Subjective Hierarchical Bayes Estimation of a Multivariate Normal Mean: On the Frequentist Interface
多元正态均值的主观层次贝叶斯估计:与频率学派的联系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:摘要研究多元正态均值收缩与风险理论,没有所列计量领域细分的直接证据。
多元正态均值的主观层次贝叶斯估计:与频率学派的联系AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
In shrinkage estimation of a multivariate normal mean, the two dominant approaches to construction of estimators have been the hierarchical or empirical Bayes approach and the minimax approach. The first has been most extensively used in practice, because of its greater flexibility in adapting to varying situations, while the second has seen the most extensive theoretical development. In this paper we consider several topics on the interface of these approaches, concentrating, in particular, on the interface between hierarchical Bayes and frequentist shrinkage estimation. The hierarchical Bayes setup considered is quite general, allowing (and encouraging) utilization of subjective second stage prior distributions to represent knowledge about the actual location of the normal means. (The first stage of the prior is used, as usual, to model suspected relationships among the means.) We begin by providing convenient representations for the hierarchical Bayes estimators to be considered, as well as formulas for their associated posterior covariance matrices and unbiased estimators of matrical mean square error; these are typically proposed by Bayesians and frequentists, respectively, as possible "error matrices" for use in evaluating the accuracy of the estimators. These two measures of accuracy are extensively compared in a special case, to highlight some general features of their differences. Risks and various estimated risks or losses (with respect to quadratic loss) of the hierarchical Bayes estimators are also considered. Some rather surprising minimax results are established (such as one in which minimaxity holds for any subjective second stage prior of the mean), and the various risks and estimated risks are extensively compared. Finally, a conceptually trivial (but often calculationally difficult) method of verifying minimaxity is illustrated, based on numerical maximization of the unbiased estimator of risk (using certain convenient calculational formulas for hierarchical Bayes estimators), and is applied to an illustrative example.