The marginalization paradox does not imply inconsistency for improper priors
نویسنده
چکیده
The marginalization paradox involves a disagreement between two Bayesians who use two different procedures for calculating a posterior in the presence of an improper prior. We show that the argument used to justify the procedure of one of the Bayesians is inapplicable. There is therefore no reason to expect agreement, no paradox, and no evidence that improper priors are inherently inconsistent. We show further that the procedure in question can be interpreted as the cancellation of infinities in the formal posterior. We suggest that the implicit use of this formal procedure is the source of the observed disagreement.
منابع مشابه
ar X iv : 0 70 8 . 13 50 v 1 [ m at h . ST ] 1 0 A ug 2 00 7 The Marginalization Paradox and the Formal Bayes ’ Law
It has recently been shown that the marginalization paradox (MP) can be resolved by interpreting improper inferences as probability limits. The key to the resolution is that probability limits need not satisfy the formal Bayes’ law, which is used in the MP to deduce an inconsistency. In this paper, I explore the differences between probability limits and the more familiar pointwise limits, whic...
متن کاملBayes Theorem for Improper Priors
Improper priors are used frequently, but often formally and without reference to a sound theoretical basis. A consequence is the occurrence of seemingly paradoxical results. The most famous example is perhaps given by the marginalization paradoxes presented by Stone and Dawid (1972). It is demonstrated here that the seemingly paradoxical results are removed by a more careful formulation of the ...
متن کاملA Poisson Point Process Model with Its Applications and Network Analysis of Genome-wide Association Study
1: Although Bayes’s theorem demands a prior that is a probability distribution on the parameter space, the calculus associated with Bayes’s theorem sometimes generates sensible procedures from improper priors. However, improper priors may also lead to Bayes procedures that are paradoxical or otherwise unsatisfactory prompting some authors to insist that all priors be proper. Our model begins wi...
متن کاملThe Knower's Paradox and Representational Theories of Attitudes
This paper is about a well-known problem concerning the treatment of propositional attitudes. Results obtained by Kaplan and Montogue In the early sixties Imply that certain propositional attitude theories are threatened with inconsistency. How large the variety of such theories really is has been stressed by Thomason (1960). It includes all those attitude accounts that ere often referred to as...
متن کاملImproper Priors Are Not Improper
It is well known that improper priors in Bayesian statistics may lead to proper posterior distributions and useful inference procedures. This motivates us to give an elementary introduction to a theoretical frame for statistics that includes improper priors. Axioms that allow improper priors are given by a relaxed version of Kolmogorov’s formulation of probability theory. The theory of conditio...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2003