Difference between add_fitted_draws() and add_predicted_draws() when applied to brms binomial (Bernoulli) models

Dear Experts,

I am a Bayesian newbie. I have a question about the difference between add_fitted_draws() and add_predicted_draws() when applied to brms binomial (Bernoulli) models. Specifically, using a cut-off of 50%, I compared predictions from add_fitted_draws() with those from add_predicted_draws. I expected the 2 sets of values to be similar - but they differed. Below, I provide a minimal example.

Thank you in advance for your kind guidance and advice.

rm(list=ls())
library(rms)
library(tidyverse)
library(brms)
library(tidybayes)
library(janitor)

pr_flrm = c(
prior(normal(0, 0.857), class = "b", coef = "vs1"),
prior(normal(0, 0.00857), class = "b", coef = "hp"))

flrm <- brm(am ~ hp + vs,
data=mtcars,
family='bernoulli',
prior=pr_flrm,
sample_prior = TRUE,  ## so that we can visualize the prior distribution
save_pars = save_pars(all = TRUE),
seed=1202)

## predictions from add_fitted_draws
mtcars %>%
dplyr::select(hp, vs) %>%
add_fitted_draws(flrm, seed = 1234, n=1000) %>%
clean_names %>%
mutate(prediction = (value>0.50)*1) %>%   ## using a cut-off of 0.50
group_by(row)  %>% ## each subject
summarise(across(c(prediction), ~ list(smean.sd(.x)))) %>%
unnest_wider(prediction)

# A tibble: 32 x 3
row  Mean    SD
<int> <dbl> <dbl>
1     1 0.342 0.475
2     2 0.342 0.475
3     3 0.479 0.500
4     4 0.382 0.486
5     5 0.073 0.260
6     6 0.414 0.493
7     7 0.042 0.201
8     8 0.631 0.483
9     9 0.468 0.499
10    10 0.328 0.470
# ... with 22 more rows

## predictions from add_predicted_draws
mtcars %>%
dplyr::select(hp, vs) %>%
add_predicted_draws(flrm, seed = 1234, n=1000) %>%
clean_names %>%
group_by(row)  %>% ## each subject
summarise(across(c(prediction), ~ list(smean.sd(.x)))) %>%   ## smean.sd() from Hmsic
unnest_wider(prediction)

# A tibble: 32 x 3
row  Mean    SD
<int> <dbl> <dbl>
1     1 0.461 0.499
2     2 0.45  0.498
3     3 0.491 0.500
4     4 0.467 0.499
5     5 0.322 0.467
6     6 0.495 0.500
7     7 0.295 0.456
8     8 0.528 0.499
9     9 0.481 0.500
10    10 0.416 0.493
# ... with 22 more rows

.

1 Like

I guess I have answered my own question: If I were to use rbinom() of size 1 to simulate a Bernoulli outcome, the 2 sets of predictions are similar.

## use rbinom of size 1 to simulate a Bernoulli outcome
mtcars %>%
dplyr::select(hp, vs) %>%
add_fitted_draws(flrm, seed = 1234, n=1000) %>%
clean_names %>%
group_by(row) %>%
mutate(prediction = map(value, ~ rbinom(1, size = 1, prob = .x))) %>%
unnest(prediction) %>%
summarise(across(c(prediction), ~ list(smean.sd(.x)))) %>%
unnest_wider(prediction)

# A tibble: 32 x 3
row  Mean    SD
<int> <dbl> <dbl>
1     1 0.429 0.495
2     2 0.438 0.496
3     3 0.502 0.500
4     4 0.461 0.499
5     5 0.359 0.480
6     6 0.5   0.500
7     7 0.256 0.437
8     8 0.56  0.497
9     9 0.493 0.500
10    10 0.455 0.498
# ... with 22 more rows

1 Like

Great that you were able to move forward. Yes, the main distinction is that add_predicted_draws starts with the â€śfittedâ€ť draws but then adds the measurement noise (as you did via the rbinom)

Best of luck in further adventures with Stan!

Thank you for taking time to read and respond to my question. Kudos to the Stan team for the software and support.