Is Bayes posterior just quick and dirty confidence?

From MaRDI portal
Publication:449832

DOI10.1214/11-STS352zbMATH Open1246.62040arXiv1112.5582OpenAlexW3101847394MaRDI QIDQ449832FDOQ449832


Authors: D. A. S. Fraser Edit this on Wikidata


Publication date: 1 September 2012

Published in: Statistical Science (Search for Journal in Brave)

Abstract: Bayes [Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 53 (1763) 370--418; 54 296--325] introduced the observed likelihood function to statistical inference and provided a weight function to calibrate the parameter; he also introduced a confidence distribution on the parameter space but did not provide present justifications. Of course the names likelihood and confidence did not appear until much later: Fisher [Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 222 (1922) 309--368] for likelihood and Neyman [Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 237 (1937) 333--380] for confidence. Lindley [J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B 20 (1958) 102--107] showed that the Bayes and the confidence results were different when the model was not location. This paper examines the occurrence of true statements from the Bayes approach and from the confidence approach, and shows that the proportion of true statements in the Bayes case depends critically on the presence of linearity in the model; and with departure from this linearity the Bayes approach can be a poor approximation and be seriously misleading. Bayesian integration of weighted likelihood thus provides a first-order linear approximation to confidence, but without linearity can give substantially incorrect results.


Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5582




Recommendations




Cites Work


Cited In (45)





This page was built for publication: Is Bayes posterior just quick and dirty confidence?

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q449832)