6
$\begingroup$

I am working with a Polya urn made of red ($r$) and white ($w$) balls. For each extracted ball, I put it back in the urn together with $c=1$ balls of the same color.

I have computed the following joint probability law of $n$ variable $Y_i$ for $i=1,2,...,n$, a variable equal to $1$ if the extracted ball is red and equal to $0$ if the extracted ball is white:

\begin{gather} P(Y_1=1,Y_2=1,...Y_k=1,Y_{k+1}=0,...,Y_n=0) = \\ =(\frac{r}{r+w})(\frac{r+1}{r+w+1})...(\frac{r+k-1}{r+w+k-1})(\frac{w}{r+w+k})...(\frac{w+n-k+1}{r+w+n-1})=\\ =\frac{\Gamma(r+w)}{\Gamma(r)\Gamma(w)}\frac{\Gamma(r+k)\Gamma(w+n-k)}{\Gamma(r+w+n)} \end{gather}

Since the draws from a Polya urn are exchangeable, I could alternatively have derived the same result using De Finetti's representation theorem, i.e. there exists a prior distribution $H(\theta)$ such that \begin{gather} P(Y_1=1,Y_2=1,...Y_k=1,Y_{k+1}=0,...,Y_n=0) = \\ =\int^1_0\theta\,^k(1-\theta)^{n-k}dH(\theta) \end{gather}

where $k=\sum^n_{i=1}X_i$ and $H(\theta)=lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}P\{\frac{1}{n}\sum^n_{n=1}X_i\leq\theta\}$.

My doubt is about how to find the prior distribution $H(\theta)$ such that \begin{gather} \int^1_0\theta\,^k(1-\theta)^{n-k}dH(\theta)=\frac{\Gamma(r+w)}{\Gamma(r)\Gamma(w)}\frac{\Gamma(r+k)\Gamma(w+n-k)}{\Gamma(r+w+n)} \end{gather}

I've read on my lecture notes that there is a theorem that guarantees the existence of a unique prior that assures this equality and, in this case, it is a Beta distribution with parameters $r$ and $w$.

Question: why is the right prior distribution a $Beta(r,w)$? How this theorem works? Are there other ways to reach the same result, other than this un-named theorem?

EDIT: I've seen my professor today and I've found out that the theorem (or the result) is by a certain Hausdorff. I've Googled it but I had no success, I thought it may be a theorem developed in another context and applied in Bayesian statistics

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could you please restate your question? It is ungrammatical and therefore incomprehensible. $\endgroup$ – whuber Dec 9 '16 at 14:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @whuber I've tried to be more Shakesperean as possible ;) $\endgroup$ – PhDing Dec 9 '16 at 15:06
2
$\begingroup$

De Finetti's theorem proves the existence of a prior distribution $H(\theta)$ such that $$ \int^1_0\theta\,^k(1-\theta)^{n-k}dH(\theta)=\frac{\Gamma(r+w)}{\Gamma(r)\Gamma(w)}\frac{\Gamma(r+k)\Gamma(w+n-k)}{\Gamma(r+w+n)} $$ Looking more closely at the proof of this theorem, it seems that the prior distribution is obtained as the solution to a Hausdorff moment problem (see these notes), so the distribution is uniquely determined by its moments. So, if we can find a named distribution whose moments match those required for $H(\theta)$ then we have found $H(\theta)$.

Following the example at the end of the referenced notes, we can write $$\frac{\Gamma(r+w)}{\Gamma(r)\Gamma(w)}\frac{\Gamma(r+k)\Gamma(w+n-k)}{\Gamma(r+w+n)}=\int_0^1 \frac{\Gamma(r+w)}{\Gamma(r)\Gamma(w)}\theta^{r+k-1}(1-\theta)^{w+n-k-1} d\theta $$ From this we now see that the $Beta(r,w)$ distribution has the same moments as $H$, and hence $H$ must be the $Beta(r,w)$ distribution.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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