# Robust Bayesian Meta-Analysis

#### František Bartoš

#### 4th of May 2026

In the Publication-Bias Adjustment vignette, we fit PET, PEESE, and a weight-function selection model on the ego-depletion dataset and obtained three different bias-corrected effect size estimates. The methods encoded different bias mechanisms: PET and PEESE corrected for the relationship between effect sizes and standard errors or sampling variances, and the selection model adjusted for publication bias operating on p-values. There is no consensus on which of the three is the right adjustment to apply. The Bayesian Model Averaging vignette highlighted how an analogous fixed-vs-random-effects question can be resolved by combining the candidate models in one ensemble and weighting them by their posterior model probabilities; the same idea applies here.

Robust Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis (RoBMA) is the application of that idea to publication-bias adjustment (Bartoš et al., 2023; Maier et al., 2023). The default `RoBMA()` ensemble averages over the presence vs absence of an effect, the presence vs absence of heterogeneity, and a no-bias spike against several weight-function and PET / PEESE bias models in one fit. Inclusion Bayes factors quantify evidence for each of the three components, and the model-averaged estimates propagate uncertainty across the bias mechanisms instead of committing to a single one.

In this vignette we fit the default RoBMA ensemble on the same ego-depletion data used in the Publication-Bias Adjustment vignette, walk through the summary, the marginal posterior weights of the bias components, and the `interpret()` shortcut. We list the available `model_type` presets and close with a custom ensemble that combines only the three single-model bias adjustments fit one at a time in that vignette.

## Dataset

The example dataset is `dat.lehmann2018` from the `metadat` package: 81 standardized mean differences from the ego-depletion meta-analysis with effect sizes `yi` and sampling variances `vi` already computed. For the matching single-model bias adjustments and `metafor` package parity calls, see the Publication-Bias Adjustment vignette.

    library("RoBMA")

    data("dat.lehmann2018", package = "metadat")
    dat <- dat.lehmann2018
    head(dat[, c("Short_Title", "Year", "yi", "vi")])
    #>                                   Short_Title   Year        yi          vi
    #> 1                Roberts et al., 2010 - Exp 2 2010.1 0.3337773 0.049046910
    #> 2                Roberts et al., 2010 - Exp 2 2010.1 0.4014099 0.016037663
    #> 3  Wartenberg et al., 2011 - Exp 1 - In Group 2011.0 0.2036116 0.007916124
    #> 4 Gilston & Privitera, 2016 - Exp 1 - Healthy 2016.0 1.9163675 0.037967265
    #> 5                Roberts et al., 2010 - Exp 1 2010.1 0.1884325 0.023258447
    #> 6                Roberts et al., 2010 - Exp 1 2010.1 0.1852130 0.005905064

## Default RoBMA Ensemble

`RoBMA()` with default arguments fits the RoBMA-PSMA ensemble (Bartoš et al., 2023): spike-and-slab prior distributions on the effect and heterogeneity, and a 9-component bias mixture (no-bias spike, six weight functions, PET, PEESE). The default prior distributions on `mu`, `tau`, and the bias parameters match the single-model fits in the Publication-Bias Adjustment vignette.

    fit_RoBMA <- RoBMA(
      yi = yi, vi = vi, measure = "SMD",
      data = dat, seed = 1
    )

    summary(fit_RoBMA)
    #>
    #> Robust Bayesian Model-Averaged Random-Effects Model (k = 81)
    #>
    #> Component Inclusion
    #>                  Prior prob. Post. prob. Inclusion BF error%(Inclusion BF)
    #> Effect                 0.500       0.175        0.212                7.411
    #> Heterogeneity          0.500       1.000   >14999.000                   NA
    #> Publication Bias       0.500       0.960       24.126               16.142
    #>
    #> Estimates
    #>      Mean    SD  0.025   0.5 0.975 error(MCMC) error(MCMC)/SD  ESS R-hat
    #> mu  0.012 0.057 -0.064 0.000 0.203     0.00187          0.033  986 1.015
    #> tau 0.305 0.041  0.229 0.303 0.391     0.00046          0.011 8238 1.000
    #>
    #> Publication Bias
    #>                    Mean    SD 0.025   0.5 0.975 error(MCMC) error(MCMC)/SD  ESS R-hat
    #> omega[0,0.025]    1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000          NA             NA   NA    NA
    #> omega[0.025,0.05] 0.990 0.064 0.871 1.000 1.000     0.00094          0.015 5753 1.015
    #> omega[0.05,0.5]   0.978 0.109 0.508 1.000 1.000     0.00162          0.015 5103 1.004
    #> omega[0.5,0.95]   0.971 0.140 0.315 1.000 1.000     0.00215          0.015 4842 1.002
    #> omega[0.95,0.975] 0.971 0.140 0.315 1.000 1.000     0.00215          0.015 4848 1.002
    #> omega[0.975,1]    0.971 0.140 0.315 1.000 1.000     0.00215          0.015 4848 1.002
    #> PET               0.703 0.431 0.000 0.844 1.305     0.01067          0.025 1713 1.005
    #> PEESE             0.370 0.920 0.000 0.000 3.074     0.01949          0.021 2352 1.001
    #> P-value intervals for publication bias weights omega correspond to one-sided p-values.

