  Bayesian inference has widely acknowledged advantages in many problems, but
it can also be unreliable if the model is misspecified. Bayesian modular
inference is concerned with inference in complex models which have been
specified through a collection of coupled sub-models. The sub-models are called
modules in the literature, and they often arise from modeling different data
sources, or from combining domain knowledge from different disciplines. When
some modules are misspecified, cutting feedback is a widely used Bayesian
modular inference method which ensures that information from suspect model
components is not used in making inferences about parameters in correctly
specified modules. However, in general settings it is difficult to decide when
this ``cut posterior'' is preferable to the exact posterior. When
misspecification is not severe, cutting feedback may increase the uncertainty
in Bayesian posterior inference greatly without reducing estimation bias
substantially. This motivates semi-modular inference methods, which avoid the
binary cut of cutting feedback approaches. In this work, using a local model
misspecification framework, we provide the first precise formulation of the the
bias-variance trade-off that has motivated the literature on semi-modular
inference. We then implement a mixture-based semi-modular inference approach,
demonstrating theoretically that it delivers inferences that are more accurate,
in terms of a user-defined loss function, than if either the cut or full
posterior were used by themselves. The new method is demonstrated in a number
of applications.
