How Does Bayesian Estimation Determine Point Estimates with Prior Distributions?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
3 replies · 3K views
rayge
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Let [itex]Y_n[/itex] be the nth order statistic of a random sample of size n from a distribution with pdf [itex]f(x|\theta)=1/\theta[/itex] from [itex]0[/itex] to [itex]\theta[/itex], zero elsewhere. Take the loss function to be [itex]L(\theta, \delta(y))=[\theta-\delta(y_n)]^2[/itex]. Let [itex]\theta[/itex] be an observed value of the random variable [itex]\Theta[/itex], which has the prior pdf [itex]h(\theta)=\frac{\beta \alpha^\beta} {\theta^{\beta + 1}}, \alpha < \theta < \infty[/itex], zero elsewhere, with [itex]\alpha > 0, \beta > 0[/itex]. Find the Bayes solution [itex]\delta(y_n)[/itex] for a point estimate of [itex]\theta[/itex].
The attempt at a solution
I've found that the conditional pdf of [itex]Y_n[/itex] given [itex]\theta[/itex] is:
[tex]\frac{n y_n^{n-1}}{\theta^n}[/tex]
which allows us to find the posterior [itex]k(\theta|y_n)[/itex] by finding what it's proportional to:
[tex]k(\theta|y_n) \propto \frac{n y_n^{n-1}}{\theta^n}\frac{\beta \alpha^\beta}{\theta^{\beta + 1}}[/tex]
Where I'm sketchy is that apparently we can just remove all terms not having to do with theta, come up with a fudge factor to make the distribution integrate to 1 over its support, and call it good. I end up with:
[tex]\frac{1}{\theta^{n+\beta}}[/tex]
When I integrate from [itex]\alpha[/itex] to [itex]\infty[/itex], and solve for the fudge factor, I get [itex](n+\beta)\alpha^{n+\beta}[/itex] as the scaling factor, so for my posterior I get:
[tex](n+\beta)\alpha^{n+\beta}\frac{1}{\theta^{n+\beta}}[/tex]
Which doesn't even have a [itex]y_n[/itex] term in it. Weird.

When I find the expected value of [itex]\theta[/itex] with this distribution, I get 1. Which isn't a very compelling point estimate. So I think I missed a [itex]y_n[/itex] somewhere but I don't know where. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not an area I'm familiar with, so can't help with your specific question, but one thing does look wrong to me: if you substitute n=0 in your answer, shouldn't you get h(θ)? The power of theta seems to be one off.
 
I wrote a whole reply here while totally missing what you were saying. Thanks for the response! I'll check it out.
 
rayge said:
Homework Statement
Let [itex]Y_n[/itex] be the nth order statistic of a random sample of size n from a distribution with pdf [itex]f(x|\theta)=1/\theta[/itex] from [itex]0[/itex] to [itex]\theta[/itex], zero elsewhere. Take the loss function to be [itex]L(\theta, \delta(y))=[\theta-\delta(y_n)]^2[/itex]. Let [itex]\theta[/itex] be an observed value of the random variable [itex]\Theta[/itex], which has the prior pdf [itex]h(\theta)=\frac{\beta \alpha^\beta} {\theta^{\beta + 1}}, \alpha < \theta < \infty[/itex], zero elsewhere, with [itex]\alpha > 0, \beta > 0[/itex]. Find the Bayes solution [itex]\delta(y_n)[/itex] for a point estimate of [itex]\theta[/itex].
The attempt at a solution
I've found that the conditional pdf of [itex]Y_n[/itex] given [itex]\theta[/itex] is:
[tex]\frac{n y_n^{n-1}}{\theta^n}[/tex]
which allows us to find the posterior [itex]k(\theta|y_n)[/itex] by finding what it's proportional to:
[tex]k(\theta|y_n) \propto \frac{n y_n^{n-1}}{\theta^n}\frac{\beta \alpha^\beta}{\theta^{\beta + 1}}[/tex]
Where I'm sketchy is that apparently we can just remove all terms not having to do with theta, come up with a fudge factor to make the distribution integrate to 1 over its support, and call it good. I end up with:
[tex]\frac{1}{\theta^{n+\beta}}[/tex]
When I integrate from [itex]\alpha[/itex] to [itex]\infty[/itex], and solve for the fudge factor, I get [itex](n+\beta)\alpha^{n+\beta}[/itex] as the scaling factor, so for my posterior I get:
[tex](n+\beta)\alpha^{n+\beta}\frac{1}{\theta^{n+\beta}}[/tex]
Which doesn't even have a [itex]y_n[/itex] term in it. Weird.

When I find the expected value of [itex]\theta[/itex] with this distribution, I get 1. Which isn't a very compelling point estimate. So I think I missed a [itex]y_n[/itex] somewhere but I don't know where. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

I'm not sure how the loss-function business enters into the calculation, but you seem to be trying to compute the Bayesian posterior density of ##\theta##, given ##Y_n = y_n##. You have made an error in that. Below, I will use ##Y,y## instead of ##Y_n,y_n##, ##C,c## instead of ##\Theta, \theta## and ##a,b## instead of ##\alpha, \beta##---just to make typing easier.

Using the given prior density, the joint density of ##(y,c)## is
[tex]f_{Y,C}(y,c) = \frac{b a^b}{c^{b+1}} \frac{n y^{n-1}}{c^n}, 0 < y < c, a < c < \infty[/tex]
The (prior) density of ##Y## is ##f_Y(y) = \int f_{Y,C}(y,c) \, dc##, but you need to be careful about integration limits. For ##0 < y < a## we have
[tex]f_Y(y) = \int_{c=a}^{\infty} f_{Y,C}(y,c) \, dc <br /> = \frac{n b y^{n-1}}{a^n (b+n)}, \; 0 < y < a[/tex] For ##y > a## we have
[tex]f_Y(y) = \int_{c=y}^{\infty} f_{Y,C}(y,c) \, dc <br /> = \frac{n b a^b}{y^{b+1}(b+n)}, \: y > a[/tex] Thus, the posterior density of ##C## will depend on ##y##, since the denominator in ##f(c|y) = f_{Y,C}(y,c)/f_Y(y)## has two different forms for ##y < a## and ##y > a##.
 
Last edited: