Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Prior

In Bayesian statistics, a prior distribution, often simply called a prior, is the probability distribution expressing an initial belief or knowledge about an uncertain quantity, such as a model parameter, before incorporating observed data.^[1] It serves as the starting point for Bayesian inference, where it is combined with the likelihood of the data via Bayes' theorem to yield the posterior distribution, representing updated beliefs after evidence.^[2] Priors can be informative, incorporating substantive prior knowledge, or non-informative, designed to have minimal influence on the posterior. This framework allows for the integration of subjective expertise with empirical data, with applications spanning fields like machine learning, economics, and scientific modeling.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition of a Prior

In Bayesian statistics, a prior, also known as a prior distribution or prior probability, is a probability distribution that represents the initial beliefs or state of knowledge about an unknown parameter before any data is observed.^[3] It encodes the uncertainty associated with the parameter's possible values, serving as a formal way to quantify preconceived notions or assumptions in the inference process.^[4] This subjective probability assignment allows for the incorporation of existing information, whether derived from expert opinion or previous studies, into statistical modeling.^[5] A key distinction exists between this Bayesian approach and frequentist statistics, where prior beliefs are not explicitly formalized or included in the analysis; instead, inference relies purely on the observed data to estimate parameters as fixed but unknown quantities.^[6] In contrast, priors in Bayesian methods provide a mechanism to express degrees of belief, enabling more flexible handling of uncertainty in scenarios with limited data.^[7] Priors thus function as measures of either ignorance—when minimal information is available—or expert knowledge, aiding decision-making under uncertainty by reflecting the analyst's informed or neutral stance.^[3] An early intuitive foundation for priors stems from Pierre-Simon Laplace's principle of insufficient reason, which posits that, in the absence of distinguishing evidence, equal probabilities should be assigned to possible outcomes, often leading to uniform prior distributions.^[8] This principle underscores the role of priors in representing baseline assumptions prior to evidence, which can later be updated through Bayesian procedures.^[9]

Mathematical Representation

In Bayesian statistics, the prior distribution is mathematically denoted as \pi(\theta), where \theta represents the vector of unknown parameters.^[10] This notation encapsulates the initial beliefs about \theta before observing data, serving as a probability density function (or mass function in discrete cases) over the parameter space.^[10] For continuous parameter spaces, the prior must satisfy the normalization condition \int \pi(\theta) \, d\theta = 1, ensuring it integrates to unity across the entire domain.^[10] In discrete cases, the corresponding requirement is \sum_{\theta} \pi(\theta) = 1.^[10] Key properties include non-negativity, \pi(\theta) \geq 0 for all \theta, which guarantees it behaves as a valid density, and the normalization, which confirms its role in assigning probabilities that sum or integrate to one.^[10] Improper priors arise as limiting cases of proper distributions, such as a uniform prior extended over an increasingly large (or infinite) range, where the normalizing constant approaches zero or infinity.^[11] These are valid only if they yield a proper posterior distribution when combined with the likelihood, typically requiring sufficient data to ensure integrability and finite posterior moments.^[10]^[11] A simple example is the uniform prior on the interval [0, 1], defined as

\pi(\theta) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if } 0 \leq \theta \leq 1, \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases}

This satisfies normalization since \int_0^1 1 \, d\theta = 1, illustrating a proper prior that assigns equal probability density across the bounded space.^[10]

