Triple-goal Estimates in Two-stage Hierarchical Models
两阶段层级模型中的三目标估计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:摘要研究通用层级模型中参数估计、排序与直方图目标,未明确涉及经济分布效应或其他所列方向。
两阶段层级模型中的三目标估计AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Summary The beauty of the Bayesian approach is its ability to structure complicated models, inferential goals and analyses. To take full advantage of it, methods should be linked to an inferential goal via a loss function. For example, in the two-stage, compound sampling model the posterior means are optimal under squared error loss. However, they can perform poorly in estimating the histogram of the parameters or in ranking them. ‘Triple-goal’ estimates are motivated by the desire to have a set of estimates that produce good ranks, a good parameter histogram and good co-ordinate-specific estimates. No set of estimates can simultaneously optimize these three goals and we seek a set that strikes an effective trade-off. We evaluate and compare three candidate approaches: the posterior means, the constrained Bayes estimates of Louis and Ghosh, and a new approach that optimizes estimation of the histogram and the ranks. Mathematical and simulation-based analyses support the superiority of the new approach and document its excellent performance for the three inferential goals.