Filippo Ascolani, Antonio Lijoi, and Igor Prünster’s contribution to the Discussion of ‘Martingale Posterior Distributions’ by Fong, Holmes and Walker
Ascolani、Lijoi与Prünster对《鞅后验分布》的讨论AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:材料讨论通用贝叶斯预测、可交换性与层级结构,未明确涉及宏观预测或所列其他经济计量细分。
Ascolani、Lijoi与Prünster对《鞅后验分布》的讨论AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
We would like to congratulate the authors on their fine and insightful contribution, which provides an original perspective on Bayesian inference and opens up new exciting research directions. The key point is a novel interpretation of the role of prediction: in a Bayesian framework all the uncertainty lies in the unobserved data Yn+1,∞ and, once they are imputed through the predictive distributions, inference is straightforward. Therefore, prediction rules, besides allowing forecasting and extrapolation, are crucial also to infer parameters of interest. In Bayesian non-parametrics there, is a large stream of works focussing on the m-step ahead prediction for exchangeable species sampling data (see, e.g. Favaro et al., 2009; Lijoi et al., 2007), with recent contributions also in the partially exchangeable set-up (Camerlenghi et al., 2017). However, the predictive distributions are always determined through an indirect procedure that relies on the specification of a non-parametric prior and derives the prediction rule as a posterior expected value. The authors adopt a different, and more direct, approach by considering conditionally identically distributed sequences (Berti et al., 2023) that are only asymptotically exchangeable: in this case, the predictive distributions are available in closed form, but predictions may depend on the order of the observed data Y1:n. This seems in contrast with the assumption of independent and identically distributed data that should imply invariance of inferential results with respect to permutation of the observations. Therefore, one may wonder whether the analysis could be extended so to come up with novel exchangeable predictives, without explicit reference to an underlying prior. To overcome the lack of invariance with respect to the ordering of the data, the authors suggest to average the predictions over different permutations of Y1:n. While being computationally unfeasible, averaging over all the permutations induces a symmetry condition which is reminiscent of exchangeability. It would be interesting to check whether the ensuing prediction mechanism actually identifies an exchangeable sequence. This would boil down to showing invariance of the two-step ahead predictives (Fortini et al., 2000). If this were actually the case, the natural goal would be to identify the underlying prior. In general, the standard prior-likelihood mechanism may still be a plus when it comes to describing the dependence structure among the observations (i.e. the generative model). For instance, hierarchical models, that distinguish global and group-specific parameters, have proven to be useful in multiple fields. We wonder whether it would be possible to encode these structures directly into the predictive distributions: in particular, it would be interesting to ascertain whether the neat recursive expressions of Section 4, that allow fast computations, can be retained.