-1
$\begingroup$

From my understanding the posterior "over" parameters $\alpha$ is

$$p(D|\alpha)$$

and not

$$p(\alpha|D),$$

is it correct?

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by Xi'an, Nick Cox, kjetil b halvorsen, Peter Flom Jan 11 '15 at 11:10

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Given different people might use the same phrase to mean somewhat different things, some context and definitions might help. Presumably $\alpha$ is a parameter vector, but does it include all the parameters? What's $D$? Who is using the term posterior over parameters, and what else are they saying near it? $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Jan 11 '15 at 0:05
  • $\begingroup$ In the example of the question, with $D$ I generically meant "data", and $\alpha$ a vector of parameters... (what do you mean with "all" the parameters, and why it matters?). Here just two examples that seem to contradict my understanding. Look for "posterior over":robots.ox.ac.uk/~parg/projects/ica/riz/Thesis/thesis019.html astro.uni-bonn.de/~kbasu/ObsCosmo/Slides2013/obs_cos_4_2013.pdf $\endgroup$ – njk Jan 11 '15 at 0:22
  • $\begingroup$ If there are several parameters, for example $\mu, \sigma$, and $\kappa$ (say), and $\alpha=(\sigma,\kappa)$, then there's an additional possible meaning of the phrase -- $p(\mu|D,\alpha)$. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Jan 11 '15 at 0:26
  • $\begingroup$ If the options in your question are the only two possible, I could only assume the second is the intent. The first is a likelihood, not a posterior. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Jan 11 '15 at 0:28
  • $\begingroup$ Note that in both your example links, there are in fact additional parameters the first time the phrase is used (hyperparameters included in $M$ in the first, and everything but $\theta_2$ in the second). [Generally speaking, something like $p(\alpha|D,M)$ will be nearer the intent, but sometimes "over" might be used to mean conditioning on $\alpha$, as in $p(\theta|\alpha,D,M)$; but if that happens, it's almost always obvious from context] $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Jan 11 '15 at 0:33
5
$\begingroup$

No.

The standard convention is that posterior [distribution] over parameter $\alpha$ is

$$ P(\alpha | D) $$

Just like $P(x)$ is some distribution over $x$, $P(\alpha | D)$ is a distribution over $\alpha$.

Posterior here means that we condition $\alpha$ on given data $D$. If we didn't, it'd be a prior (in Bayesian terms) [distribution] $P(\alpha)$.

$P(D|\alpha)$ is not a distribution over $\alpha$, it's called likelihood.

$\endgroup$

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