2
$\begingroup$

I am trying to work out the Bayesian posteriors of $\theta$, $\tau$ and the $\varepsilon$ in the following model: $$y(t) = \phi(t,\tau)\theta+v(t),$$ where $\{v(t)\}$ is an iid sequence of random variables with Gaussian distribution with zero mean and $\varepsilon$ variance. I assume Gaussian priors for the $\theta$ and $\tau$ and an arbitrary discrete prior for $\tau$. Using the Bayes' Theorem, I can say that the joint posterior distribution of these variables is $$P(\theta, \tau, \varepsilon|O)\propto L(\theta, \tau, \varepsilon|O)P(\theta, \tau, \varepsilon)$$ where $O$ represents the observations and $P(\theta, \tau, \varepsilon) = f(\theta)P(\tau)f(\varepsilon)$.

To calculate the marginal posterior distribution of $\theta$, I can integrate out the $\tau$ and $\varepsilon$. The only reason that I do this is because this is how I have learnt to find the marginal distributions. However, I have seen people conditioning on the other variables to obtain the posterior distribution of $\theta$. The same goes for the posterior distribution of $\tau$. Do I condition it on $\theta$, or $\varepsilon$ or both or do I integrate them out? There seems to be a gap in my understanding here. Any help here would be appreciated. Thanks.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you have some notation wrong because $\epsilon$ is not in the equation. But, still I can comment on why you may have seen conditionals. In bayesian land, they have algorithms for generating joint stationary distributions based on the conditionals. Marginals can then sometimes be obtained but that's not always the goal. One method is called Metropolis Hastings and the other is Gibbs sampling. But, if you can integrate the joint distribution to get the marginals and the marginals are all you want, then you may not need the conditionals so you may not need MH or Gibbs sampling. $\endgroup$
    – mlofton
    Commented May 31 at 10:00

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Since the joint posterior writes $$P(\theta, \tau, \varepsilon|O) = \dfrac{ L(\theta, \tau, \varepsilon|O)P(\theta, \tau, \varepsilon)}{\sum_\iota\iint L(\eta, \iota, \epsilon|O)P(\eta, \iota, \epsilon)\text d\eta\,\text d\epsilon}$$ the exact derivation of the marginal [of the joint] posterior of $\theta$ follows as $$P(\theta|O) = \dfrac{\sum_\iota\int L(\theta, \iota, \epsilon|O)P(\theta, \tau, \varepsilon)\,\text d\epsilon}{\sum_\iota\iint L(\eta, \iota, \epsilon|O)P(\eta, \iota, \epsilon)\text d\eta\,\text d\epsilon}\tag{1}$$ and does not involve conditional distributions when the integration and summation steps in (1) are feasible.

As pointed out by @mlofton in their comment, conditionals may occur when simulation is required. For instance,a simulation-based approximation to this marginal is the so-called Rao-Blackwell or Rao-Blackwellized estimator averaging full conditionals $$\hat{P}(\theta|O) = \frac{1}{I}\sum_{i=1}^I P(\theta|\tau_i,\varepsilon_i,O)$$ when the sequence $(\theta_i,\tau_i,\varepsilon_i)_{i=1,\ldots,I}$ is iid from the joint posterior (or converging to simulations from the joint posterior when using an MCMC algorithm).

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Thanks. I think it is clear now. $\endgroup$
    – MJPeel
    Commented Jun 12 at 1:44
  • $\begingroup$ @MJPeel: If you think the answer closes the case, could you validate it as the originator of the question? $\endgroup$
    – Xi'an
    Commented Jun 12 at 15:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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