Source author record

Kaniav Kamary

Kaniav Kamary appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
4topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

Bayesian estimation of discrete Burr distribution with two parameters

So far, various techniques have been implemented for generating discrete distributions based on continuous distributions. The characteristics and properties of this kind of probability distributions have been studied. Furthermore, the estimation of related parameters have been computed trough classical methods. However, a few studies addressed the parameter estimate issue of these distributions through Bayesian methods. This is essentially because of the complexity of the model whatever the number of parameter is and the fact that in general they contain a large number of parameters to be estimated. This paper deals with computing Bayes estimate of the parameters of discrete Burr distribution with two parameters. Since the resulting posterior distribution of the parameters is not standard, we apply Metropolis-Hastings algorithm to simulate from the posterior density.

preprint2014arXiv

Reflecting about Selecting Noninformative Priors

Following the critical review of Seaman et al. (2012), we reflect on what is presumably the most essential aspect of Bayesian statistics, namely the selection of a prior density. In some cases, Bayesian inference remains fairly stable under a large range of noninformative prior distributions. However, as discussed by \citet{Hd}, there may also be unintended consequences of a choice of a noninformative prior and, these authors consider this problem ignored in Bayesian studies. As they based their argumentation on four examples, we reassess these examples and their Bayesian processing via different prior choices. Our conclusion is to lower the degree of worry about the impact of the prior, exhibiting an overall stability of the posterior distributions. We thus consider that the warnings of Seaman et al. (2012), while commendable, do not jeopardize the use of most noninformative priors.