecology. Ecologists can and should debate the appropriate form of prior information, but should consider weakly informative priors as the new ‘default’ prior for any Bayesian model.

Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPrior probabilityFrequentist inferenceBayesian probabilityComputer scienceBayesian inferenceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEconometricsStatisticsMathematics

Funding

  • National Science Foundation
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Division of Environmental Biology
Citations
585
FWCI
64.22
field-weighted impact
References
52
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
References
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2013 · 7,666 citations
Eliciting Expert Knowledge in Conservation Science
Conservation Biology · 2012 · 807 citations
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
PLoS Medicine · 2005 · 10,338 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.