Given that we provide default priors, we should emphasize that they are not necessarily safe to use blindly, and that results can be quite sensitive particularly in small trees. One way we could bring this to user's attention is with automated sensitivity checks using power scaling and importance sampling, as described here:
Kallioinen, N., Paananen, T., Bürkner, P. C., & Vehtari, A. (2024). Detecting and diagnosing prior and likelihood sensitivity with power-scaling. Statistics and Computing, 34(1), 57.
Interesting! So would such a function take the user's dataset and model, and feed them to the priorsense functions under the hood? Or could we just suggest that users check out this package separately from ours?
Given that we provide default priors, we should emphasize that they are not necessarily safe to use blindly, and that results can be quite sensitive particularly in small trees. One way we could bring this to user's attention is with automated sensitivity checks using power scaling and importance sampling, as described here:
Kallioinen, N., Paananen, T., Bürkner, P. C., & Vehtari, A. (2024). Detecting and diagnosing prior and likelihood sensitivity with power-scaling. Statistics and Computing, 34(1), 57.
There is now an R package that implements this approach called priorsense: https://n-kall.github.io/priorsense/.