In a particular task I am given, I have to compute the Bayes estimator of $Bernoulli(\theta$) random variables $X_1, ..., X_n$. As a prior distribution $p(\theta)$, I have to assume a $Beta(\alpha, \beta)$ distribution. When I multiply the likelihood function with the prior distribution and simplify the term by dropping the proportional constants, I get:

$$ p(\theta \vert x_1, ... , x_n )= \theta^{Y+\alpha -1 } (1- \theta)^{n-Y + \beta - 1} $$ where $Y = \sum_i X_i $. Now in the "standard procdedure", the next step is to calculate the expected value of this term, in other words $\mathbf{E}(\theta \vert x_1, ... , x_n$ ), correct?

So if I do that, I get:

$$\mathbf{E}(\theta \vert x_1, ... , x_n ) = \int_0^{\infty} \theta \cdot \theta^{Y+\alpha -1 } (1- \theta)^{n-Y + \beta - 1} \text{d}\theta= \int_0^{\infty} \theta^{Y+\alpha } (1- \theta)^{n-Y + \beta - 1} \text{d}\theta $$

But when I compute this last integral (just using the "standard integration rule" for polynoms), this thing converges to infinity which would imply that the expected value doesn't exist.

Where am I wrong?

Additional question:

In particular, it is given that
$$ p(\theta \vert x_1, ... , x_n )= \theta^{Y+\alpha -1 } (1- \theta)^{n-Y + \beta - 1} \sim Beta(Y + \alpha, n - Y + \beta)$$

Why is that true? I clearly see the point that the $\theta \cdot (1-\theta)$ part shows similarities and could be written like that, but why can we just drop the constant part (why can we just drop $\frac{\Gamma(\alpha + \beta)}{\Gamma(\alpha) \Gamma(\beta)}$)?

Edit: I want to add a side question to this, since I realised that I actually have not fully understood the thing:

From the comments I now know that $$ c \cdot p(\theta \vert x_1, ... , x_n )= \theta^{Y+\alpha -1 } (1- \theta)^{n-Y + \beta - 1} \sim Beta(Y + \alpha, n - Y + \beta)$$ where c is a constant so that $p(\theta \vert x_1, ... , x_n )$ fulfills the requirements of a pdf. Now we know that the expected value of a $Beta(\alpha, \beta)$ distribution is $E(z) = \frac{\alpha}{\alpha + \beta}$. Now in the solution to this exercise, they continue by just estimating \theta as follows:

$\hat{\theta} = \frac{Y+ \alpha}{(Y + \alpha) + (n-Y+\beta)}$

Why is that true? Don't we have to multiply this by the constant? So isn't it $\hat{\theta} = c \cdot (\frac{Y+ \alpha}{(Y + \alpha) + (n-Y+\beta)})$ (by the rule of extracting factors before the expected value)?


You drop the marginal density $p(x)$ (the normalizing constant ) because it is a function of the data which are fixed (in the Bayesian context ) but that leads the posterior density $p(\theta|x)$ to lose some properties like integration to 1 (improper density )over the domain of $\theta$ but this is not a big deal since we are usually not interested in integrating the function but in maximising it , so multiplying this function with the constant does not change the $\theta$ that corresponds to the maximum point (MAP).

Now given a binomial likelihood over $r$ success ($Y$ as you denote it ) in $n$ Bernoulli trials each independent and conditional on unknown success parameter $\theta \in [0,1]$ with prior density $\theta \sim Beta(\alpha,\beta)$ . If you drop the constants in the likelihood and the prior you get the kernel of beta density(the posterior ) that means the posterior is proportional (not equal )to the likelihood * prior such that

$$p(\theta|r,n) \propto {\theta}^r (1-\theta)^{n-r} * {\theta}^{\alpha -1}(1-\theta)^{\beta-1} = {\theta}^{r+\alpha-1}(1-\theta)^{n-r+\beta-1 }$$

