Toward a Reconciliation of the Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches to Point Estimation
走向贝叶斯与频率学派点估计的协调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:摘要研究一般点估计决策与先验稳健性,未给出与所列经济计量细分方向直接相关的模型或应用。
走向贝叶斯与频率学派点估计的协调AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The Bayesian and frequentist approaches to point estimation are reviewed. The status of the debate regarding the use of one approach over the other is discussed, and its inconclusive character is noted. A criterion for comparing Bayesian and frequentist estimators within a given experimental framework is proposed. The competition between a Bayesian and a frequentist is viewed as a contest with the following components: a random observable, a true prior distribution unknown to both statisticians, an operational prior used by the Bayesian, a fixed frequentist rule used by the frequentist, and a fixed loss criterion. This competition is studied in the context of exponential families, conjugate priors, and squared error loss. The class of operational priors that yield Bayes estimators superior to the “best” frequentist estimator is characterized. The implications of the existence of a threshold separating the space of operational priors into good and bad priors are explored, and their relevance in areas such as Bayesian robustness and the elicitation of prior distributions is discussed. Both the theoretical and empirical results presented in this article suggest that the method to be favored in a particular application depends crucially on the quality of the prior information available, with Bayesian and frequentist methods each emerging as preferable under specific, and complementary, circumstances.