Types of Priors

Informative Priors

Informative priors are prior distributions in Bayesian statistics that explicitly incorporate substantive knowledge about model parameters, derived from historical data, expert opinions, or domain-specific insights, in contrast to vague or non-informative priors that aim for neutrality.^[4] These priors allow researchers to leverage accumulated evidence, making them particularly valuable when new data are scarce or when building on established scientific understanding.^[12] Construction of informative priors typically involves elicitation techniques to systematically capture expert knowledge or empirical methods to integrate past data. Expert elicitation often employs structured questionnaires or protocols, such as the Sheffield Elicitation Framework (SHELF), which guides experts in quantifying uncertainties through quantiles or scenarios to fit prior distributions, minimizing cognitive biases.^[13] Alternatively, empirical Bayes approaches use historical datasets to estimate prior hyperparameters, for instance, by treating past observations as a sample to inform the prior mean and variance in hierarchical models.^[4] The primary advantages of informative priors lie in their ability to enhance inference accuracy and precision, especially in small-sample scenarios, by shrinking posterior estimates toward plausible values informed by prior knowledge.^[12] For example, in clinical trials assessing drug efficacy, historical data from previous studies can form an informative prior on treatment effects, allowing borrowing of strength to improve power and reduce required sample sizes while accounting for between-study variability through methods like power priors.^[14] However, informative priors carry risks of introducing bias if the incorporated knowledge is outdated, domain-mismatched, or overly subjective, potentially leading to posteriors that unduly favor incorrect assumptions.^[4] To mitigate these pitfalls, sensitivity analyses are essential, involving re-running models with varied prior specifications to evaluate the robustness of results to prior choices.^[15]

Non-Informative Priors

Non-informative priors, also referred to as objective or default priors, are probability distributions selected to minimize the influence of prior beliefs on Bayesian inference, thereby allowing the likelihood from the data to predominantly shape the posterior distribution.^[16] These priors are particularly useful in scenarios where little substantive prior knowledge is available, aiming to represent a state of ignorance or neutrality regarding parameter values.^[17] Common types include uniform priors, which assign equal probability density across a bounded parameter space, such as a constant density on [0, 1] for a proportion parameter, providing a simple expression of uniformity but potentially leading to improper posteriors if extended unboundedly.^[16] Another prominent type is the Jeffreys prior, derived from the Fisher information matrix to ensure invariance under reparameterization of the model. The prior is given by

\pi(\theta) \propto \sqrt{\det I(\theta)},

where I(\theta) denotes the Fisher information matrix, capturing the amount of information the data provide about \theta.^[17] This construction guarantees that the prior transforms consistently under changes of variables, preserving the non-informative nature across equivalent parameterizations.^[18] Reference priors, developed as an extension, are constructed by maximizing the expected missing information in the posterior relative to the prior, often measured via the limiting Kullback-Leibler divergence as sample size grows; this involves sequentially specifying priors for parameters of interest while marginalizing over nuisance parameters. An illustrative example of an improper uniform prior is its application to location parameters, such as the mean \mu in a normal model with known variance, where \pi(\mu) = 1 for \mu \in (-\infty, \infty), yielding a proper posterior when combined with the likelihood.^[16] Despite their intent, non-informative priors face criticisms for introducing subtle influences, particularly in multiparameter models where they may depend on the choice of parameterization or grouping of parameters, leading to inconsistent inferences across equivalent model formulations.^[18] For instance, Jeffreys priors, while invariant under reparameterization, can perform poorly with nuisance parameters, as seen in problems like the Neyman-Scott paradox where posterior estimates fail to converge consistently.^[17] Reference priors mitigate some multiparameter issues through ordered prioritization but still require careful specification to avoid hidden biases in complex settings.^[16] Overall, their invariance properties provide theoretical appeal, yet practical application demands scrutiny to ensure they do not inadvertently favor certain inferences.^[18]

Role in Bayesian Inference

Prior Updating with Likelihood

In Bayesian inference, the prior distribution represents initial beliefs about model parameters before observing data, and updating occurs through Bayes' theorem, which combines this prior with the likelihood function derived from the observed data to revise those beliefs. The likelihood L(\theta | data) quantifies how well the parameter \theta explains the data, serving as the mechanism for belief revision by weighting the prior according to evidential support from the observations. The core updating rule is expressed by Bayes' theorem in its proportional form for the posterior distribution:

\pi(\theta | data) \propto \pi(\theta) \, L(\theta | data)

