Bayesian Integration and a Simple Sampling Approach for Improved Estimation in Bayesian Methods

Bayesian Integration and a Normal Poster

Implementation of Bayesian methods is complicated by the need for specialized numerical integration techniques unfamiliar to many statistical practitioners. We propose a simple sampling-resampling approach to estimating expectations that avoids these difficulties.

A normal posterior is an estimator that gives more weight to the prior information as the sample size increases, while keeping the variance the same. This results in better performance of the posterior mean than other estimators.


In bayesian statistics, a normal posterior can be used to approximate the probability distribution of an unknown parameter. The normal approximation works well in low dimensional thth parameter spaces, and it can be helpful for debugging more complex methods by providing credible intervals that compare to those produced by simpler models.

To understand how the normal approximation works, consider a random sample from a distribution with mean and variance . For each (y) grid value, the product of the prior distribution function f(theta) and the likelihood function L(theta|y) is evaluated. This function returns a probability distribution that is normally distributed with respect to its center (y) and width (y).

The sample distribution gives us some information about thth, but the information it conveys is incomplete. The sample means and variance provide a mixture of signals, and the more precise a signal is, the more weight it receives. The resulting mixture is a normal posterior, and the more precision of the sample means, the closer it will get to the true mean.

A uniform prior spreads prior plausibility over a fairly wide range of values, [0, 0.7]. Even when you observe data that suggest thth may be greater than 0.7, the probability that it is will remain 0. This is because a 0 prior for thth makes it impossible to generate a posterior probability that includes such high values.

As a result, a normal approximation tends to produce erroneous spikes in the posterior distribution. To mitigate this effect, we can use MCMC sampling techniques to mix the Markov chain quickly around the range of posterior probabilities that are possible. Using this method, we can generate credible intervals that compare to the 98% central posterior probability and see how the normal approximation performs. We can then decide if it is a reasonable approximation to the true posterior. If not, we can investigate ways to improve the approximation.


The variance of a Normal distribution is equal to the product of its mean and standard deviation. This means that a sample from a Normal distribution with mean m and standard deviation s will have precision (or, as we might say in statistical terms, the sample variance) equal to s/n. Thus, a simple compromise between prior and likelihood, assuming a normal sampling model, is to use the Normal prior with mean m’=ty+tmt+tm and standard deviation s’=1/n and compute sample means and precisions from this prior distribution.

Given the prior distribution, you can use Bayes’ theorem to calculate a posterior probability density function p(x|th)dtheta. This can then be used to construct a credible interval for the parameter th. The size of the credible interval depends on the standard deviation of the prior and how much uncertainty you want to include in your estimate.

Let’s take a real example from neuroscience: posterior cortical atrophy is an important marker for Alzheimer’s disease, but it can also be caused by other neurological conditions such as Lewy body dementia and corticobasal degeneration, or by genetic factors like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. To investigate the impact of these different factors, we can use a Bayesian approach to brain imaging data.

To calculate the posterior probability of a brain disorder, we need to know how many neurons are damaged and how big they are. To get this information, we need to analyse a large number of brain scans. This can be difficult, and it is often more practical to perform a single MCMC run with a small number of iterations. To achieve this, we can choose a burn-in of 10 iterations, and then select 1 in each of the remaining iterations, giving us a total of n*10 iterations. We can then report the centre and width of a 98% central credible interval for the parameter of interest. This provides a useful summary of the uncertainty in our estimates.

Uncover more

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Next Post

Maximizing Engagement on X: Best Practices for Posting, Analytics, and Visual Content

Thu Oct 26 , 2023
How to Post on X When posting on X, it’s important to find the best time to post. This can help you get the most engagement from your followers. It also helps you make the most of the platform’s features. The introduction of a blog post is key to selling the read. It should set […]

Keli M. Abbott

Keli M. Abbott is a writer, researcher, and international affairs enthusiast, who has spent her career dedicated to uncovering the intricate tapestry of global culture and its profound influence on international relations. With a passion for cross-cultural dialogue, Abbott has not only made her mark in the world of academia but has also ventured into the realm of journalism, effectively bridging the gap between theory and real-world practice. This is the story of Converge with Keli M. Abbott, a journey through the fascinating intersections of culture and global affairs.