Noninformative priors for the generalized half-normal distribution

In this paper, we develop noninformative priors for the generalized half-normal distribution when scale and shape parameters are of interest, respectively. Especially, we develop the first and second order matching priors for both parameters. For the shape parameter, we reveal that the second order matching prior is a highest posterior density (HPD) matching prior and a cumulative distribution function (CDF) matching prior. In addition, it matches the alternative coverage probabilities up to the second order. For the scale parameter, we reveal that the second order matching prior is neither a HPD matching prior nor a CDF matching prior. Also, it does not match the alternative coverage probabilities up to the second order. For both parameters, we present that the one-at-a-time reference prior is a second order matching prior. However, Jeffreys’ prior is neither a first nor a second order matching prior. Methods are illustrated with both a simulation study and a real data set.     

A matching prior for the product of normal means based on the modified profile likelihood

In this paper, we develop a matching prior for the product of means in several normal distributions with unrestricted means and unknown variances. For this problem, properly assigning priors for the product of normal means has been issued because of the presence of nuisance parameters. Matching priors, which are priors matching the posterior probabilities of certain regions with their frequentist coverage probabilities, are commonly used but difficult to derive in this problem. We developed the first order probability matching priors for this problem; however, the developed matching priors are unproper. Thus, we apply an alternative method and derive a matching prior based on a modification of the profile likelihood. Simulation studies show that the derived matching prior performs better than the uniform prior and Jeffreys’ prior in meeting the target coverage probabilities, and meets well the target coverage probabilities even for the small sample sizes. In addition, to evaluate the validity of the proposed matching prior, Bayesian credible interval for the product of normal means using the matching prior is compared to Bayesian credible intervals using the uniform prior and Jeffrey’s prior, and the confidence interval using the method of Yfantis and Flatman.     

Pseudo-bayes estimation of multinomial proportions

In the simultaneous estimation of multinomial proportions, two estimators are developed which incorporate prior means and a prior parameter which reflects the accuracy of the prior means. These estimators possess substantially smaller risk than the standard estimator in a region of the parameter space and are much more robust than the conjugate Bayes estimator with respect to parameter values far from the prior mean. When vague prior information is available, these estimators and confidence regions derived from them appear to be attractive alternatives to the procedures based on the standard estimator.     

Addressing potential prior‐data conflict when using informative priors in proof‐of‐concept studies

Bayesian methods are increasingly used in proof‐of‐concept studies. An important benefit of these methods is the potential to use informative priors, thereby reducing sample size. This is particularly relevant for treatment arms where there is a substantial amount of historical information such as placebo and active comparators. One issue with using an informative prior is the possibility of a mismatch between the informative prior and the observed data, referred to as prior‐data conflict. We focus on two methods for dealing with this: a testing approach and a mixture prior approach. The testing approach assesses prior‐data conflict by comparing the observed data to the prior predictive distribution and resorting to a non‐informative prior if prior‐data conflict is declared. The mixture prior approach uses a prior with a precise and diffuse component. We assess these approaches for the normal case via simulation and show they have some attractive features as compared with the standard one‐component informative prior. For example, when the discrepancy between the prior and the data is sufficiently marked, and intuitively, one feels less certain about the results, both the testing and mixture approaches typically yield wider posterior‐credible intervals than when there is no discrepancy. In contrast, when there is no discrepancy, the results of these approaches are typically similar to the standard approach. Whilst for any specific study, the operating characteristics of any selected approach should be assessed and agreed at the design stage; we believe these two approaches are each worthy of consideration. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Prior elicitation, variable selection and Bayesian computation for logistic regression models

Bayesian selection of variables is often difficult to carry out because of the challenge in specifying prior distributions for the regression parameters for all possible models, specifying a prior distribution on the model space and computations. We address these three issues for the logistic regression model. For the first, we propose an informative prior distribution for variable selection. Several theoretical and computational properties of the prior are derived and illustrated with several examples. For the second, we propose a method for specifying an informative prior on the model space, and for the third we propose novel methods for computing the marginal distribution of the data. The new computational algorithms only require Gibbs samples from the full model to facilitate the computation of the prior and posterior model probabilities for all possible models. Several properties of the algorithms are also derived. The prior specification for the first challenge focuses on the observables in that the elicitation is based on a prior prediction y ₀ for the response vector and a quantity a ₀ quantifying the uncertainty in y ₀. Then, y ₀ and a ₀ are used to specify a prior for the regression coefficients semi-automatically. Examples using real data are given to demonstrate the methodology.     

On the choice of the prior distribution in hypergeometric sampling

Information in a statistical procedure arising from sources other than sampling is called prior information, and its incorporation into the procedure forms the basis of the Bayesian approach to statistics. Under hypergeometric sampling, methodology is developed which quantifies the amount of information provided by the sample data relative to that provided by the prior distribution and allows for a ranking of prior distributions with respect to conservativeness, where conservatism refers to restraint of extraneous information embedded in any prior distribution. The most conservative prior distribution from a specified class (each member of which carries the available prior information) is that prior distribution within the class over which the likelihood function has the greatest average domination. Four different families of prior distributions are developed by considering a Bayesian approach to the formation of lots. The most conservative prior distribution from each of the four families of prior distributions is determined and compared for the situation when no prior information is available. The results of the comparison advocate the use of the Polya (beta-binomial) prior distribution in hypergeometric sampling.     