Here, \pi(\theta) denotes the prior density, and the product yields the unnormalized posterior, which must be normalized by the marginal likelihood \int \pi(\theta) L(\theta | data) \, d\theta to obtain the full posterior \pi(\theta | data) = \frac{\pi(\theta) L(\theta | data)}{m(data)}, where m(data) is the evidence. This proportional relationship highlights that the shape of the posterior reflects the prior modulated by the likelihood, with normalization ensuring it integrates to 1, though computing the integral analytically is often infeasible for complex models. For sequential data incorporation, Bayesian updating allows iterative application of Bayes' theorem, where the posterior from one dataset becomes the prior for the next, enabling belief revision as new evidence arrives over time. This process is particularly useful in dynamic settings, such as time-series analysis, where each update refines parameter estimates without requiring reanalysis of all prior data, provided the likelihoods are conditionally independent given the parameters. Computationally, updating with complex likelihoods—such as those from high-dimensional or non-conjugate models—poses challenges due to the intractability of the normalizing constant and posterior integration. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods address this by generating samples from the posterior distribution through iterative proposals that converge to the target under certain ergodicity conditions, approximating expectations and integrals without explicit normalization. However, MCMC can suffer from slow convergence, autocorrelation in samples, and sensitivity to initial values in multimodal posteriors, necessitating diagnostic checks for reliability.

Posterior Distribution Formation

The posterior distribution in Bayesian inference represents the updated probability distribution for the parameter \theta after incorporating observed data, serving as the foundation for all subsequent inferential conclusions. It is formally defined by Bayes' theorem as \pi(\theta \mid \text{data}) = \frac{\pi(\theta) L(\theta \mid \text{data})}{m(\text{data})}, where \pi(\theta) is the prior distribution, L(\theta \mid \text{data}) is the likelihood function, and m(\text{data}) = \int \pi(\theta) L(\theta \mid \text{data}) \, d\theta denotes the marginal likelihood, which acts as a normalizing constant to ensure the posterior integrates to 1 over the parameter space. This normalization property guarantees that the posterior is a valid probability distribution, encapsulating all information about \theta from both prior beliefs and data.^[10]^[7] Key properties of the posterior include its role in deriving credible intervals, which are direct probabilistic statements about \theta. A $100(1-\alpha)\% credible interval is constructed from the posterior quantiles, such as the central interval [\theta_{\alpha/2}, \theta_{1-\alpha/2}], where P(\theta \in [\theta_{\alpha/2}, \theta_{1-\alpha/2}] \mid \text{data}) = 1 - \alpha, providing the probability that the true parameter lies within the interval given the data. Unlike frequentist confidence intervals, which offer long-run coverage guarantees over repeated samples, credible intervals interpret the interval as containing the parameter with specified posterior probability, making them more intuitive for direct inference about uncertainty.^[19] For inference, the posterior enables point estimates such as the posterior mean \mathbb{E}[\theta \mid \text{data}] = \int \theta \, \pi(\theta \mid \text{data}) \, d\theta, which minimizes expected squared error, or the posterior mode, the value maximizing \pi(\theta \mid \text{data}), often used when seeking the most probable parameter value. Hypothesis testing in the Bayesian framework utilizes posterior odds, defined as the ratio of posterior probabilities for competing hypotheses, \frac{P(H_0 \mid \text{data})}{P(H_1 \mid \text{data})} = \frac{P(\text{data} \mid H_0) P(H_0)}{P(\text{data} \mid H_1) P(H_1)}, to compare models or hypotheses, with decisions favoring the one with higher posterior probability or incorporating loss functions for risk minimization.^[20]^[21] The posterior's sensitivity to the prior diminishes as the amount of data increases, a phenomenon captured conceptually by the Bernstein-von Mises theorem. Under regularity conditions in parametric models, as the sample size n \to \infty, the posterior distribution converges in total variation to a normal distribution centered at the maximum likelihood estimator with covariance proportional to the inverse Fisher information, effectively making the posterior approximate the normalized likelihood and rendering prior influence negligible for large datasets. This asymptotic result justifies the robustness of Bayesian procedures in data-rich settings, aligning credible sets closely with frequentist confidence sets.^[22]

