Tell me more ×
Cross Validated is a question and answer site for statisticians, data analysts, data miners and data visualization experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have very little stats training, so this may be a very obvious and boring question, in which case I apologise.

Given two real-valued continuous random variables A and B, and given prior probability distributions $f_A$ and $f_B$ for each, how do I perform a Bayesian update when given the extra evidence that b>a with probability p?

Thanks in advance.

share|improve this question
Is this an homework?! The question sounds neither correct nor complete: the "evidence" is an additional item of information, not an observation, since the event $B>A$ occurs with probability $p$. Furthermore, this is not a sufficient item to determine the joint distribution of $(A,B)$. – Xi'an Jan 19 '12 at 17:53
1  
There are two types of artefact for which, from archaeological evidence, we would estimate a date expressed by two (given) probability distributions. Subsequently it is discovered that the two types are found juxtaposed at a dig in such a way that A is 95% likely to be of earlier provenance than B. How should our probability distributions change to reflect this? – Pete Jan 19 '12 at 23:52
1  
Interesting context, but this does not change the mathematical issue. Your additional piece of information contributes to the definition of a joint distribution on (A,B), but (again) this is not enough for defining by itself a joint. This is not a Bayesian updating issue as far as I can judge. If you do need a joint, you can pick it within a copula and imposing the 95% $A>B$ constraint. – Xi'an Jan 20 '12 at 5:43
1  
This is alas getting more confusing: are $f_A$ and $f_B$ priors on the expectations of $A$ and $B$, respectively? Even if this is the case, you are not in a position to run a Bayesian estimation if your sole evidence is that "b>a with probability $p$" since, again this is not an event taking place in the observation space. – Xi'an Jan 21 '12 at 17:03
1  
Yes, the $f_A$ and $f_B$ are representations of the expected chronology of the two species individually - before their mutual relationship is discovered or taken into account. I'm not completely sure I understand the significance of the confidence that b>a not being an event in the observation space, but moving away from the statistical model, it seems clear that the chronological expectations must change as a result of the discovery. Are you saying that it is not possible to quantify the extent to which they change? – Pete Jan 22 '12 at 10:38
show 2 more comments

1 Answer

Given two random variables, $A$ and $B$, with marginal densities $f_A$ and $f_B$, there are an infinite number of joint distributions compatible with those marginals densities and with the fact that $A>B$ with probability $p$. For instance, if $F_A$ and $F_B$ denote the cdfs associated with $f_A$ and $f_B$, i.e. $$ F_A(a) = \int_{-\infty}^a f_A(x)\text{d}x \quad F_B(b) = \int_{-\infty}^b f_B(x)\text{d}x\,, $$ then the joint distribution with cdf $$ P(A<a,B<b) = \dfrac{F_A(a)F_B(b)}{1+\varrho (1-F_A(a))(1-F_B(b))} $$ is compatible with the marginal densities and, for a proper choice of $\varrho$ leads to $P(A>B)=p$ (unless the supports of $f_A$ and $f_B$ prevent the event to occur). Thus,

  1. Unless you specify the family of joint distributions from the start, you do not have enough information in your problem to find the joint.
  2. The fact that $P(A>B)=p$ is more an item of information about the joint distribution of $(A,B)$, than about the parameters of $f_A$ and $f_B$. In any case, there is no Bayesian component in the problem.
  3. An example of a Bayesian problem would be an inference about $\varrho$ when observing $n$ pairs $(A_i,B_i)$. Or even observing that out of $n$ pairs $(A_i,B_i)$, $m$ are such that $A_i>B_i$.
share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.