IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/stmapp/v24y2015i4p523-546.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blending Bayesian and frequentist methods according to the precision of prior information with applications to hypothesis testing

Author

Listed:
  • David Bickel

Abstract

The proposed minimax procedure blends strict Bayesian methods with p values and confidence intervals or with default-prior methods. Two applications to hypothesis testing bring some implications to light. First, the blended probability that a point null hypothesis is true is equal to the p value or a lower bound of an unknown posterior probability, whichever is greater. As a result, the p value is reported instead of any posterior probability in the case of complete prior ignorance but is ignored in the case of a fully known prior. In the case of partial knowledge about the prior, the possible posterior probability that is closest to the p value is used for inference. The second application provides guidance on the choice of methods used for small numbers of tests as opposed to those appropriate for large numbers. Whereas statisticians tend to prefer a multiple comparison procedure that adjusts each p value for small numbers of tests, large numbers instead lead many to estimate the local false discovery rate (LFDR), a posterior probability of hypothesis truth. Each blended probability reduces to the LFDR estimate if it can be estimated with sufficient accuracy or to the adjusted p value otherwise. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Suggested Citation

  • David Bickel, 2015. "Blending Bayesian and frequentist methods according to the precision of prior information with applications to hypothesis testing," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 24(4), pages 523-546, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:stmapp:v:24:y:2015:i:4:p:523-546
    DOI: 10.1007/s10260-015-0299-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10260-015-0299-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10260-015-0299-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. DasGupta A. & Studden W. J., 1989. "Frequentist Behavior Of Robust Bayes Estimates Of Normal Means," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 7(4), pages 333-362, April.
    2. Thomas Augustin, 2002. "Expected utility within a generalized concept of probability — a comprehensive framework for decision making under ambiguity," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 5-22, January.
    3. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    4. Seidenfeld, Teddy, 1988. "Decision Theory Without “Independence” or Without “Ordering”," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 267-290, October.
    5. Sellke T. & Bayarri M. J. & Berger J. O., 2001. "Calibration of rho Values for Testing Precise Null Hypotheses," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 55, pages 62-71, February.
    6. Tore Schweder & Nils Lid Hjort, 2002. "Confidence and Likelihood," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 29(2), pages 309-332, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bickel, David R., 2020. "Departing from Bayesian inference toward minimaxity to the extent that the posterior distribution is unreliable," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luca De Gennaro Aquino & Sascha Desmettre & Yevhen Havrylenko & Mogens Steffensen, 2024. "Equilibrium control theory for Kihlstrom-Mirman preferences in continuous time," Papers 2407.16525, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    2. Simona Fabrizi & Steffen Lippert & Addison Pan & Matthew Ryan, 2022. "A theory of unanimous jury voting with an ambiguous likelihood," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 399-425, October.
    3. ,, 2014. "Second order beliefs models of choice under imprecise risk: non-additive second order beliefs vs. nonlinear second order utility," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), September.
    4. Kiyohiko G. Nishimura & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2001. "Search under the Knightian Uncertainty," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-112, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    5. Dräger, Lena & Lamla, Michael J. & Pfajfar, Damjan, 2020. "The Hidden Heterogeneity of Inflation and Interest Rate Expectations: The Role of Preferences," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-666, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, revised Feb 2023.
    6. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    7. André Lapied & Thomas Rongiconi, 2013. "Ambiguity as a Source of Temptation: Modeling Unstable Beliefs," Working Papers halshs-00797631, HAL.
    8. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    9. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    10. He, Wei & Yannelis, Nicholas C., 2015. "Equilibrium theory under ambiguity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 86-95.
    11. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    12. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    13. Dubra, Juan & Maccheroni, Fabio & Ok, Efe A., 2004. "Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 118-133, March.
    14. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-061 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Luo, Yulei & Young, Eric R., 2016. "Induced uncertainty, market price of risk, and the dynamics of consumption and wealth," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 1-41.
    16. Schumacher Johannes M., 2018. "Distortion risk measures, ROC curves, and distortion divergence," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 35(1-2), pages 35-50, January.
    17. Qian Lin & Frank Riedel, 2021. "Optimal consumption and portfolio choice with ambiguous interest rates and volatility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(3), pages 1189-1202, April.
    18. Claudio A. Bonilla & Pablo A. Gutiérrez Cubillos, 2021. "The effects of ambiguity on entrepreneurship," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, February.
    19. Claudio Michelacci & Luigi Paciello, 2020. "Ambiguous Policy Announcements," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 87(5), pages 2356-2398.
    20. Joaquín Gómez Miñambres & Mark Schneider, 2019. "Carrots and Sticks: Optimal Contracting with Skewness Preference and Ambiguity Aversion," Working Papers 19-02, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    21. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:stmapp:v:24:y:2015:i:4:p:523-546. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.