{"title":"后验似然比分布的认识论解释","authors":"R. Meester, K. Slooten","doi":"10.1093/lpr/mgaa010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Often the expression of a likelihood ratio involves model parameters θ. This fact prompted many researchers to argue that a likelihood ratio should be accompanied by a confidence interval, as one would do when estimating θ itself. We first argue against this, based on our view of the likelihood ratio as a function of our knowledge of the model parameters, rather than being a function of the parameters themselves. There is, however, another interval that can be constructed, and which has been introduced in the literature. This is the interval obtained upon sampling from the so-called ‘posterior likelihood ratio distribution’, after removing, say, the most extreme 5% of a sample from this distribution. Although this construction appears in the literature, its interpretation remained unclear, as explicitly acknowledged in the literature. In this article we provide an interpretation: the posterior likelihood ratio distribution tells us which likelihood ratios we can expect if we were to obtain more information. As such, it can play a role in decision making procedures, for instance about the question whether or not it is worthwhile to try to obtain more data. The posterior likelihood ratio distribution has no relevance for the evidential value of the current data with our current knowledge. We illustrate all this with a number of examples.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/lpr/mgaa010","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An epistemic interpretation of the posterior likelihood ratio distribution\",\"authors\":\"R. Meester, K. Slooten\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lpr/mgaa010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Often the expression of a likelihood ratio involves model parameters θ. This fact prompted many researchers to argue that a likelihood ratio should be accompanied by a confidence interval, as one would do when estimating θ itself. We first argue against this, based on our view of the likelihood ratio as a function of our knowledge of the model parameters, rather than being a function of the parameters themselves. There is, however, another interval that can be constructed, and which has been introduced in the literature. This is the interval obtained upon sampling from the so-called ‘posterior likelihood ratio distribution’, after removing, say, the most extreme 5% of a sample from this distribution. Although this construction appears in the literature, its interpretation remained unclear, as explicitly acknowledged in the literature. In this article we provide an interpretation: the posterior likelihood ratio distribution tells us which likelihood ratios we can expect if we were to obtain more information. As such, it can play a role in decision making procedures, for instance about the question whether or not it is worthwhile to try to obtain more data. The posterior likelihood ratio distribution has no relevance for the evidential value of the current data with our current knowledge. We illustrate all this with a number of examples.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law Probability & Risk\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/lpr/mgaa010\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law Probability & Risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgaa010\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Probability & Risk","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgaa010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
An epistemic interpretation of the posterior likelihood ratio distribution
Often the expression of a likelihood ratio involves model parameters θ. This fact prompted many researchers to argue that a likelihood ratio should be accompanied by a confidence interval, as one would do when estimating θ itself. We first argue against this, based on our view of the likelihood ratio as a function of our knowledge of the model parameters, rather than being a function of the parameters themselves. There is, however, another interval that can be constructed, and which has been introduced in the literature. This is the interval obtained upon sampling from the so-called ‘posterior likelihood ratio distribution’, after removing, say, the most extreme 5% of a sample from this distribution. Although this construction appears in the literature, its interpretation remained unclear, as explicitly acknowledged in the literature. In this article we provide an interpretation: the posterior likelihood ratio distribution tells us which likelihood ratios we can expect if we were to obtain more information. As such, it can play a role in decision making procedures, for instance about the question whether or not it is worthwhile to try to obtain more data. The posterior likelihood ratio distribution has no relevance for the evidential value of the current data with our current knowledge. We illustrate all this with a number of examples.
期刊介绍:
Law, Probability & Risk is a fully refereed journal which publishes papers dealing with topics on the interface of law and probabilistic reasoning. These are interpreted broadly to include aspects relevant to the interpretation of scientific evidence, the assessment of uncertainty and the assessment of risk. The readership includes academic lawyers, mathematicians, statisticians and social scientists with interests in quantitative reasoning.
The primary objective of the journal is to cover issues in law, which have a scientific element, with an emphasis on statistical and probabilistic issues and the assessment of risk.
Examples of topics which may be covered include communications law, computers and the law, environmental law, law and medicine, regulatory law for science and technology, identification problems (such as DNA but including other materials), sampling issues (drugs, computer pornography, fraud), offender profiling, credit scoring, risk assessment, the role of statistics and probability in drafting legislation, the assessment of competing theories of evidence (possibly with a view to forming an optimal combination of them). In addition, a whole new area is emerging in the application of computers to medicine and other safety-critical areas. New legislation is required to define the responsibility of computer experts who develop software for tackling these safety-critical problems.