Cited by 27Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsProbability and Statistical Research

Single observation unbiased priors

Meng, Xiao-Li, Zaslavsky, Alan M.·2002·The Annals of Statistics

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

Crossref · 10.1214/aos/1035844979

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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