Samiuddin, (1976) states:

enter image description here

or, typset with $\LaTeX$ as originally posted

We start with the usual noninformative prior distribution of $\mu_i$ and $\sigma_i (i = 1,2,\ldots, k)$

$$\pi(\mu_1, \mu_2, \ldots, \mu_k; \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \ldots, \sigma_k) \propto d\mu_1d\mu_2\ldots d\mu_k \frac{d\sigma_1d\sigma_2\ldots d\sigma_k} {\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots \sigma_k}$$

What does this notation mean?

Samiuddin, M. 1976. Bayesian Test of Homogeneity of Variance. Journal of the American Statistical Assoc. Vol. 71, No. 354

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ More than half the problem is that you have not correctly transcribed this expression! The right hand side is $d\mu_1 d\mu_2 \cdots d\mu_k \frac{d\sigma_1 d\sigma_2 \cdots d\sigma_k}{\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \cdots \sigma_k}$: the $d$'s are differentials, not $d$'s with subscripts. See formula (2.1) at jstor.org/pss/2285344 . $\endgroup$ – whuber Mar 29 '11 at 6:07
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber thanks for pointing that out. The paper was pre-$\LaTeX$ and the Greek letters are just a bit smaller than the Latin ones. $\endgroup$ – David LeBauer Mar 29 '11 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ fixed. This makes me really appreciate Donald Knuth. $\endgroup$ – David LeBauer Mar 29 '11 at 14:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a somewhat abusive notation as the lhs should be instead$$\pi(d\mu_1\cdots d\mu_kd\sigma_1\cdots d\sigma_k)$$ $\endgroup$ – Xi'an Mar 6 '16 at 14:39

This is shorthand notation for a "differential" of the mean and variance parameters. The longhand version goes:

$$p(\mu\in[\mu_1,\mu_1+d\mu_1)|I)\propto d\mu_1$$

This indicates a uniform probability with respect to $\mu$. A more familiar notation is:

$$p(\mu|I)\propto 1$$

It comes from the "proper" derivation of a PDF from a CDF.

$$lim_{dy\rightarrow 0}P(Y\in[y,y+dy))=f(y)dy$$

EDIT: I initially wrote this answer in a hasty fashion, and so had a bit of unclear notation myself. In my example, I only had a 1-dimension variable $\mu_1$, and all the above relate to a 1-dimensional random variable. I think the statistical physics literature ("maxent" people) uses this notation (but not entirely sure) - Edwin Jaynes, Larry Bretthorst, Stephen Gull, and others. I've never seen it explained in any more detail than what I have given.

And second is that $I$ stands for "prior information", not an identity matrix. This is just a good habit to express $I$ explicitly as part of your assumptions - so that you don't forget that 1) they are there, and 2) you answer depends on the prior information just as much it depends on the data.

  • $\begingroup$ thanks for explaining this to me, but I am still confused - in your notation, is $\mu$ a vector and $I$ an identity matrix? $\endgroup$ – David LeBauer Mar 27 '11 at 23:37
  • $\begingroup$ can you point me to a reference? I have Gelman's Bayesian Data Analysis and Carlin and Louis "Bayes and Empirical Bayes Methods" handy but can't relate their explanations to your equations 1 and 2. I understand that how to calculate the PDF from the CDF, but not how this gets you from to eqn 1 or from 1 to 2. $\endgroup$ – David LeBauer Mar 27 '11 at 23:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's the multivariate analog of the usual 'noninformative' prior; a more succint/modern way to write it would be $p(\mu, \sigma)\propto \prod_{i=1}^k 1/\sigma_i$ (with $\mu$ and $\sigma$ k-vectors). Like @probabilityislogic says, the $d$'s are differentials and come from the proper definition of a pdf. I think they ought to be typeset $d\mu_i$. Pop in a one for them and you should be fine :) You're unlikely to see that notation in either of those texts, I think. $\endgroup$ – JMS Mar 28 '11 at 2:13

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.