Point estimate from multiple sampling distributions

capy_bara
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Dear all, I hope someone can help me.

I have two experimental groups, A (n=5) and B (n=8) containing biological samples. The samples are used to estimate my parameter of interest, θ. I do this with Markov-chain Monte-Carlo, which gives me a posterior distribution of θ for each of my samples. The distributions look approximately normal but are skewed a bit to the right. All values for θ are positive.
I wonder how I can now report single estimates (and confidence intervals) for θ in groups A and B, respectively.

Averaging the means of each distribution in one group gives me very different results than averaging the medians of all distributions. I also tried combining all distributions from one group and then taking the mean or the median. How can I find out which is the best way to summarize all distributions within one group to get a single point estimate?

I hope my problem is clear, I would appreciate any help.
Many thanks in advance,
capy_bara
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For each sample in A and B, you get a distribution of (possible) θ, and you want a single number and confidence interval for θ in A and B?

How can I find out which is the best way to summarize all distributions within one group to get a single point estimate?
Convolution, if nothing simpler works. This allows to get your point estimate and confidence level in a natural way.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top