I have a question about non-unique Bayes rule. Are they in general inadmissible or admissible and why? Thanks in advance!
2026-04-05 22:21:25.1775427685
Non-unique Bayes rules admissibility
524 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in STATISTICAL-INFERENCE
- co-variance matrix of discrete multivariate random variable
- Question on completeness of sufficient statistic.
- Probability of tossing marbles,covariance
- Estimate the square root of the success probability of a Binomial Distribution.
- A consistent estimator for theta is?
- Using averages to measure the dispersion of data
- Confidence when inferring p in a binomial distribution
- A problem on Maximum likelihood estimator of $\theta$
- Derive unbiased estimator for $\theta$ when $X_i\sim f(x\mid\theta)=\frac{2x}{\theta^2}\mathbb{1}_{(0,\theta)}(x)$
- Show that $\max(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ is a sufficient statistic.
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?
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).