Tractability of posterior distributions

  • Thread starter Thread starter pamparana
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Distributions
Click For Summary
Estimating the posterior distribution P(θ|y) is challenging due to the high dimensionality of the parameter space θ, even when both the prior and likelihood are Gaussian. While it may seem that the posterior distribution should also be Gaussian, the intractability arises from the complexity of the relationships between parameters and data. The discussion highlights that, despite Bishop's assertion of closed-form solutions for conditional and marginal distributions, practical estimation often requires optimization techniques that can be difficult to implement. Additionally, the assumption of having direct observations of θ complicates the setup, as real-world data typically does not provide such direct measurements. Overall, the intricacies of parameter estimation and the nature of the data contribute to the difficulty in tractably estimating posterior distributions.
pamparana
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I am trying to understand what makes estimating the posterior distribution such a hard problem.

So, imagine I need to estimate the posterior distribution over a set of parameters given the data y, so a quantity P(\theta|y) and \theta is generally high dimensional.

The prior over \theta is a multivariate Gaussian i.e. P(θ)∼N(θ;0,Σ)

The likelihood i.e. P(y|θ) can be written down as product over Gaussian likelihoods.

Now, it seems to be that the posterior distribution will also be Gaussian. Is that correct?

Secondly, going through Bishop's book, it seems that the conditional posterior distributions and the marginal distributions will be Gaussian as well (assuming that the joint distribution over the parameters and data is Gaussian) and should have a closed form solution. If that is the case, why is this problem intractable?

If I need to find the parameters of this posterior distribution, can this not be set as an optimisation problem where I estimate the mean and covariance of the posterior Gaussian? I am basically having trouble visualising why this problem is complicated?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pamparana said:
If I need to find the parameters of this posterior distribution, can this not be set as an optimisation problem where I estimate the mean and covariance of the posterior Gaussian?

I don't understand how you will set up the problem. If we have a multivariate gaussian we can estimate its parameters from observations of the variates. If you have a Gaussian posterior distribution where the variables are \theta, are you assuming you have data that gives direct observations of \theta ?
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K