Single observation unbiased priors
Abstract
This paper studies a class of default priors, which we call single observation unbiased priors (SOUP). A prior for a parameter is a SOUP if the corresponding posterior mean of the parameter based on a single observation is an unbiased estimator of the parameter. We prove that, under mild regularity conditions, a default prior for a convolution parameter is "noninformative" in the sense of yielding a posterior inference invariant under amalgamation only if it is a SOUP. Therefore, when amalgamation invariance is desirable, as in our motivating example of performing imputation for census undercount, SOUP is the only possible coherent "noninformative" prior for Bayesian predictions that will be utilized under aggregation. The use of SOUP also mutually calibrates Bayesian and frequentist inferences for aggregates of convolution parameters across many small areas. We describe approaches that identify SOUPs in many common models, in particular a constructive duality method that identifies SOUPs in pairs of distribution families. We introduce O-completeness, a necessary and sufficient condition for a prior distribution to be uniquely characterized by the corresponding posterior mean. Uniqueness of the SOUP is determined by the O-completeness of the dual family. O-completeness of a natural exponential family is implied by its completeness. Hence, the Diaconis-Ylvisaker characterization of the conjugate prior for natural exponential families via linear posterior expectation is a direc…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There are no always-nonnegative classical unbiased estimators of σα or σ2α in the hierarchical model.
“Similarly, there are no always-nonnegative classical unbiased estimators of σ α or σ 2 α in the hierarchical model.”
From Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper) (2006) · cites this paper as Meng and Zaslavsky (2002)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 27
- Authors
- Meng, X.-L., & Zaslavsky, A. M.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- The Annals of Statistics
- Publisher
- Institute of Mathematical Statistics
- Published
- 2002-10-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1345-1375
- ISSN
- 0090-5364 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-8966
- OpenAlex
- W2004951608
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Annals of Statistics (publishedVersion)
- Project Euclid (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Harvard University
- University of Chicago
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
- Keywords
- default priors, non-informative priors, small area estimation, natural exponential families, conjugate priors, duality method
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review