Asymptotic behavior of Bayes estimates under possibly incorrect models
Open Access
- 1 April 1998
- journal article
- Published by Institute of Mathematical Statistics in The Annals of Statistics
- Vol. 26 (2) , 617-644
- https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1028144851
Abstract
We prove that the posterior distribution in a possibly incorrect parametric model a.s. concentrates in a strong sense on the set of pseudotrue parameters determined by the true distribution. As a consequence, we obtain in the case of a unique pseudotrue parameter the strong consistency of pseudo-Bayes estimators w.r.t. general loss functions. Further, we present a simple example based on normal distributions and having two different pseudotrue parameters, where pseudo-Bayes estimators have an essentially different asymptotic behavior than the pseudomaximum likelihood estimator. While the MLE is strongly consistent, the sequence of posterior means is strongly inconsistent and a.s. almost all its accumulation points are not pseudotrue. Finally, we give conditions under which a pseudo-Bayes estimator for a unique pseudotrue parameter has an asymptotic normal distribution.Keywords
All Related Versions
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Asymmetric One-Dimensional Constrained Ising Model: Rigorous ResultsJournal of Statistical Physics, 2002
- 12 Pseudo-likelihood methodsPublished by Elsevier ,1993
- Probability in Banach SpacesPublished by Springer Nature ,1991
- Theory of Point EstimationPublished by Springer Nature ,1983
- Some Asymptotic Theory for the BootstrapThe Annals of Statistics, 1981
- Consistency of Maximum Likelihood and Bayes EstimatesThe Annals of Statistics, 1981
- Consistency a PosterioriThe Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1970
- On the measurability and consistency of minimum contrast estimatesMetrika, 1969
- Some contributions to the asymptotic theory of Bayes solutionsProbability Theory and Related Fields, 1969
- Correction Notes: Correction to Limiting Behavior of Posterior Distributions when the Model is IncorrectThe Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1966