贝叶斯因子与后验估计:同一枚硬币的两面

Harlan Campbell, P. Gustafson
{"title":"贝叶斯因子与后验估计:同一枚硬币的两面","authors":"Harlan Campbell, P. Gustafson","doi":"10.1080/00031305.2022.2139293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recently, several researchers have claimed that conclusions obtained from a Bayes factor (or the posterior odds) may contradict those obtained from Bayesian posterior estimation. In this article, we wish to point out that no such “contradiction” exists if one is willing to consistently define one’s priors and posteriors. The key for congruence is that the (implied) prior model odds used for testing are the same as those used for estimation. Our recommendation is simple: If one reports a Bayes factor comparing two models, then one should also report posterior estimates which appropriately acknowledge the uncertainty with regards to which of the two models is correct.","PeriodicalId":342642,"journal":{"name":"The American Statistician","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bayes Factors and Posterior Estimation: Two Sides of the Very Same Coin\",\"authors\":\"Harlan Campbell, P. Gustafson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00031305.2022.2139293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Recently, several researchers have claimed that conclusions obtained from a Bayes factor (or the posterior odds) may contradict those obtained from Bayesian posterior estimation. In this article, we wish to point out that no such “contradiction” exists if one is willing to consistently define one’s priors and posteriors. The key for congruence is that the (implied) prior model odds used for testing are the same as those used for estimation. Our recommendation is simple: If one reports a Bayes factor comparing two models, then one should also report posterior estimates which appropriately acknowledge the uncertainty with regards to which of the two models is correct.\",\"PeriodicalId\":342642,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Statistician\",\"volume\":\"107 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American Statistician\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2022.2139293\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Statistician","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2022.2139293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

最近,一些研究人员声称,从贝叶斯因子(或后验概率)得到的结论可能与贝叶斯后验估计得到的结论相矛盾。在本文中,我们希望指出,如果一个人愿意始终如一地定义自己的先验和后验,那么就不存在这样的“矛盾”。一致性的关键在于用于检验的(隐含的)先验模型几率与用于估计的概率相同。我们的建议很简单:如果有人报告贝叶斯因子比较两个模型,那么他也应该报告后验估计,适当地承认两个模型中哪一个是正确的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Bayes Factors and Posterior Estimation: Two Sides of the Very Same Coin
Abstract Recently, several researchers have claimed that conclusions obtained from a Bayes factor (or the posterior odds) may contradict those obtained from Bayesian posterior estimation. In this article, we wish to point out that no such “contradiction” exists if one is willing to consistently define one’s priors and posteriors. The key for congruence is that the (implied) prior model odds used for testing are the same as those used for estimation. Our recommendation is simple: If one reports a Bayes factor comparing two models, then one should also report posterior estimates which appropriately acknowledge the uncertainty with regards to which of the two models is correct.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A review of Design of Experiments courses offered to undergraduate students at American universities On Misuses of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test for One-Sample Goodness-of-Fit Sequential Selection for Minimizing the Variance with Application to Crystallization Experiments Sequential Selection for Minimizing the Variance with Application to Crystallization Experiments Introduction to Stochastic Finance with Market Examples, 2nd ed Introduction to Stochastic Finance with Market Examples, 2nd ed . Nicolas Privault, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 2023, x + 652 pp., $120.00(H), ISBN 978-1-032-28826-0.
×
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