Paper detail

A simple example of Dirichlet process mixture inconsistency for the number of components

For data assumed to come from a finite mixture with an unknown number of components, it has become common to use Dirichlet process mixtures (DPMs) not only for density estimation, but also for inferences about the number of components. The typical approach is to use the posterior distribution on the number of components occurring so far --- that is, the posterior on the number of clusters in the observed data. However, it turns out that this posterior is not consistent --- it does not converge to the true number of components. In this note, we give an elementary demonstration of this inconsistency in what is perhaps the simplest possible setting: a DPM with normal components of unit variance, applied to data from a "mixture" with one standard normal component. Further, we find that this example exhibits severe inconsistency: instead of going to 1, the posterior probability that there is one cluster goes to 0.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.