Applications and Examples

Simple Bayesian Models

Simple Bayesian models provide foundational illustrations of how priors integrate with likelihoods to form posteriors, often leveraging conjugate priors for analytical tractability. One of the most straightforward examples is the estimation of a coin's bias θ, the probability of heads, using a Beta prior distribution. The Beta distribution, parameterized by shape parameters α > 0 and β > 0, serves as a conjugate prior for the binomial likelihood arising from coin flips, ensuring the posterior remains in the Beta family.^[23] The parameters α and β can be interpreted as prior pseudo-observations: α representing the number of prior heads and β the number of prior tails, which encode the analyst's initial belief about θ.^[24] Suppose n independent coin flips yield k successes (heads). The likelihood is binomial: p(data | θ) ∝ θ^k (1-θ)^{n-k}. With a Beta(α, β) prior, p(θ) ∝ θ^{α-1} (1-θ)^{β-1}, the posterior is then Beta(α + k, β + n - k) by Bayes' theorem, as the conjugacy allows the normalizing constants to combine neatly.^[25] This update rule demonstrates how the prior shapes the posterior: for instance, with a weakly informative prior like Beta(1,1) (uniform), the posterior mean shifts toward the observed proportion k/n, but a stronger prior (e.g., α=10, β=2 suggesting bias toward heads) pulls the estimate closer to α/(α+β)=0.833 even with few flips.^[26] The concept of conjugacy, formalized by Raiffa and Schlaifer, facilitates such closed-form updates, avoiding numerical methods in simple cases. Another canonical model involves estimating the mean μ of a normal distribution with known variance σ². A normal prior N(μ₀, τ²) is conjugate to the normal likelihood from n i.i.d. observations x₁, ..., xₙ ~ N(μ, σ²), yielding a normal posterior.^[27] The likelihood is proportional to exp{ - (n/ (2σ²)) (μ - \bar{x})² }, where \bar{x} is the sample mean. The posterior mean is a precision-weighted average: μ_post = ( (n / σ²) \bar{x} + (1 / τ²) μ₀ ) / ( n / σ² + 1 / τ² ), and the posterior variance is 1 / ( n / σ² + 1 / τ² ), reflecting increased precision from both data and prior.^[25] In both models, the prior exerts a shrinking effect on estimates when data is scarce: with small n, the posterior remains close to the prior mean, embodying regularization by incorporating expert knowledge or historical data.^[26] This "pull" diminishes as n grows, allowing the likelihood to dominate, which highlights the prior's role in balancing belief and evidence in Bayesian updating.^[27]

Real-World Uses in Statistics

In medical trials, informative priors derived from Phase I data are commonly used to inform Phase II efficacy assessments, allowing for more efficient sample size determination and reduced patient exposure while incorporating historical evidence. For instance, Bayesian methods leverage conjugate priors based on prior trial means or modes to calculate sample sizes that achieve desired posterior power, as demonstrated in analyses of oncology trials where historical response rates serve as the prior mean. This approach has been shown to potentially decrease required sample sizes in scenarios with strong historical data, enhancing trial adaptability without compromising type I error control.^[28]^[29] In machine learning, priors in Bayesian neural networks provide regularization by penalizing complex models, mitigating overfitting in high-dimensional settings such as image classification or natural language processing tasks. Seminal work establishes that Gaussian weight priors induce effective sparsity and uncertainty quantification, with horseshoe priors further enabling automatic model selection by shrinking less relevant weights toward zero, improving generalization on datasets like MNIST by incorporating epistemic uncertainty. These priors act as a Bayesian analog to L1/L2 regularization, promoting smoother functions and better calibration in predictive distributions.^[30]^[31] Environmental science employs priors grounded in physical laws to constrain climate model parameters, such as equilibrium climate sensitivity, ensuring inferences align with energy balance principles and observational constraints. In Bayesian frameworks, informative priors based on radiative forcing equations from simple energy balance models yield posterior estimates of climate sensitivity around 3 K per CO2 doubling, with narrower credible intervals than non-informative alternatives, as applied to paleoclimate reconstructions. This integration of domain knowledge reduces parameter identifiability issues in global circulation models, facilitating more reliable projections of sea-level rise or temperature extremes.^[32]^[33] A key challenge in these applications is prior-data conflict, where the prior distribution disagrees with observed data, potentially biasing posteriors; resolution involves checking conflict via posterior predictive simulations or robust priors like the power-prior, which downweights conflicting historical data proportionally to a tuning parameter. Software tools such as Stan and PyMC facilitate implementation by allowing users to specify custom priors in probabilistic programming languages, supporting Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling for complex hierarchical models without requiring manual derivation. Stan's Hamiltonian Monte Carlo excels in high-dimensional spaces, while PyMC's Python interface enables seamless integration with NumPy for scalable inference in real-world datasets.^[34]^[35]^[36] A notable case study is the application of informative priors in Bayesian epidemiology for modeling disease spread during outbreaks, such as the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, where priors on transmission rates derived from prior outbreaks informed susceptible-infectious-recovered models to estimate basic reproduction numbers with reduced uncertainty. In COVID-19 analyses, Bayesian multimodel frameworks have been used for inference on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, incorporating priors to compare model fits and improve parameter estimation during outbreaks. This approach resolved identifiability in underreported data scenarios, enhancing public health decision-making during rapid spread phases.^[37]^[38]

