Joint 95% posterior probability

Figure 1. Joint 95% posterior probability region— diad fractions. Shimmer bands shown at 95% probability. X, true value , point estimate.

This implies that the diad fraction measurements n and n, are made independently with constant standard deviation 0.05. Figure 3 shows the resulting joint 95% posterior probability region with 95% shimmer bands and point estimates. A second estimate of used here is... 

Figure 5 shows the joint 95% posterior probability region for the two parameter functions. Shimmer bands are also indicated at the 95% probability level. This analysis confirms the results of Hill et al. that both styrene and acrlyonitrile exhibit a penultimate effect. 

Zhu et al. [15] and Liu and Lawrence [61] formalized this argument with a Bayesian analysis. They are seeking a joint posterior probability for an alignment A, a choice of distance matrix 0, and a vector of gap parameters. A, given the data, i.e., the sequences to be aligned p(A, 0, A / i, R2). The Bayesian likelihood and prior for this posterior distribution is... 

The joint posterior probability distribution on 6 is also informative. The true model (A, AB, AC) dominates, with 50.1% of posterior probability. The two next most probable models each have posterior probability of about 3%. Each involves the addition of either the B or C linear effects to the most probable model. Posterior probabilities reported here are normalized (using (17)) to sum to 1 over all distinct models visited by the 1000 Gibbs sampler draws. 

The Bayesian alternative to fixed parameters is to define a probability distribution for the parameters and simulate the joint posterior distribution of the sequence alignment and the parameters with a suitable prior distribution. How can varying the similarity matrix... 

Under this hierarchical model, the joint posterior distribution of all coefficients and parameters can be expressed as the product of the probability density functions at... 

After obtaining the posterior distribution, no more formal data analysis is necessary. Rather, at this stage we can work directly with the joint posterior distribution to interpret the results. Plots of the marginal posteriors for each main effect should be useful and we can work out the posterior probability of each factor s main effect being further from zero than some constant, for example, the posterior probability that each factor is dominant and the posterior probability that each factor is active. More research is needed in this area and is under way. 

The region of highest joint posterior density with probability content (1 — a) for a subset 6a of the estimated parameters is... 

Estimation methods that are based on simulation platforms, such as Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), also allow for model discrimination to be based on predictive or posterior distributions. When using MCMC, competing models can be fitted simultaneously as a joint model with an added mixing parameter to indicate which model is preferred (42, 43). The posterior distribution of the mixing parameter will provide both the weight of evidence and the posterior probability in favor of one model. The expectation of the prediction from m models and a the mixing parameter can then be evaluated ... 

Sometimes, only one of the parameters is of interest to us. We don t want to estimate the other parameters and call them "nuisance" parameters. All we want to do is make sure the nuisance parameters don t interfere with our inference on the parameter of interest. Because using the Baye.sian approach the joint posterior density is a probability density, and using the likelihood approach the joint likelihood function is not a probability density, the two approaches have different ways of dealing with the nuisance parameters. This is true even if we use independent flat priors. so that the posterior density and likelihood function have the same shape. 

Bayesian statistics has a single way of dealing with nuisance parameters. Because the joint posterior is a probability density in all dimensions, we can find the marginal densities by integration. Inference about the parameter of interest 0i is based on the marginal posterior g 0i data), which is found by integrating the nuisance parameter 2 out of the joint posterior, a process referred to as marginalization ... 

Note we are using independent flat priors for both 0i and 02, so the joint posterior is the same shape as the joint likelihood in this example. The marginal posterior density of 01 is shown on the / x 0i plane in Figure 1.11. It is found by integrating 02 out of the joint posterior density. (This is like sweeping the probability in the joint posterior in a direction parallel to the 02 axis into a vertical pile on the f x 0i plane.) The marginal posterior has all the information about 0i that was in the joint posterior. 

Similar techniques are used to judge which of several models best fits the data. Let us propose several models a = 1, 2,... of which one is believed to be the true model. Let Ma be the event that model a is the true one, and let 7 be the event that we observe the particular data set Y. Then, Bayes theorem applied to the joint probability P(Ma n Y) yields the posterior probability that model a is the true one, given the data Y ... 

Population models describe the relationship between individuals and a population. Individual parameter sets are considered to arise from a joint population distribution described by a set of means and variances. The conditional dependencies among individual data sets, individual variables, and population variables can be represented by a graphical model, which can then be translated into the probability distributions in Bayes theorem. For most cases of practical interest, the posterior distribution is obtained via numerical simulation. It is also the case that the complexity of the posterior distribution for most PBPK models is such that standard MC sampling is inadequate leading instead to the use of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods... 

The Metropolis-Hastings algorithm is the most general form of the MCMC processes. It is also the easiest to conceptualize and code. An example of pseudocode is given in the five-step process below. The Markov chain process is clearly shown in the code, where samples that are generated from the prior distribution are accepted as arising from the posterior distribution at the ratio of the probability of the joint... 

Let Xj denote the actual downtime associated with test j for a fixed a>. We assume that Xj N(0, cr ), when the parameters are known. Here 0 is a function of o), but cr is assumed independent of a). Hence the conditional probability density of X = (Wj,j = 1,2,..., k),p(x I jS, 0-2), where /3 = (/3q, /3i), can be determined. We would like to derive the posterior distribution for the parameters fi and the variance given observations X = x. This distribution expresses our updated belief about the parameters when new relevant data are available. To this end we first choose a suitable prior distribution for fi and a. We seek a conjugate prior which leads to the normal-inverse-gamma (NIG) distribution p(/3, o ), derived from the joint density of the inverse-gamma distributed and the normal distributed fi. The derived posterior distribution will then be of the same distribution class as the prior distribution. 

An advantage of Bayesian methods is that additional observations can be used to update the output. Once a joint probability distribution for all observable and unobservable quantities bas been cbosen, posterior distributions and Bayesian posterior predictive distributions can be calculated. 

We have shown that both the likelihood and Bayesian approach arise from surfaces defined on the inference universe, the observation density surface and the joint probability density respectively. The sampling surface is a probability density only in the observation dimensions, while the joint probability density is a probability density in the parameter dimensions as well (when proper priors are used). Cutting these two surfaces with a vertical hyperplane that goes through the observed value of the data yields the likelihood function and the posterior density that are used for likelihood inference and Bayesian inference, respectively. 

---