Last updated: 2023-01-07

Checks: 2 0

Knit directory: gsmash/

This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr (version 1.6.2). The Checks tab describes the reproducibility checks that were applied when the results were created. The Past versions tab lists the development history.

R Markdown file: up-to-date

Great! Since the R Markdown file has been committed to the Git repository, you know the exact version of the code that produced these results.

Repository version: e81dbd9

Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility.

The results in this page were generated with repository version e81dbd9. See the Past versions tab to see a history of the changes made to the R Markdown and HTML files.

Note that you need to be careful to ensure that all relevant files for the analysis have been committed to Git prior to generating the results (you can use wflow_publish or wflow_git_commit). workflowr only checks the R Markdown file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results were generated: 


Ignored files:
    Ignored:    .Rhistory
    Ignored:    .Rproj.user/

Unstaged changes:
    Modified:   analysis/index.Rmd
    Modified:   analysis/overdispersed_splitting.Rmd

Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.

These are the previous versions of the repository in which changes were made to the R Markdown (analysis/overdispersed_splitting_analysis.Rmd) and HTML (docs/overdispersed_splitting_analysis.html) files. If you’ve configured a remote Git repository (see ?wflow_git_remote), click on the hyperlinks in the table below to view the files as they were in that past version.

File Version Author Date Message
Rmd e81dbd9 DongyueXie 2023-01-07 wflow_publish("analysis/overdispersed_splitting_analysis.Rmd")

Introduction

In previous examples, the prior on \(b\) is estimated to be a point mass.

This is because the ebnm was not able to find having more than one component useful.

Is \(g\sim\delta_\theta\) a local optimal? Probably not.

In theory when \(g(b)\) is a point mass then the ELBO of mean field splitting and the one with marginal \(f(\mu;g,\sigma^2)\) are equivalent. But this does not mean \(g(b)\) must be a point mass to maximize the elbo.