Historical Development

Origins in Probability Theory

The concept of a prior in probability theory emerged in the 18th century as part of efforts to formalize inverse inference, where probabilities are updated based on observed evidence to assess underlying causes. Thomas Bayes introduced these ideas in his posthumously published 1763 essay, "An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances," which addressed the challenge of determining the probability of a cause given its effects, a process now central to Bayesian updating.^[39] Bayes framed probabilities not merely as frequencies of events but as measures of rational belief or plausibility, allowing for the incorporation of initial assumptions about unknown quantities before new data arrives.^[40] Building on Bayes' framework, Pierre-Simon Laplace expanded the role of priors in his 1812 work, Théorie Analytique des Probabilités, where he advocated the principle of insufficient reason—also known as the principle of indifference—to justify uniform prior distributions when no information favors one hypothesis over another.^[41] Laplace applied this approach to astronomical problems, such as evaluating the long-term stability of the solar system by treating initial conditions as equally likely under a uniform prior, thereby using inverse probability to reconcile observational data with gravitational theory.^[42] This principle underscored the prior's function as a neutral starting point for inference, influencing early probabilistic models in natural philosophy. Philosophically, the introduction of priors highlighted a shift toward subjective interpretations of probability, contrasting with objective frequentist views that define probability solely in terms of long-run frequencies.^[43] Early Bayesian thought, as in Bayes' essay, tied priors to degrees of belief, aligning with emerging ideas in decision theory where rational agents weigh uncertainties to guide choices under incomplete information.^[40] This subjectivity allowed priors to encode personal or expert knowledge, though it sparked debates on the rigor of such assumptions. A pivotal event in this development was the 18th-century astronomical debates on inverse inference, where scholars grappled with estimating unknown parameters—like planetary orbits or comet paths—from limited observations, prompting Bayes and later Laplace to develop methods that explicitly incorporated prior beliefs to resolve ambiguities in data.^[44]

Evolution in Modern Statistics

The neo-Bayesian revival in the mid-20th century marked a pivotal shift in the conceptualization and application of prior distributions, moving from earlier objective uniform priors toward subjective interpretations integrated with decision theory. In the 1950s, Leonard J. Savage's foundational work formalized Bayesian decision-making, emphasizing priors as representations of personal or expert beliefs to update with data, which helped legitimize Bayesian methods amid frequentist dominance.^[45] Concurrently, Dennis V. Lindley advocated for Bayesian approaches in statistical practice, promoting priors that incorporate prior knowledge while addressing criticisms of subjectivity through rigorous elicitation.^[45] This era saw the term "Bayesian" gain traction, first pejoratively by R.A. Fisher in 1950 but soon embraced by proponents, fostering growth in applications like election forecasting and authorship attribution.^[45] Parallel developments in objective priors addressed concerns over subjectivity by deriving priors invariant to reparameterization or maximizing information content. Harold Jeffreys' 1939 theory of probability introduced the Jeffreys prior, proportional to the square root of the Fisher information determinant, as a non-informative choice for location-scale parameters, influencing mid-century inference in physics and beyond.^[46] Building on this, José M. Bernardo's 1979 reference prior framework prioritized parameters based on expected posterior information, providing asymptotically optimal priors for model comparison and gaining widespread adoption in objective Bayesian analysis.^[46] Meanwhile, empirical Bayes methods emerged in the 1950s, with Herbert Robbins coining the term in 1956 to estimate priors from data itself, as in compound estimation problems like insurance risk pooling, bridging Bayesian and frequentist paradigms.^[47] The James-Stein estimator of 1961 further exemplified this by shrinking multiple normal means toward a grand mean, outperforming maximum likelihood in high dimensions.^[47] The late 20th century introduced structured prior elicitation to systematically incorporate expert knowledge, reducing biases in subjective priors. Robert L. Winkler's 1967 work formalized elicitation by fitting distributions to expert quantiles or medians, laying groundwork for multivariate extensions.^[13] Anthony O'Hagan's 2006 monograph Uncertain Judgments advanced supra-Bayesian methods, treating elicited opinions as data to update an analyst's prior, with tools like the Sheffield Elicitation Framework (SHELF) enabling practical implementation.^[13] Computational breakthroughs, starting with the Metropolis algorithm in 1953 and accelerating via Gibbs sampling in the 1990s (Gelfand and Smith, 1990), allowed sampling from complex posteriors, enabling hierarchical and weakly informative priors that regularize without strong assumptions.^[45] Andrew Gelman's 2008 advocacy for weakly informative priors, such as half-Cauchy distributions for variances, balanced ignorance with regularization, becoming standard in software like Stan for robust inference across fields.^[48]^[46] These advances solidified priors as flexible tools in modern statistics, from genomics to social sciences.

