Empirical Bayes Methods, Evidentialism, and the Inferential Roles They Play.

IF 2 3区 物理与天体物理 Q2 PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Entropy Pub Date : 2024-10-12 DOI:10.3390/e26100859
Samidha Shetty, Gordon Brittan, Prasanta S Bandyopadhyay
{"title":"Empirical Bayes Methods, Evidentialism, and the Inferential Roles They Play.","authors":"Samidha Shetty, Gordon Brittan, Prasanta S Bandyopadhyay","doi":"10.3390/e26100859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Empirical Bayes-based Methods (<i>EBM</i>) is an increasingly popular form of Objective Bayesianism (<i>OB</i>). It is identified in particular with the statistician Bradley Efron. The main aims of this paper are, first, to describe and illustrate its main features and, second, to locate its role by comparing it with two other statistical paradigms, Subjective Bayesianism (<i>SB</i>) and Evidentialism<i>. EBM</i>'s main formal features are illustrated in some detail by schematic examples. The comparison between what Efron calls their underlying \"philosophies\" is by way of a distinction made between confirmation and evidence. Although this distinction is sometimes made in the statistical literature, it is relatively rare and never to the same point as here. That is, the distinction is invariably spelled out intra- and not inter-paradigmatically solely in terms of one or the other accounts. The distinction made in this paper between confirmation and evidence is illustrated by two well-known statistical paradoxes: the base-rate fallacy and Popper's paradox of ideal evidence. The general conclusion reached is that each of the paradigms has a basic role to play and all are required by an adequate account of statistical inference from a technically informed and fine-grained philosophical perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":11694,"journal":{"name":"Entropy","volume":"26 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11507398/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Entropy","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/e26100859","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Empirical Bayes-based Methods (EBM) is an increasingly popular form of Objective Bayesianism (OB). It is identified in particular with the statistician Bradley Efron. The main aims of this paper are, first, to describe and illustrate its main features and, second, to locate its role by comparing it with two other statistical paradigms, Subjective Bayesianism (SB) and Evidentialism. EBM's main formal features are illustrated in some detail by schematic examples. The comparison between what Efron calls their underlying "philosophies" is by way of a distinction made between confirmation and evidence. Although this distinction is sometimes made in the statistical literature, it is relatively rare and never to the same point as here. That is, the distinction is invariably spelled out intra- and not inter-paradigmatically solely in terms of one or the other accounts. The distinction made in this paper between confirmation and evidence is illustrated by two well-known statistical paradoxes: the base-rate fallacy and Popper's paradox of ideal evidence. The general conclusion reached is that each of the paradigms has a basic role to play and all are required by an adequate account of statistical inference from a technically informed and fine-grained philosophical perspective.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经验贝叶斯方法、实证主义及其推论作用。
基于经验贝叶斯的方法(EBM)是客观贝叶斯主义(OB)的一种日益流行的形式。它的创始人是统计学家布拉德利-埃夫隆(Bradley Efron)。本文的主要目的是:第一,描述和说明其主要特征;第二,通过与其他两种统计范式--主观贝叶斯主义(SB)和证据主义--的比较,确定其作用。EBM 的主要形式特征通过示意图例进行了详细说明。埃夫隆所说的这两种基本 "哲学 "之间的比较是通过对确认和证据的区分进行的。虽然统计文献中有时也会进行这种区分,但这种区分相对较少,而且从未达到与此处相同的程度。也就是说,这种区分总是在范式内部,而不是在范式之间,仅从其中一种或另一种说法的角度进行的。本文通过两个著名的统计悖论:基率谬误和波普尔的理想证据悖论来说明确认与证据之间的区别。本文得出的一般结论是,每种范式都有其基本作用,从技术和精细哲学的角度对统计推论进行充分说明时,所有范式都是必需的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Entropy
Entropy PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
1580
审稿时长
21.05 days
期刊介绍: Entropy (ISSN 1099-4300), an international and interdisciplinary journal of entropy and information studies, publishes reviews, regular research papers and short notes. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish as much as possible their theoretical and experimental details. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. If there are computation and the experiment, the details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
期刊最新文献
The Capacity Gains of Gaussian Channels with Unstable Versus Stable Autoregressive Noise. GAME-YOLO: Global Attention and Multi-Scale Enhancement for Low-Visibility UAV Detection with Sub-Pixel Localization. Transfer Irreversibilities in the Lenoir Cycle: FTT Design Criteria with ε-NTU. Comprehension as Purification in Reading. A Multi-Feature Fusion-Based Two-Stage Method for Airport Crater Extraction from Remote Sensing Images.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1