The Components table reports inclusion Bayes factors for the three components. Model-averaged estimates combine all 36 sub-models in the ensemble (effect \(\times\) heterogeneity \(\times\) bias) weighted by their posterior probabilities; we report the bias parameters only for the bias-adjusted sub-models.

`summary_models()` breaks the mixture prior distributions of the three components down into their individual sub-models and reports their prior weight, posterior weight, and individual inclusion Bayes factor.

    summary_models(fit_RoBMA)
    #>
    #> Effect
    #>                 Hypothesis  Prior prob. Post. prob. Inclusion BF error%(Inclusion BF)
    #> Spike(0)        Null              0.500       0.825        4.712                7.411
    #> Normal(0, 0.71) Alternative       0.500       0.175        0.212                7.411
    #>
    #> Heterogeneity
    #>                         Hypothesis  Prior prob. Post. prob. Inclusion BF error%(Inclusion BF)
    #> Spike(0)                Null              0.500       0.000        0.000                   NA
    #> Normal(0, 0.35)[0, Inf] Alternative       0.500       1.000          Inf                   NA
    #>
    #> Publication Bias
    #>                                 Hypothesis  Prior prob. Post. prob. Inclusion BF error%(Inclusion BF)
    #> None                            Null              0.500       0.040        0.041               16.142
    #> omega[two-sided: .05]           Alternative       0.042       0.001        0.026               33.781
    #> omega[two-sided: .05, .1]       Alternative       0.042       0.000        0.005               57.747
    #> omega[one-sided: .05]           Alternative       0.042       0.004        0.095               17.724
    #> omega[one-sided: .025, .05]     Alternative       0.042       0.006        0.136               13.589
    #> omega[one-sided: .05, .5]       Alternative       0.042       0.009        0.220               10.720
    #> omega[one-sided: .025, .05, .5] Alternative       0.042       0.025        0.578                9.286
    #> PET                             Alternative       0.125       0.766       22.923                6.008
    #> PEESE                           Alternative       0.125       0.149        1.224                6.237

The posterior model weights show which sub-models the data prefer within each component’s mixture. The bias side of the ensemble concentrates posterior mass on PET (posterior probability \(0.77\), individual inclusion BF \(\approx 23\)) with a smaller share on PEESE; the weight functions and the no-bias spike all receive negligible posterior weight. The `inclusion BF` column is the Bayes factor for that one sub-model against the rest of its mixture, so it does not need to agree with the component-level inclusion BF reported by `summary()`.

`plot()` overlays the prior and the model-averaged posterior of any model parameter. On `mu` the spike at zero (right-axis arrow) carries the posterior probability that the effect is null and the slab carries the rest; the grey shapes are the corresponding prior distribution.

    par(mar = c(4, 4, 1, 4))
    plot(fit_RoBMA, parameter = "mu", prior = TRUE, xlim = c(-1, 1), lwd = 2)

`interpret()` distills the components and the pooled estimates into prose. With `scope = "all"`, the bias section is included.

    interpret(fit_RoBMA, scope = "all")
    #> Robust Bayesian Model-Averaged Random-Effects Model (k = 81).
    #> Effect inclusion: moderate evidence against the effect (BF01 = 4.712).
    #> Heterogeneity inclusion: strong evidence in favor of heterogeneity (BFrf > 14999.000).
    #> Publication Bias inclusion: strong evidence in favor of publication bias (BFpb = 24.126).
    #> Pooled effect: model-averaged mean standardized mean difference = 0.012, 95% CrI [-0.064, 0.203].
    #> Pooled heterogeneity: model-averaged mean tau = 0.305, 95% CrI [0.229, 0.391].
    #> Publication-bias estimate (omega[0,0.025]): model-averaged mean omega[0,0.025] = 1.000, 95% CrI [1.000, 1.000].
    #> Publication-bias estimate (omega[0.025,0.05]): model-averaged mean omega[0.025,0.05] = 0.990, 95% CrI [0.871, 1.000].
    #> Publication-bias estimate (omega[0.05,0.5]): model-averaged mean omega[0.05,0.5] = 0.978, 95% CrI [0.508, 1.000].
    #> Publication-bias estimate (omega[0.5,0.95]): model-averaged mean omega[0.5,0.95] = 0.971, 95% CrI [0.315, 1.000].
    #> Publication-bias estimate (omega[0.95,0.975]): model-averaged mean omega[0.95,0.975] = 0.971, 95% CrI [0.315, 1.000].
    #> Publication-bias estimate (omega[0.975,1]): model-averaged mean omega[0.975,1] = 0.971, 95% CrI [0.315, 1.000].
    #> Publication-bias estimate (PET): model-averaged mean PET = 0.703, 95% CrI [0.000, 1.305].
    #> Publication-bias estimate (PEESE): model-averaged mean PEESE = 0.370, 95% CrI [0.000, 3.074].

## Preset Ensembles

`model_type` selects a preset bias-model ensemble. Each preset combines the no-bias spike with a different alternative set; the prior weight on “any bias” is \(0.5\) in every preset.

