{"title":"杰弗里斯-林德利悖论的历史和本质","authors":"Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, 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":"{\"title\":\"History and nature of the Jeffreys–Lindley paradox\",\"authors\":\"Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, 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}","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}
History and nature of the Jeffreys–Lindley paradox
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.
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.