Now to make this density proper(new beta density ) we multiply it with the constant $c$ which will ensure that this posterior density integrate to 1 such that :

$$p(\theta|r,n)= c{\theta}^{r+\alpha-1}(1-\theta)^{n-r+\beta-1 }$$ Note no proportionality anymore, now let $c$ be as follows $$c=\frac{\Gamma(n+\alpha+\beta)}{\Gamma(r+\alpha)\Gamma(n-r+\beta)}$$ That means $$ \int_{0}^{1}{\theta}^{r+\alpha-1}(1-\theta)^{n-r+\beta-1 }d\theta=c^{-1}$$ $$\theta|r,n \sim Beta(\alpha+r,\beta +n-r)$$ then $E(\theta|r,n)=\frac{\alpha+r}{\alpha+n+\beta}$ .

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Great explanation! But so from your post, what is written above after "In particular, it is given that" is wrong, correct? I especially mean the part after $\sim$. This would only hold true if I would set the constant c as explained in your post, right? $\endgroup$ – Peter Series Jan 14 '17 at 9:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FabianFalck Yes it is proportional (not equal ) to i.e it should be $$ p(\theta \vert x_1, ... , x_n ) \propto \theta^{Y+\alpha -1 } (1- \theta)^{n-Y + \beta - 1}$$ or $$p(\theta \vert x_1, ... , x_n ) =c \theta^{Y+\alpha -1 } (1- \theta)^{n-Y + \beta - 1} \sim Beta(\alpha,\beta)$$ $\endgroup$ – Bahgat Nassour Jan 14 '17 at 10:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I give you the credits, since you helped me to understand how to deal with the constant. $\endgroup$ – Peter Series Jan 14 '17 at 10:28

If you're taking an expectation, you need to explicitly know the pdf you're working with. For the expectation integral you're doing, you don't have the correct integrand because $p(\theta \vert x_1, ... , x_n )= \theta^{Y+\alpha -1 } (1- \theta)^{n-Y + \beta - 1}$ is not a pdf.

You have $p(\theta \mid x_1,\dots,x_n) = \frac{p(x_1,\dots,x_n \mid \theta) p(\theta)}{p(x_1,\dots,x_n)}$ and it's generally easier to drop the denominator to recognize the pdf. We use $\propto$ to represent this proportionality.

Thus, $p(\theta \mid x_1,\dots,x_n) \propto p(x_1,\dots,x_n \mid \theta) p(\theta) = \theta^{ \alpha -1+\sum_{i=1}^n x_i } (1-\theta)^{n+\beta-1 - \sum_{i=1}^n x_i}$. If we had kept in the constants, things would have gotten messy. Then, like you said, we recognize this as proportional to the Beta$(\alpha + Y, n+\beta+Y)$ distribution, and the missing constants would ensure that this is indeed a probability density function; i.e. that it integrates to one.

So $p(\theta \mid x_1,\dots,x_n) \sim$ Beta$(\alpha + Y, n+\beta-Y)$ and the mean of Beta$(a,b)$ is $a/(a+b)$, so the desired expectation is $\frac{\alpha+Y}{n+\beta+\alpha}$.

You could also get the expectation by integrating directly: \begin{align*} &\int_0^1 \theta \cdot \frac{1}{\beta(\alpha+Y, n + \beta - Y)} \theta^{\alpha+Y-1} (1-\theta)^{n+\beta-Y-1} \; d \theta \\ &=\frac{\beta(\alpha+Y+1, n + \beta - Y)}{\beta(\alpha+Y, n + \beta - Y)} \underbrace{\int_0^1 \frac{1}{\beta(\alpha+Y+1, n + \beta - Y)} \theta^{\alpha+Y} (1-\theta)^{n+\beta-Y-1} \; d \theta }_{=1} \end{align*} which equals $\frac{\beta(\alpha+Y+1, n + \beta - Y)}{\beta(\alpha+Y, n + \beta - Y)} = \frac{\alpha+Y}{ \alpha+n+\beta}$ as we expected.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Great answer! Helps especially to understand that the "tedious" approach is still correct! $\endgroup$ – Peter Series Jan 14 '17 at 10:24

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.