Computing some bayes estimates for the mean of a normal distribution

For sampling from a normal population with unknown mean, two families of prior densities for the mean are discussed. The corresponding posterior densities are found. A data analyst may choose a prior from these families to represent prior beliefs and then compute the corresponding Bayes estimator, using the techniques discussed.     

Behaviour of the posterior error rate with partial prior information in auditing

Most of the Bayesian literature on statistical techniques in auditing has focused on assessing appropriate prior density using parameters such as interest, error rate and the mean of the error amount. Frequently, prior beliefs and mathematical tractable reasons are jointly used to assess prior distributions. As a robust Bayesian approach, we propose to replace the prior distribution with a set of prior distributions compatible with auditor's beliefs. We show how an auditor may draw the behaviour of the posterior error rate, using only partial prior information (quartiles of the prior distribution for the error rate O and, very often, the prior distribution is assumed to be unimodal). An example is pursued in depth.     

A Bayesian method of sample size determination with practical applications

Summary.  The problem motivating the paper is the determination of sample size in clinical trials under normal likelihoods and at the substantive testing stage of a financial audit where normality is not an appropriate assumption. A combination of analytical and simulation-based techniques within the Bayesian framework is proposed. The framework accommodates two different prior distributions: one is the general purpose fitting prior distribution that is used in Bayesian analysis and the other is the expert subjective prior distribution, the sampling prior which is believed to generate the parameter values which in turn generate the data. We obtain many theoretical results and one key result is that typical non-informative prior distributions lead to very small sample sizes. In contrast, a very informative prior distribution may either lead to a very small or a very large sample size depending on the location of the centre of the prior distribution and the hypothesized value of the parameter. The methods that are developed are quite general and can be applied to other sample size determination problems. Some numerical illustrations which bring out many other aspects of the optimum sample size are given.     

Non-informative priors for the inverse Weibull distribution

In this paper, we develop the non-informative priors for the inverse Weibull model when the parameters of interest are the scale and the shape parameters. We develop the first-order and the second-order matching priors for both parameters. For the scale parameter, we reveal that the second-order matching prior is not a highest posterior density (HPD) matching prior, does not match the alternative coverage probabilities up to the second order and is not a cumulative distribution function (CDF) matching prior. Also for the shape parameter, we reveal that the second-order matching prior is an HPD matching prior and a CDF matching prior and also matches the alternative coverage probabilities up to the second order. For both parameters, we reveal that the one-at-a-time reference prior is the second-order matching prior, but Jeffreys’ prior is not the first-order and the second-order matching prior. A simulation study is performed to compare the target coverage probabilities and a real example is given.     

Standardized posterior mode for the flexible use of a conjugate prior

The posterior mode under the standardized prior density is proposed to estimate a mean (vector) parameter, and its potential usefulness is discussed. Priors in this study include a conjugate prior and its generalized forms. When a prior density is factored into the standardized prior density and the supporting measure density, our suggestion is to discard the latter density and then to calculate the posterior mode of the mean under the standardized prior density. This treatment makes our choice of a prior density flexible. Implications of this treatment are discussed.     

Wavelet thresholding via a Bayesian approach

We discuss a Bayesian formalism which gives rise to a type of wavelet threshold estimation in nonparametric regression. A prior distribution is imposed on the wavelet coefficients of the unknown response function, designed to capture the sparseness of wavelet expansion that is common to most applications. For the prior specified, the posterior median yields a thresholding procedure. Our prior model for the underlying function can be adjusted to give functions falling in any specific Besov space. We establish a relationship between the hyperparameters of the prior model and the parameters of those Besov spaces within which realizations from the prior will fall. Such a relationship gives insight into the meaning of the Besov space parameters. Moreover, the relationship established makes it possible in principle to incorporate prior knowledge about the function's regularity properties into the prior model for its wavelet coefficients. However, prior knowledge about a function's regularity properties might be difficult to elicit; with this in mind, we propose a standard choice of prior hyperparameters that works well in our examples. Several simulated examples are used to illustrate our method, and comparisons are made with other thresholding methods. We also present an application to a data set that was collected in an anaesthesiological study.     

Bayesian analysis for a stress-strength system under noninformative priors

Noninformative priors are used for estimating the reliability of a stress-strength system. Several reference priors (cf. Berger and Bernardo 1989, 1992) are derived. A class of priors is found by matching the coverage probabilities of one-sided Bayesian credible intervals with the corresponding frequentist coverage probabilities. It turns out that none of the reference priors is a matching prior. Sufficient conditions for propriety of posteriors under reference priors and matching priors are provided. A simple matching prior is compared with three reference priors when sample sizes are small. The study shows that the matching prior performs better than Jeffreys's prior and reference priors in meeting the target coverage probabilities.     