`model_type` | Alternative bias models
--- | ---
`"PSMA"` | 6 weight functions, PET, PEESE (the default RoBMA-PSMA ensemble (Bartoš et al., 2023))
`"PP"` | PET and PEESE only
`"6w"` | 6 weight functions only (no PET / PEESE)
`"2w"` | 2 two-sided weight functions only

The PEESE scale is rescaled by \(\text{UISD}_{\text{ratio}} = \text{UISD}_{\text{SMD}} / \text{UISD}_{\text{measure}}\) so the prior distribution describes a comparable bias on each effect-size scale (the ratio is \(1\) for `measure = "SMD"`). Bias-adjustment prior distributions are not affected by `rescale_priors`. Use `print_prior(fit, parameter = "bias")` on a `RoBMA(..., only_priors = TRUE)` fit to inspect the alternative components and prior weights inside any preset:

    fit_priors <- RoBMA(
      yi = yi, vi = vi, measure = "SMD",
      model_type = "PP",
      data = dat, only_priors = TRUE
    )
    print_prior(fit_priors, parameter = "bias")
    #> bias:
    #>   alternative:
    #>     (0.5/2) * PET ~ Cauchy(0, 1)[0, Inf]
    #>     (0.5/2) * PEESE ~ Cauchy(0, 5)[0, Inf]
    #>   null:
    #>     (1/2) * None

## Custom Bias Ensembles

Beyond the presets, we can specify the bias model space directly via `prior_bias`. This is useful when the publication process under study has a specific shape (for example, two-sided selection only or a single weight-function step at a non-default cutoff), or for sensitivity analyses against the preset choice.

The example below builds a 3-model bias ensemble out of the three single-model bias adjustments from the Publication-Bias Adjustment vignette (default `bPET()`, default `bPEESE()`, and default `bselmodel()`), so the ensemble averages over the same three bias mechanisms that vignette fit one at a time, plus the no-bias spike.

    fit_RoBMA_custom <- RoBMA(
      yi = yi, vi = vi, measure = "SMD",
      prior_bias = list(
        prior_PET(
          distribution = "Cauchy",
          parameters   = list(location = 0, scale = 1),
          truncation   = list(lower = 0, upper = Inf)
        ),
        prior_PEESE(
          distribution = "Cauchy",
          parameters   = list(location = 0, scale = 5),
          truncation   = list(lower = 0, upper = Inf)
        ),
        prior_weightfunction(
          "one-sided",
          steps   = c(0.025),
          weights = wf_cumulative(c(1, 1))
        )
      ),
      data = dat, seed = 1
    )

    interpret(fit_RoBMA_custom, scope = c("components", "estimates"))
    #> Robust Bayesian Model-Averaged Random-Effects Model (k = 81).
    #> Effect inclusion: moderate evidence against the effect (BF01 = 4.894).
    #> Heterogeneity inclusion: strong evidence in favor of heterogeneity (BFrf > 14999.000).
    #> Publication Bias inclusion: strong evidence in favor of publication bias (BFpb = 22.189).
    #> Pooled effect: model-averaged mean standardized mean difference = 0.009, 95% CrI [-0.076, 0.171].
    #> Pooled heterogeneity: model-averaged mean tau = 0.304, 95% CrI [0.229, 0.392].

The two ensembles agree on all three component inclusion conclusions: strong evidence for heterogeneity, moderate evidence against the effect, and strong evidence in favour of publication bias. The model-averaged effect on `mu` is essentially zero in both fits with overlapping credible intervals. The agreement reflects the bias-mixture composition reported by `summary_models()` above: the default ensemble already concentrates posterior weight on PET, so dropping the weight functions that received negligible weight does not move the model-averaged inference.

The prior probability of any bias is \(0.75\) in the custom fit and \(0.5\) in the default, because the three user-supplied alternative prior distributions all default to `prior_weights = 1` against the no-bias spike’s weight of \(1\). The component inclusion Bayes factor is invariant to this asymmetry; pass `prior_weights` explicitly on each prior in `prior_bias` to match a different prior odds split.

## Other Inference Helpers

`RoBMA()` returns an object of class `c("RoBMA", "brma")`, so all `summary()`, `plot()`, `predict()`, `funnel()`, `marginal_means()`, `rstudent()`, `qqnorm()`, and `influence()` methods documented in the Bayesian Meta-Analysis vignette work the same way. For single-model bias adjustment without averaging see the Publication-Bias Adjustment vignette; for the model-averaged workflow without publication-bias adjustment see Bayesian Model Averaging; the prior distributions on `mu`, `tau`, and the moderators are documented in Prior Distributions.

## References

Bartoš, F., Maier, M., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Doucouliagos, H., & Stanley, T. D. (2023). Robust Bayesian meta-analysis: Model-averaging across complementary publication bias adjustment methods. Research Synthesis Methods, 14(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1594
Maier, M., Bartoš, F., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2023). Robust Bayesian meta-analysis: Addressing publication bias with model-averaging. Psychological Methods, 28(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000405