I'm trying to understand Jeffreys prior. One application is for 'scale' variables like the standard deviation $\sigma$ (or its square, the variance $\sigma^2$) of Gaussian distributions. It is often said that using a uniform prior over $\sigma$ is not really non-informative and instead one should either:

  1. Use instead $\ln \sigma$ as the free parameter, with a uniform prior (this is often called a log-uniform prior)

  2. Or keep using $\sigma$ as the free parameter but use $1/\sigma$ as the prior (which is not uniform).

Why are the above two methods/priors equivalent? I feel it has something to do with the fact that the derivative of ln $\sigma$ is $1/\sigma$ but I can't take the next step.

Also, why does this even matter, in simple language with minimal jargon? I see all these complicated explanations online involving the Fisher information matrix but in the end all I see is that the above log-uniform or $1/\sigma$ priors preferentially weight lower values of $\sigma$ more highly. Why? If possible, a simple analytic example or python snippet would be very helpful.


When transforming a uniform distribution on $\log(\sigma)$ to a distribution on $\sigma$ you need to take into account the Jacobian of the transformation. This corresponds, as you correctly intuited, to $1/\sigma$.

Writing this a little more clearly, let $X=\log(\sigma)$ and the transformation we're after is $T(X)=\sigma=e^{X}=Y$, which has inverse transformation $T^{-1}(Y)=\log(Y)$. The jacobian is then $|\frac{\partial X}{\partial Y}|=1/Y$. So since $p(X)\propto 1$, we have that the induced density for $\sigma$ is the $p(Y)=|\frac{\partial X}{\partial Y}|p(\log(Y))\propto1/Y$.

  • $\begingroup$ That last line should be $p(X)$ instead of $p(e^X)$. $\endgroup$ Jan 19 '18 at 1:47
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry but why is the Jacobian relevant and why are you introducing this new variable Y, instead of just calling it $\sigma$? And why is $p(X)\propto1$? Sorry I'm confused $\endgroup$ Jan 19 '18 at 2:49
  • $\begingroup$ @MossMurderer you're right, I fixed it. $\endgroup$
    – aleshing
    Jan 19 '18 at 3:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quantumflash I introduced new variables X and Y for clarity. We have $p(X)\propto 1$ since it's uniform (thus proportional to a constant), and since it's uniform on the positive reals it actually doesn't have a density, so we can only specify it up to proportionality. As for why the jacoban is relevant, see the change of variables portion of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…. This is all introductory probability theory that you should read up on before learning about Bayesian statistics. $\endgroup$
    – aleshing
    Jan 19 '18 at 3:24

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.