# Jeffreys Prior for normal distribution with unknown mean and variance

I am reading up on prior distributions and I calculated Jeffreys prior for a sample of normally distributed random variables with unknown mean and unknown variance. According to my calculations, the following holds for Jeffreys prior: $$p(\mu,\sigma^2)=\sqrt{det(I)}=\sqrt{det\begin{pmatrix}1/\sigma^2 & 0 \\ 0 & 1/(2\sigma^4)\end{pmatrix}}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\sigma^6}}\propto\frac{1}{\sigma^3}.$$ Here, $I$ is Fisher's information matrix.

However, I have also read publications and documents which state

as Jeffreys prior for the case of a normal distribution with unkown mean and variance. What is the 'actual' Jeffreys prior?

I think the discrepancy is explained by whether the authors consider the density over $\sigma$ or the density over $\sigma^2$. Supporting this interpretation, the exact thing that Kass and Wassermann write is $$\pi(\mu, \sigma) = 1 / \sigma^2,$$ while Yang and Berger write $$\pi(\mu, \sigma^2) = 1 / \sigma^4.$$

• Thanks, I overlooked this. However, this still does not explain the discrepancy between $1/\sigma^3$ and $1/\sigma^4$. Jun 11, 2015 at 1:02
• Actually, having a prior of $\pi(\mu, \sigma)=1/\sigma^2$ is the same as having a prior $\pi(\mu, \sigma^2)=1/\sigma^3$, due the reparametrization property of Jeffreys prior: $$\pi(\mu, \sigma)=\pi(\mu, \sigma^2)det(J_f)\propto \frac{1}{\sigma^3}2\sigma \propto \frac{1}{\sigma^2}$$ with $J_f$ the Jacobian matrix of $f: (\mu, \sigma)\to (\mu, \sigma^2)$, i.e. $$J_f=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&2\sigma\end{pmatrix}$$. Jun 11, 2015 at 2:00
• @Nussig, I checked the calculation, and I think you are right arriving at $1/\sigma^3$. You are also right that the reparametrization amounts only to a factor $1/\sigma$. Considering this, your calculation is in accordance with Kass and Wassermann, and I can only guess that Yang and Berger made a mistake. This makes sense also since the former is a regular reviewed journal paper and the latter is a draft of a kind of formula collection. Jun 11, 2015 at 2:20
• Kass and Wassermann also note that Jeffreys introduced a modified rule, according to which location and scale parameters should be treated separately. This leads to $\pi(\mu, \sigma) = 1 / \sigma$ and therefore $\pi(\mu, \sigma^2) = 1 / \sigma^2$, but still not to $\pi(\mu, \sigma^2) = 1 / \sigma^4$. Jun 11, 2015 at 2:22
• Jim Berger is still an active scientist, so to be sure you might check directly with him: stat.duke.edu/~berger Jun 11, 2015 at 2:28

The existing answers already well answer the original question. As a physicist, I would just like to add to this discussion a dimensionality argument. If you consider $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$ to describe a distribution of a random variable in a real 1D space and measured in meters, they have the dimensions $[\mu] \sim m$ and $[\sigma^2] \sim m^2$. To have a physically correct prior, you need it to have the right dimensions, i.e. the only powers of $\sigma$ physically possible in a non-parametric prior are: $$\pi(\mu, \sigma) \sim 1/\sigma^{2}$$ and $$\pi(\mu, \sigma^2) \sim 1/\sigma^{3}$$.

• Why is there $\sigma^{3}$ in the second expression? Feb 25, 2019 at 15:59

$\frac{1}{\sigma^3}$ is the Jeffreys prior. However in practice $\frac{1}{\sigma^2}$ is quite often used cause it leads to a relatively simple posterior, the "intuition" of this prior is that it corresponds with a flat prior on $\log(\sigma)$.

• Thanks, @Noshgul. I get the point about the flat prior on $\log(\sigma)$. However, could you elaborate on 'relatively simple posterior'? If I am not mistaken, Jeffrey's prior results in a normal-inverse-$\chi^2$ posterior, i.e. $$(\mu,\sigma^2)|D \sim \mathcal{N}\chi^{-1}\left(\overline{X}, n,n, \frac{1}{n}\sum(X_i-\overline{X})^2\right).$$ The prior $1/\sigma^2$ should result in a normal-inverse-$\chi^2$ posterior, too, just with different parameters. Jun 10, 2015 at 19:57
• Ooh, yes it leads to a normal-inverse-$\chi^2(\bar{X},n,n-1,s^2)$. I just find it more natural that the marginal of $\sigma^2$ is an inverse $\chi^2$ with n-1 instead of n degrees of freedom. Anyhow, I certainly did not want to imply that the other priors would lead to annoying distributions. To be honest I didn't know the posterior of the Jeffry's prior by heart nor did I really think to much about it when I wrote the post. Jun 11, 2015 at 17:26