History and nature of the Jeffreys–Lindley paradox

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Archive for History of Exact Sciences Pub Date : 2022-08-26 DOI:10.1007/s00407-022-00298-3
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Alexander Ly
{"title":"History and nature of the Jeffreys–Lindley paradox","authors":"Eric-Jan Wagenmakers,&nbsp;Alexander Ly","doi":"10.1007/s00407-022-00298-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Jeffreys–Lindley paradox exposes a rift between Bayesian and frequentist hypothesis testing that strikes at the heart of statistical inference. Contrary to what most current literature suggests, the paradox was central to the Bayesian testing methodology developed by Sir Harold Jeffreys in the late 1930s. Jeffreys showed that the evidence for a point-null hypothesis <span>\\({\\mathcal {H}}_0\\)</span> scales with <span>\\(\\sqrt{n}\\)</span> and repeatedly argued that it would, therefore, be mistaken to set a threshold for rejecting <span>\\({\\mathcal {H}}_0\\)</span> at a constant multiple of the standard error. Here, we summarize Jeffreys’s early work on the paradox and clarify his reasons for including the <span>\\(\\sqrt{n}\\)</span> term. The prior distribution is seen to play a crucial role; by implicitly correcting for selection, small parameter values are identified as relatively surprising under <span>\\({\\mathcal {H}}_1\\)</span>. We highlight the general nature of the paradox by presenting both a fully frequentist and a fully Bayesian version. We also demonstrate that the paradox does not depend on assigning prior mass to a point hypothesis, as is commonly believed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50982,"journal":{"name":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","volume":"77 1","pages":"25 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00407-022-00298-3.pdf","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00407-022-00298-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

The Jeffreys–Lindley paradox exposes a rift between Bayesian and frequentist hypothesis testing that strikes at the heart of statistical inference. Contrary to what most current literature suggests, the paradox was central to the Bayesian testing methodology developed by Sir Harold Jeffreys in the late 1930s. Jeffreys showed that the evidence for a point-null hypothesis \({\mathcal {H}}_0\) scales with \(\sqrt{n}\) and repeatedly argued that it would, therefore, be mistaken to set a threshold for rejecting \({\mathcal {H}}_0\) at a constant multiple of the standard error. Here, we summarize Jeffreys’s early work on the paradox and clarify his reasons for including the \(\sqrt{n}\) term. The prior distribution is seen to play a crucial role; by implicitly correcting for selection, small parameter values are identified as relatively surprising under \({\mathcal {H}}_1\). We highlight the general nature of the paradox by presenting both a fully frequentist and a fully Bayesian version. We also demonstrate that the paradox does not depend on assigning prior mass to a point hypothesis, as is commonly believed.

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
杰弗里斯-林德利悖论的历史和本质
Jeffreys–Lindley悖论暴露了贝叶斯和频率论假设检验之间的裂痕,这是统计推断的核心。与大多数现有文献所表明的相反,这个悖论是哈罗德·杰弗里斯爵士在20世纪30年代末开发的贝叶斯测试方法的核心。Jeffreys证明了零点假设({\mathcal{H}}_0)的证据与({\sqrt{n}\)成比例,并反复辩称,因此,将拒绝({\ mathcal{H}}_0\)的阈值设置为标准误差的常数倍是错误的。在这里,我们总结了杰弗里斯关于悖论的早期工作,并澄清了他包含\(\sqrt{n}\)术语的原因。先验分布被认为起着至关重要的作用;通过隐式校正选择,小参数值在\({\mathcal{H}}_1\)下被识别为相对令人惊讶。我们通过呈现完全频繁论者和完全贝叶斯版本来强调悖论的一般性质。我们还证明了悖论并不取决于像人们普遍认为的那样,将先前的质量分配给点假设。
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
Archive for History of Exact Sciences
Archive for History of Exact Sciences 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Archive for History of Exact Sciences casts light upon the conceptual groundwork of the sciences by analyzing the historical course of rigorous quantitative thought and the precise theory of nature in the fields of mathematics, physics, technical chemistry, computer science, astronomy, and the biological sciences, embracing as well their connections to experiment. This journal nourishes historical research meeting the standards of the mathematical sciences. Its aim is to give rapid and full publication to writings of exceptional depth, scope, and permanence.
期刊最新文献
The formation of a paper tool: intensity schemes in the old quantum theory When genius met data: Kepler’s first exploration of Tycho’s observations Galois’s theory of ambiguity and its impacts How to use Kepler’s first and second laws in a geo-heliocentric system? Ask G.B. Riccioli A metrological and historical perspective on the stadion and its use in ancient geography
×
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:481959085
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