Skip to main content
edited title
Link

Bayesian parameter estimation with unit observationsproportion data

Notice removed Authoritative reference needed by Jens de Bruijn
Bounty Ended with Ben's answer chosen by Jens de Bruijn
Tweeted twitter.com/StackStats/status/1148562586545328129
added 11 characters in body
Source Link

I am trying to do a Bayesian analysis using a model that comes from the literature in non-Bayesian form: $y = \Phi(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta)$$y = \Phi\Bigg(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta)\Bigg)$. Because the model uses the function $\Phi$ its outcome is in the range $0-1$. My observations cannot exceed this range either (but can be 0 or 1). However, using a Gaussian in the likelihood function means that the uncertainty bounds are sometimes outside the $0-1$ range (see Figure below). Statistically speaking, is this a problem, and if so, what would be a better solution?

$R_i \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma)$

$\mu_i = \Phi \Bigg(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta) \Bigg)$

$\alpha \sim \mathcal{N}(0.35, 0.1) $

$\beta\sim \mathcal{N}(70, 10) $

$\sigma \sim \mathcal{U}(0, 0.3) $

Bayesian parameter estimation

I am trying to do a Bayesian analysis using a model that comes from the literature in non-Bayesian form: $y = \Phi(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta)$. Because the model uses the function $\Phi$ its outcome is in the range $0-1$. My observations cannot exceed this range either (but can be 0 or 1). However, using a Gaussian in the likelihood function means that the uncertainty bounds are sometimes outside the $0-1$ range (see Figure below). Statistically speaking, is this a problem, and if so, what would be a better solution?

$R_i \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma)$

$\mu_i = \Phi \Bigg(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta) \Bigg)$

$\alpha \sim \mathcal{N}(0.35, 0.1) $

$\beta\sim \mathcal{N}(70, 10) $

$\sigma \sim \mathcal{U}(0, 0.3) $

Bayesian parameter estimation

I am trying to do a Bayesian analysis using a model that comes from the literature in non-Bayesian form: $y = \Phi\Bigg(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta)\Bigg)$. Because the model uses the function $\Phi$ its outcome is in the range $0-1$. My observations cannot exceed this range either (but can be 0 or 1). However, using a Gaussian in the likelihood function means that the uncertainty bounds are sometimes outside the $0-1$ range (see Figure below). Statistically speaking, is this a problem, and if so, what would be a better solution?

$R_i \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma)$

$\mu_i = \Phi \Bigg(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta) \Bigg)$

$\alpha \sim \mathcal{N}(0.35, 0.1) $

$\beta\sim \mathcal{N}(70, 10) $

$\sigma \sim \mathcal{U}(0, 0.3) $

Bayesian parameter estimation

deleted 14 characters in body
Source Link

I am trying to do a Bayesian analysis using a model that comes from the literature in non-Bayesian form: $y = \Phi(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta)$. Because the model uses the function $\Phi$, the its outcome of the model is in the range $0-1$. My observations cannot exceed this range either (but can be 0 or 1). However, using a Gaussian in the likelihood function means that the uncertainty bounds are sometimes outside the $0-1$ range (see Figure below). Statistically speaking, is this a problem, and if so, what would be a better solution?

$R_i \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma)$

$\mu_i = \Phi \Bigg(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta) \Bigg)$

$\alpha \sim \mathcal{N}(0.35, 0.1) $

$\beta\sim \mathcal{N}(70, 10) $

$\sigma \sim \mathcal{U}(0, 0.3) $

Bayesian parameter estimation

I am trying to do a Bayesian analysis using a model that comes from the literature in non-Bayesian form: $y = \Phi(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta)$. Because the model uses the function $\Phi$, the outcome of the model is in the range $0-1$. My observations cannot exceed this range either (but can be 0 or 1). However, using a Gaussian in the likelihood function means that the uncertainty bounds are sometimes outside the $0-1$ range (see Figure below). Statistically speaking, is this a problem, and if so, what would be a better solution?

$R_i \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma)$

$\mu_i = \Phi \Bigg(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta) \Bigg)$

$\alpha \sim \mathcal{N}(0.35, 0.1) $

$\beta\sim \mathcal{N}(70, 10) $

$\sigma \sim \mathcal{U}(0, 0.3) $

Bayesian parameter estimation

I am trying to do a Bayesian analysis using a model that comes from the literature in non-Bayesian form: $y = \Phi(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta)$. Because the model uses the function $\Phi$ its outcome is in the range $0-1$. My observations cannot exceed this range either (but can be 0 or 1). However, using a Gaussian in the likelihood function means that the uncertainty bounds are sometimes outside the $0-1$ range (see Figure below). Statistically speaking, is this a problem, and if so, what would be a better solution?

$R_i \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma)$

$\mu_i = \Phi \Bigg(\frac{1}{\alpha} * log(A/\beta) \Bigg)$

$\alpha \sim \mathcal{N}(0.35, 0.1) $

$\beta\sim \mathcal{N}(70, 10) $

$\sigma \sim \mathcal{U}(0, 0.3) $

Bayesian parameter estimation

added 14 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
edited body
Source Link
Loading
added 6 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
Notice added Authoritative reference needed by Jens de Bruijn
Bounty Started worth 50 reputation by Jens de Bruijn
added 123 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
added 91 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
deleted 18 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
Source Link
Loading