References

[1]
Arthur Prior: A Calvinist route to logic - ResearchGate
Arthur Prior is best known for tense logic and recent interest has also turned to his work in philosophical theology. It is also well known that Prior was ...
[2]
Time and modality : Prior, Arthur N - Internet Archive
Jun 20, 2019 · Time and modality. by: Prior, Arthur N. Publication date: 1957. Topics: Deontic logic, Logic, Symbolic and mathematical, Modality (Logic), Tense ...
[3]
(PDF) Arthur Prior and Hybrid Logic - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · Contemporary hybrid logic is based on the idea of using formulas as terms, an idea invented and explored by Arthur Prior in the mid-1960s.
[4]
[PDF] NEGLECTED EARLY WRITINGS OF ARTHUR N. PRIOR - Sci-Hub
Arthur Prior was born in the small North Island town of Masterton on. 4 December 1914. His father was a doctor and his mother died a fortnight after his birth.
[5]
[PDF] Arthur Prior in the 1940s - Massey Research Online
Arthur Prior is one of. New Zealand's most famous philosophers, best known for his work in logic and his invention of tense logic in the 1950s. However, this ...
[6]
Arthur Norman Prior, Logic and the Basis of Ethics - PhilPapers
Abstract. This book discusses and aims to clarify the issue of describing conduct and character as 'good' or 'bad', or as 'right' or 'wrong'.
[7]
Arthur Prior and medieval logic | Synthese
May 17, 2011 · Though Arthur Prior is now best known for his founding of modern temporal logic and hybrid logic, much of his early philosophical career was ...Arthur Prior And Medieval... · Article Pdf · Prior's Paradigm For The...
[8]
[PDF] Prior distribution - Columbia University
The prior distribution is a key part of Bayesian infer- ence (see Bayesian methods and modeling) and rep- resents the information about an uncertain parameter ...
[9]
A Gentle Introduction to Bayesian Analysis - PubMed Central - NIH
Such a prior distribution encodes our existing knowledge and is referred to as a subjective or informative prior distribution. If a low precision is ...
[10]
[PDF] Choosing a Prior Distribution - Stat@Duke
Such a prior is usually called a subjective prior, as it is based upon an individual's subjective belief. A commonly used alternative is to go for a default ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[11]
A Bayesian Approach to Research | Office of Innovative Technologies
Feb 7, 2025 · Bayesian inference incorporates prior knowledge with observed data, whereas frequentist inference relies solely on observed data. If you are ...
[12]
[PDF] Lecture 20 — Bayesian analysis 20.1 Prior and posterior distributions
The Bayesian paradigm natu- rally incorporates our prior belief about the unknown parameter θ, and updates this belief based on observed data. 20.1 Prior and ...
[13]
[PDF] The selection of prior distributions by formal rules
If the parameter space is finite, then Laplace's rule, or the principle of insufficient reason, is to use a uniform prior that assigns equal probability to each ...
[14]
[PDF] Prior Probabilities
Since the time of Laplace, applications of probability theory have been hampered by difficulties in the treatment of prior information.<|separator|>
[15]
[PDF] Bayesian Data Analysis Third edition (with errors fixed as of 20 ...
The mathematics used in our book is basic probability and statistics, elementary calculus, and linear algebra. A review of probability notation is given in ...
[16]
The Interpretation of Improper Prior Distributions as Limits of Data ...
ONE of the common explanations of an improper prior distribution in Bayesian literature is that it is a limit of some proper prior distributions, ...
[17]
Where Do Priors Come From? Applying Guidelines to Construct ...
Nov 3, 2017 · In Bayesian estimation informative priors can increase the precision of the posterior outcome, and even when the statistical power would be low, ...Missing: construction pitfalls
