Why Simplicity Is No Problem for Bayesians
نویسندگان
چکیده
The advent of formal definitions of the simplicity of a theory has important implications for model selection. But what is the best way to define simplicity? Forster and Sober ([1994]) advocate the use of Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), a non-Bayesian formalisation of the notion of simplicity. This forms an important part of their wider attack on Bayesianism in the philosophy of science. We defend a Bayesian alternative: the simplicity of a theory is to be characterised in terms of Wallace’s Minimum Message Length (MML). We show that AIC is inadequate for many statistical problems where MML performs well. Whereas MML is always defined, AIC can be undefined. Whereas MML is not known ever to be statistically inconsistent, AIC can be. Even when defined and consistent, AIC performs worse than MML on small sample sizes. MML is statistically invariant under 1-to-1 reparametrisation, thus avoiding a common criticism of Bayesian approaches. We also show that MML provides answers to many of Forster’s objections to Bayesianism. Hence an important part of the attack on Bayesianism fails.
منابع مشابه
Why Frequentists and Bayesians Need Each Other
The orthodox view in statistics has it that frequentism and Bayesianism are diametrically opposed—two totally incompatible takes on the problem of statistical inference. This paper argues to the contrary that the two approaches are complementary and need to mesh if probabilistic reasoning is to be carried out correctly.
متن کاملShould Bayesians Bet Where Frequentists Fear to Tread?*
Probability theory is important not least because of its relevance for decision making, which also means: its relevance for the single case. The frequency theory of probability on its own is irrelevant in the single case. However, Howson and Urbach argue that Bayesianism can solve the frequentist’s problem: frequentist-probability information is relevant to Bayesians (although to nobody else). ...
متن کاملUnderstanding Non-bayesians
Once one becomes used to thinking about inference from a Bayesian perspective, it becomes difficult to understand why many econometricians are uncomfortable with that way of thinking. But some very good econometricians are either firmly nonBayesian or (more commonly these days) think of Bayesian approaches as a “tool” which might sometimes be appropriate, sometimes not. This paper tries to arti...
متن کاملOn Bayesian problem-solving: helping Bayesians solve simple Bayesian word problems
(2015) On Bayesian problem-solving: helping Bayesians solve simple Bayesian word problems. Resolving the " Bayesian Paradox " —Bayesians Who Failed to Solve Bayesian Problems A well-supported conclusion a reader would draw from the vast amount of research on Bayesian inference could be distilled into one sentence: " People are profoundly Bayesians, but they fail to solve Bayesian word problems....
متن کاملBayesians Can Learn From Old Data
In a widely-cited paper, Glymour [1] claims to show that Bayesians cannot learn from old data. His argument contains an elementary error. I explain exactly where Glymour went wrong, and how the problem should be handled correctly. When the problem is fixed, it is seen that Bayesians, just like logicians, can indeed learn from old data. Outline of the Paper I first review some aspects of standar...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2006