You have a coin that you can flip, but you can't see. It's a weighted $3$-sided coin taken (uniformly) randomly from some small known collection of $100$ weighted coins. However, we don't know how each coin in the collection is weighted. The sides of the coin are green, red, and black. You throw the coin $5$ times. If at any point the black side comes up, you stop this experiment, and you don't get to see what the coin is. If all $5$ throws are non-black, then you get to see the coin. For each new experiment, you pick a random coin from your collection (with replacement). So, $\mbox{P(we are playing with coin №}\mbox{1)} =\frac{1}{100}$. When we flip it and see "color", then $\mbox{P(coin №}\mbox{1 | color)} = \mbox{P(color | coin №}\mbox{1)} \frac{\mbox{P(coin №}\mbox{1)}}{\mbox{P(color)}}$ by Bayes Theorem. We obviously know $\mbox{P(coin №}\mbox{1)}$, and we know $\mbox{P(color}\mbox{1)}$ from running these experiments for a long time. But how do we estimate $\mbox{P(color | coin №}\mbox{1)}$? How do we account for the fact that we are not going to see coins that are weighted heavily towards the black side very often? And when we do see a coin, it's only because of some luck? What does updating your hypotheses look like in this case?
2026-04-01 15:40:02.1775058002
How to do Bayesian updating on biased information?
264 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in PROBABILITY
- How to prove $\lim_{n \rightarrow\infty} e^{-n}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{n^k}{k!} = \frac{1}{2}$?
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- What's $P(A_1\cap A_2\cap A_3\cap A_4) $?
- Prove or disprove the following inequality
- Another application of the Central Limit Theorem
- Given is $2$ dimensional random variable $(X,Y)$ with table. Determine the correlation between $X$ and $Y$
- A random point $(a,b)$ is uniformly distributed in a unit square $K=[(u,v):0<u<1,0<v<1]$
- proving Kochen-Stone lemma...
- Solution Check. (Probability)
- Interpreting stationary distribution $P_{\infty}(X,V)$ of a random process
Related Questions in BAYESIAN
- Obtain the conditional distributions from the full posterior distribution
- What it the posterior distribution $\mu| \sigma^2,x $
- Posterior: normal likelihood, uniform prior?
- If there are two siblings and you meet one of them and he is male, what is the probability that the other sibling is also male?
- Aggregating information and bayesian information
- Bayesian updating - likelihood
- Is my derivation for the maximum likelihood estimation for naive bayes correct?
- I don't understand where does the $\frac{k-1}{k}$ factor come from, in the probability mass function derived by Bayesian approach.
- How to interpret this bayesian inference formula
- How to prove inadmissibility of a decision rule?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
The key insight is that you do not have 100 separate models for the coins 1 to 100, but one model which contains the probabilities for all coins. So if we write as $g_i$ the probability that if coin $i$ is tossed, it gives green, and with $r_i$ the probability that if coin $i$ is tossed, it gives red (the probability to get black when coin $i$ is tossed is then just $1-g_i-r_i$, so we don't need a separate variable for that), then the probability function for the model is given by the joint probability function $$P(g_1,r_1,g_2,r_2,\ldots,g_{100},r_{100})$$ While for the prior you'll probably choose $$P_0(g_1,r_1,g_2,r_2,\ldots,g_{100},r_{100}) = P(r_1,g_1)P(r_2,g_2)\cdots P(r_{100},g_{100})$$ this product structure will definitely not remain as soon as a toss results in black.
Your events are the "non-black events" like "coin 1 resulted in two reds and three greens" or "coin 2 resulted in one red and four greens", and the special event "a black result was tossed" which doesn't include any other details of the coin. Now with the complete model containing the probabilities for all the coins, it is of course no problem to calculate the probability for each event, including the special event "black was tossed", and therefore the normal Bayesian update rule can be used without problems on the complete model probability function.