[18]
Prior Knowledge Elicitation: The Past, Present, and Future
Prior elicitation transforms domain knowledge into well-defined prior distributions for Bayesian models, rather than assuming the analyst specifies them ...Missing: construction pitfalls
[19]
Bayesian clinical trial design using historical data that inform ... - NIH
We consider the problem of Bayesian sample size determination for a clinical trial in the presence of historical data that inform the treatment effect.
[20]
The Importance of Prior Sensitivity Analysis in Bayesian Statistics
Nov 24, 2020 · In this paper, we discuss the importance of examining prior distributions through a sensitivity analysis. We argue that conducting a prior ...
[21]
https://www.probabilitycourse.com/chapter9/9_1_8_bayesian_hypothesis_testing.php
[22]
[PDF] The Selection of Prior Distributions by Formal Rules
Nov 27, 2017 · Yet in practice, most Bayesian analyses are performed with so-called "noninformative" priors, that is, priors constructed by some formal rule.<|separator|>
[23]
On the invariance of noninformative priors
### Summary of Main Points
[24]
Understanding and interpreting confidence and credible intervals ...
Dec 31, 2018 · The Bayesian HPD CrI method returns threshold values of the posterior distribution that represent an interval with the probability of interest ...
[25]
5.1 Point estimation | An Introduction to Bayesian Reasoning and ...
The posterior distribution is roughly symmetric, and posterior mean, median, and mode are about the same. Each of the posterior point estimates has shifted from ...
[26]
Bayesian Hypothesis Testing - Probability Course
One way to decide between H0 and H1 is to compare P(H0|Y=y) and P(H1|Y=y), and accept the hypothesis with the higher posterior probability. This is the idea ...
[27]
The Bernstein-Von-Mises theorem under misspecification
In this paper we derive the asymptotic normality of the full posterior distribution in the misspecified situation under conditions comparable to those obtained ...
[28]
[PDF] Conjugate priors: Beta and normal Class 15, 18.05
a) Mario decides to flip a coin 5 times. He gets four heads in five flips. b) Luigi decides to flip a coin until the first tails. He gets four heads before ...Missing: seminal paper
[29]
[PDF] CPSC 540: Machine Learning - Conjugate Priors
Consider again a coin-flipping example with a Bernoulli variable, x ... Posterior predictive (Bayesian) with uniform Beta(1,1) prior, p(H | HHH) = Z ...Missing: seminal paper
[30]
[PDF] The Conjugate Prior for the Normal Distribution 1 Fixed variance (σ2 ...
Feb 8, 2010 · The posterior mean is usually a convex combination of the prior mean and the MLE. The posterior precision is, in this case, the sum of the ...
[31]
[PDF] Conjugate Priors: Beta and Normal
The posterior has the form Gamma(a +1,b + x). This is a conjugate prior. Binomial/Normal: It is clear that the posterior does not have the form of a normal ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[32]
[PDF] Conjugate Bayesian analysis of the Gaussian distribution
Oct 3, 2007 · Conjugate Bayesian analysis of Gaussian distribution uses conjugate priors, allowing closed-form results. A natural conjugate prior has the ...
[33]
Bayesian sample size calculations in phase II clinical trials using ...
In this article, we extend these sample size calculations to include informative prior distributions using various strategies.
[34]
Selection of Prior Distributions When Analyzing Clinical Trial Data ...
Oct 24, 2023 · Informative priors are used when the Bayesian analyst wishes to incorporate additional information into the analysis. In the clinical trial ...
[35]
Understanding Priors in Bayesian Neural Networks at the Unit Level
Oct 11, 2018 · We investigate deep Bayesian neural networks with Gaussian weight priors and a class of ReLU-like nonlinearities.
[36]
[PDF] Model Selection in Bayesian Neural Networks via Horseshoe Priors
