I have a question about non-unique Bayes rule. Are they in general inadmissible or admissible and why? Thanks in advance!
2025-01-12 23:32:00.1736724720
Non-unique Bayes rules admissibility
529 Views Asked by Roos Jansen https://math.techqa.club/user/roos-jansen/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in STATISTICAL-INFERENCE
- Finding the value of a constant given a probability density function
- Asymptotically unbiasedness of an weighted estimator
- Finding an approximation for $E[Y ] − e^{\mu}$?
- UMP for $f(y)=\theta y^{\theta - 1}$ when $H_0: \theta = 1$
- C.I. for $Bin(n,p)$ using pivots
- Bayesian Inference and Disease Testing
- moment generating function for folded/absolute normal distribution
- Calculating the Standard Error for a one sample T-test: σ/sqrt(n) or s/sqrt(n)?
- UMVUE for $\theta^2$
- MSE of an estimator as sum of bias and variance
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- 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?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- 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
- A community project: prove (or disprove) that $\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{\sin(2^n)}{n}$ is convergent
- Alternative way of expressing a quantied statement with "Some"
Popular # Hahtags
real-analysis
calculus
linear-algebra
probability
abstract-algebra
integration
sequences-and-series
combinatorics
general-topology
matrices
functional-analysis
complex-analysis
geometry
group-theory
algebra-precalculus
probability-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
limits
analysis
number-theory
measure-theory
elementary-number-theory
statistics
multivariable-calculus
functions
derivatives
discrete-mathematics
differential-geometry
inequality
trigonometry
Popular Questions
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- Difference between "≈", "≃", and "≅"
- Easy way of memorizing values of sine, cosine, and tangent
- How to calculate the intersection of two planes?
- What does "∈" mean?
- If you roll a fair six sided die twice, what's the probability that you get the same number both times?
- Probability of getting exactly 2 heads in 3 coins tossed with order not important?
- Fourier transform for dummies
- Limit of $(1+ x/n)^n$ when $n$ tends to infinity
Bayes rules are admissible if they are unique in the sense of equivalence defined as the equality of the risk function.
Proof.
Proof by contradiction. Let's assume that the Bayes rule $d_0$ is not admissible and that it is unique (in the sense written above). It means that there is a rule $d_1$, which is better than $d_0$: $R_{d_1}(\theta) \leq R_{d_0}(\theta)$ for all $\theta \in \Theta$ and $R_{d_1}(\theta) < R_{d_0}(\theta)$ for some $\theta _0 \in \Theta$. $\theta _0$ is Bayes rule, so: $$\int_\Theta R_{d_0}(\theta)d\tau (\theta) \geq \int_\Theta R_{d_1}(\theta)d\tau (\theta)$$ Then $d_1$ is also a Bayes rule, so by uniqueness of the Bayes rule $d_0$: $R_{d_0}(\theta)=R_{d_1}(\theta)$ for all $\theta \in \Theta$, so $d_1$ isn't better than $d_1$. A contradiction.
Note that a non-unique Bayes rule doesn't have to be admissible. Let X be a random sample from experiment: $\Theta= \{ \theta_0, \theta_1 \}$, where $P_{\theta_0}$~ $N(0,1)$ and $P_{\theta_1}$~ $\delta(0)$. Let $\tau(\theta)= \mathbb{1}_{ \{ \theta=\theta_1 \} }$. Now let's compare two estimators of variance $d_0(X)=0$ and $d_1(X)= \mathbb{1}_{ \{ X \neq 0 \}}$. Clearly both estimators are Bayes estimator but the first one is inadmissible (under quadratic Error Function).