比较两个样本比较的客观和主观贝叶斯因素:分类定理在行动。

IF 1.8 4区 数学 Q1 STATISTICS & PROBABILITY
American Statistician Pub Date : 2019-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-05-10 DOI:10.1080/00031305.2017.1322142
Mithat Gönen, Wesley O Johnson, Yonggang Lu, Peter H Westfall
{"title":"比较两个样本比较的客观和主观贝叶斯因素:分类定理在行动。","authors":"Mithat Gönen, Wesley O Johnson, Yonggang Lu, Peter H Westfall","doi":"10.1080/00031305.2017.1322142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many Bayes factors have been proposed for comparing population means in two-sample (independent samples) studies. Recently, Wang and Liu (2015) presented an \"objective\" Bayes factor (BF) as an alternative to a \"subjective\" one presented by Gönen et al. (2005). Their report was evidently intended to show the superiority of their BF based on \"undesirable behavior\" of the latter. A wonderful aspect of Bayesian models is that they provide an opportunity to \"lay all cards on the table.\" What distinguishes the various BFs in the two-sample problem is the choice of priors (cards) for the model parameters. This article discusses desiderata of BFs that have been proposed, and proposes a new criterion to compare BFs, no matter whether subjectively or objectively determined: A BF may be preferred if it correctly classifies the data as coming from the correct model most often. The criterion is based on a famous result in classification theory to minimize the total probability of misclassification. This criterion is objective, easily verified by simulation, shows clearly the effects (positive or negative) of assuming particular priors, provides new insights into the appropriateness of BFs in general, and provides a new answer to the question, \"Which BF is best?\"</p>","PeriodicalId":50801,"journal":{"name":"American Statistician","volume":"73 1","pages":"22-31"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6424525/pdf/nihms-1502428.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Objective and Subjective Bayes Factors for the Two-Sample Comparison: The Classification Theorem in Action.\",\"authors\":\"Mithat Gönen, Wesley O Johnson, Yonggang Lu, Peter H Westfall\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00031305.2017.1322142\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Many Bayes factors have been proposed for comparing population means in two-sample (independent samples) studies. Recently, Wang and Liu (2015) presented an \\\"objective\\\" Bayes factor (BF) as an alternative to a \\\"subjective\\\" one presented by Gönen et al. (2005). Their report was evidently intended to show the superiority of their BF based on \\\"undesirable behavior\\\" of the latter. A wonderful aspect of Bayesian models is that they provide an opportunity to \\\"lay all cards on the table.\\\" What distinguishes the various BFs in the two-sample problem is the choice of priors (cards) for the model parameters. This article discusses desiderata of BFs that have been proposed, and proposes a new criterion to compare BFs, no matter whether subjectively or objectively determined: A BF may be preferred if it correctly classifies the data as coming from the correct model most often. The criterion is based on a famous result in classification theory to minimize the total probability of misclassification. This criterion is objective, easily verified by simulation, shows clearly the effects (positive or negative) of assuming particular priors, provides new insights into the appropriateness of BFs in general, and provides a new answer to the question, \\\"Which BF is best?\\\"</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50801,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Statistician\",\"volume\":\"73 1\",\"pages\":\"22-31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6424525/pdf/nihms-1502428.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Statistician\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1322142\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/5/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Statistician","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1322142","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/5/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在两个样本(独立样本)的研究中,已经提出了许多贝叶斯因子来比较总体均值。最近,王和刘(2015)提出了一个“客观”贝叶斯因子(BF),作为Gönen等人提出的“主观”贝叶斯因子的替代方案。(2005)。他们的报告显然是基于BF的“不良行为”来展示BF的优越性。贝叶斯模型的一个美妙之处在于,它们提供了一个“把所有卡片都摆在桌面上”的机会。区分两个样本问题中的各种BF的是模型参数的先验(卡片)的选择。本文讨论了已经提出的BF的需求,并提出了一个新的标准来比较BF,无论是主观还是客观确定的:如果BF正确地将数据分类为最常见的正确模型,那么它可能是首选。该准则基于分类理论中的一个著名结果,以最小化错误分类的总概率。该标准是客观的,易于通过模拟验证,清楚地显示了假设特定先验的影响(积极或消极),为一般BF的适当性提供了新的见解,并为“哪个BF最好?”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparing Objective and Subjective Bayes Factors for the Two-Sample Comparison: The Classification Theorem in Action.

Comparing Objective and Subjective Bayes Factors for the Two-Sample Comparison: The Classification Theorem in Action.

Comparing Objective and Subjective Bayes Factors for the Two-Sample Comparison: The Classification Theorem in Action.

Comparing Objective and Subjective Bayes Factors for the Two-Sample Comparison: The Classification Theorem in Action.

Many Bayes factors have been proposed for comparing population means in two-sample (independent samples) studies. Recently, Wang and Liu (2015) presented an "objective" Bayes factor (BF) as an alternative to a "subjective" one presented by Gönen et al. (2005). Their report was evidently intended to show the superiority of their BF based on "undesirable behavior" of the latter. A wonderful aspect of Bayesian models is that they provide an opportunity to "lay all cards on the table." What distinguishes the various BFs in the two-sample problem is the choice of priors (cards) for the model parameters. This article discusses desiderata of BFs that have been proposed, and proposes a new criterion to compare BFs, no matter whether subjectively or objectively determined: A BF may be preferred if it correctly classifies the data as coming from the correct model most often. The criterion is based on a famous result in classification theory to minimize the total probability of misclassification. This criterion is objective, easily verified by simulation, shows clearly the effects (positive or negative) of assuming particular priors, provides new insights into the appropriateness of BFs in general, and provides a new answer to the question, "Which BF is best?"

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
American Statistician
American Statistician 数学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
64
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Are you looking for general-interest articles about current national and international statistical problems and programs; interesting and fun articles of a general nature about statistics and its applications; or the teaching of statistics? Then you are looking for The American Statistician (TAS), published quarterly by the American Statistical Association. TAS contains timely articles organized into the following sections: Statistical Practice, General, Teacher''s Corner, History Corner, Interdisciplinary, Statistical Computing and Graphics, Reviews of Books and Teaching Materials, and Letters to the Editor.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信