Bayesian Methods for Variance Component Models
方差分量模型的贝叶斯方法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:摘要涉及一般方差分量与层级贝叶斯模型,随机效应本身不足以确定面板数据分类。
方差分量模型的贝叶斯方法AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
An exact Bayesian analysis can be performed for normal theory variance components models, using importance sampling. But remarkably accurate approximations are available using the Laplacian T-approximation introduced by Leonard, Hsu, and Ritter. Instead of maximizing the joint posterior density, conditional upon the parameter of interest, a device described by O'Hagan is used first. The Bayesian estimators are compared to the Lindley—Stein shrinkage estimators and the Lindley—Smith joint modal estimators. It is confirmed that joint modes can overcollapse toward prior hypotheses, when compared with more sensible Bayesian procedures. This is referred to as a “collapsing phenomenon.” A numerical example from the one-way random-effects model is considered, and the risks of the different estimators are simulated under a variety of loss functions. It is concluded that although the Lindley—Stein estimator performs well, a full hierarchical Bayesian analysis performs at least equally well, while permitting more detailed finite-sample inference regarding any parameter of interest.