Paper detail

Quantifying Observed Prior Impact

We distinguish two questions (i) how much information does the prior contain? and (ii) what is the effect of the prior? Several measures have been proposed for quantifying effective prior sample size, for example Clarke [1996] and Morita et al. [2008]. However, these measures typically ignore the likelihood for the inference currently at hand, and therefore address (i) rather than (ii). Since in practice (ii) is of great concern, Reimherr et al. [2014] introduced a new class of effective prior sample size measures based on prior-likelihood discordance. We take this idea further towards its natural Bayesian conclusion by proposing measures of effective prior sample size that not only incorporate the general mathematical form of the likelihood but also the specific data at hand. Thus, our measures do not average across datasets from the working model, but condition on the current observed data. Consequently, our measures can be highly variable, but we demonstrate that this is because the impact of a prior can be highly variable. Our measures are Bayes estimates of meaningful quantities and well communicate the extent to which inference is determined by the prior, or framed differently, the amount of effort saved due to having prior information. We illustrate our ideas through a number of examples including a Gaussian conjugate model (continuous observations), a Beta-Binomial model (discrete observations), and a linear regression model (two unknown parameters). Future work on further developments of the methodology and an application to astronomy are discussed at the end.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors4 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.