In this paper, we take a closer look at the model selection properties afforded by such priors. We also provide robust extensions to the model—via the ...<|separator|>
[37]
Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate ...
Feb 24, 2012 · The core of the model is a simple, deterministic climate model based on elementary physical laws such as energy balance. It models yearly ...
[38]
Bayesian weighting of climate models based on climate sensitivity
Oct 20, 2023 · The Bayesian Model Averaging framework produces an unbiased posterior probability distribution of model weights.
[39]
Checking for Prior-Data Conflict - Project Euclid
In Section 5 we discuss how to assess whether or not an observed prior-data conflict can be ignored so that the Bayesian model can be used to derive inferences ...
[40]
Stan
Stan is software for Bayesian data analysis, enabling sophisticated statistical modeling using Bayesian inference. It is a probabilistic programming language.Tutorials · Stan Documentation · Stan Toolkit · About the Stan Project
[41]
Introductory Overview of PyMC — PyMC 5.26.1 documentation
PyMC is an open source probabilistic programming framework written in Python that uses PyTensor to compute gradients via automatic differentiation.
[42]
The Impact of Prior Information on Estimates of Disease ... - NIH
Mar 20, 2015 · In this paper, we present estimates of R₀ and SI from the 2003 SARS outbreak in Hong Kong and Singapore, and the 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) ...
[43]
A Bayesian modelling framework with model comparison for ...
These priors allow a balance between existing knowledge and the data-driven inference process. Our framework remains disease-agnostic, allowing for the ...
[44]
LII. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances ...
An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes, FRS communicated by Mr. Price, in a letter to John Canton, AMFR S.
[45]
Bayesian epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jun 13, 2022 · Bayesian epistemology has a long history. Some of its core ideas can be identified in Bayes' (1763) seminal paper in statistics (Earman 1992: ch ...A Tutorial on Bayesian... · Synchronic Norms (I... · Synchronic Norms (II): The...
[46]
[PDF] Théorie Analytique des Probabilités. Par M. le Marquis de Laplace ...
Review by Augustus De Morgan. ART. IV.—Théorie Analytique des Probabilités. Par M. le Marquis de Laplace, &c. &c. 3`eme edition. Paris 1820.
[47]
[PDF] The Return of the Prodigal: Bayesian Inference For Astrophysics
Their work was essentially Bayesian in outlook, and the first mature treatise on statistical inference—Laplace's. Theorie Analytique des Probabilités (Laplace ...Missing: debates | Show results with:debates
[48]
Interpretations of Probability - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Oct 21, 2002 · In epistemology, the philosophy of mind, and cognitive science, we see states of opinion being modeled by subjective probability functions, and ...
[49]
[PDF] Bayesian Statistics - Caltech Astronomy
Jun 3, 2004 · . • Bayes was first to tackle Inverse Probability : going from effects (observations) to their causes (models/parameters). * The Doctrine of ...<|separator|>
[50]
When Did Bayesian Inference Become “Bayesian”? - Project Euclid
Similarly, an electronic search of Current Index to Statistics revealed only one “Bayesian” paper prior to the 1960s, which was also in the results of the.
[51]
(PDF) Prior Distributions for Objective Bayesian Analysis
Aug 8, 2025 · We provide a review of prior distributions for objective Bayesian analysis. We start by examining some foundational issues and then organize our exposition ...
[52]
[PDF] Empirical Bayes: Concepts and Methods - Bradley Efron
Empirical Bayes methods originated in the work of Robbins, Good and Toulmin, Stein and others in the 1950s. This overview of the main ideas focuses on some ...