Bayes estimation of the binomial parameter n

Bayes estimation of the binomial parameter n based on a general prior distribution for n is studied. As special cases improper prior and Poisson prior (which is a natural choice) are considered, and formulae for the marginal and posterior distributions are obtained. It is shown that the assumption of improper priors in both p and n leads to implausible results.     

A prior for the variance in hierarchical models

The choice of prior distributions for the variances can be important and quite difficult in Bayesian hierarchical and variance component models. For situations where little prior information is available, a ‘nonin-formative’ type prior is usually chosen. ‘Noninformative’ priors have been discussed by many authors and used in many contexts. However, care must be taken using these prior distributions as many are improper and thus, can lead to improper posterior distributions. Additionally, in small samples, these priors can be ‘informative’. In this paper, we investigate a proper ‘vague’ prior, the uniform shrinkage prior (Strawder-man 1971; Christiansen & Morris 1997). We discuss its properties and show how posterior distributions for common hierarchical models using this prior lead to proper posterior distributions. We also illustrate the attractive frequentist properties of this prior for a normal hierarchical model including testing and estimation. To conclude, we generalize this prior to the multivariate situation of a covariance matrix.     

Noninformative priors for the nested design

This paper considers noninformative priors for three-stage nested designs. It turns out that the noninformative prior given by Li and Stern (1997) is the one-at-a-time reference prior satisfying a second-order matching criterion when either the variance ratio or linear combinations of the means is of interest. Moreover, it is a joint probability matching prior when both the variance ratio and linear combinations of the means are of interest. These priors are compared with Jeffreys' prior in light of how accurately the coverage probabilities of Bayesian credible intervals match the corresponding frequentist coverage probabilities.     

Income vulnerability of rural households in Bangladesh: a comparison between Bayesian and classical methods

The geographical location and the monsoon climate render Bangladesh highly vulnerable to natural hazards, deteriorating the country's socio-economic stability. This study is based on 500 randomly chosen rural households from the Household Income and Expenditure Survey [Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 2006]. The objectives are to estimate the income vulnerability of rural households and to check whether the Bayesian approaches (natural conjugate prior and non-informative prior estimates) have any superiority over the classical (feasible generalized least square (FGLS)) method. The poverty level, measured from the data, is 24%; whereas the vulnerability estimates, using FGLS, natural conjugate prior and non-informative prior are 31%, 69% and 82%, respectively. Vulnerability estimates by the Bayesian natural conjugate prior approach is found to have greater efficiency compared with FGLS and non-informative prior approaches.     

An information-theoretic approach to incorporating prior information in binomial sampling

The incorporation of prior information about θ, where θ is the success probability in a binomial sampling model, is an essential feature of Bayesian statistics. Methodology based on information-theoretic concepts is introduced which (a) quantifies the amount of information provided by the sample data relative to that provided by the prior distribution and (b) allows for a ranking of prior distributions with respect to conservativeness, where conservatism refers to restraint of extraneous information about θ which is embedded in any prior distribution. In effect, the most conservative prior distribution from a specified class (each member o f which carries the available prior information about θ) is that prior distribution within the class over which the likelihood function has the greatest average domination. The most conservative prior distributions from five different families of prior distributions over the interval (0,1) including the beta distribution are determined and compared for three situations: (1) no prior estimate of θ is available, (2) a prior point estimate or θ is available, and (3) a prior interval estimate of θ is available. The results of the comparisons not only advocate the use of the beta prior distribution in binomial sampling but also indicate which particular one to use in the three aforementioned situations.     

On selecting the best treatment in a generalized linear model

The problem of selecting the best treatment is studied under generalized linear models. For certain balanced designs, it is shown that simple rules are Bayes with respect to any non-informative prior on the treatment effects under any monotone invariant loss. When the nuisance parameters such as block effects are assumed to follow a uniform (improper) prior or a normal prior, Bayes rules are obtained for the normal linear model under more suitable balanced designs, keeping the generality of the loss and the generality of the non-informativeness on the prior of the treatment effects. These results are extended to certain types of informative priors on the treatment effects. When the designs are unbalanced, algorithms based on the Gibbs sampler and the Laplace method are provided to compute the Bayes rules.     

Robust bayesian analysis given bounds on the probability of a set

Suppose that just the lower and the upper bounds on the probability of a measurable subset K in the parameter space ω are a priori known. Instead of eliciting a unique prior probability measure, consider the class Γ of all the probability measures compatible with such bounds. Under mild regularity conditions about the likelihood function, both prior and posterior bounds on the expected value of any function of the unknown parameter ω are computed, as the prior measure varies in Γ. Such bounds are analysed according to the robust Bayesian viewpoint. Furthermore, lower and upper bounds on the Bayes factor are corisidered. Finally, the local sensitivity analysis is performed, considering the class Γ as a aeighbourhood of an elicited prior