Download Thomas Bayes to the rescue - National University of Singapore

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
THOMAS BAYES TO THE RESCUE
st5219: Bayesian hierarchical modelling
lecture 1.4
BAYES THEOREM: MATHS ALERT
(You know this already, right?)
BAYES THEOREM: APPLICATION
You are GP in country like SP
 Foreign worker comes for HIV test
 HIV test results come back +ve
 Does worker have HIV?

How to work out?
Test sensitivity is 98%
Test specificity is 96%
ie f(test +ve | HIV +ve) = 0.98
f(test +ve | HIV --ve) = 0.04
BAYES THEOREM: APPLICATION
Analogy to hypothesis testing
 Null hypothesis is not infected
 Test statistic is test result
 p-value is 4%
 Reject hypothesis of non-infection,
conclude infected

But we calculated:
f(+ test | infected)
NOT f(infected | + test)
BAYES THEOREM: APPLICATION
How to work out?
Test sensitivity is 98%
Test specificity is 96%
Infection rate is 1%
ie f(test +ve | HIV +ve) = 0.98
f(test +ve | HIV --ve) = 0.04
f(HIV +ve) = 0.01
BAYES THEOREM: APPLICATION
BAYES THEOREM: APPLICATION
AIDS AND H0S
Frequentists happy to use Bayes’ formula here
 But unhappy to use it to estimate parameters
 But...

If you think it is wrong to use the
probability of a positive test given
non-infection to decide if infected
given a positive test why use the
probability of (imaginary) data given
a null hypothesis to decide if a null
hypothesis is true given data?
THE BAYESIAN ID AND FREQUENTIST EGO

How do you normally estimate parameters?

Is theta hat the most likely parameter value?
THE BAYESIAN ID AND FREQUENTIST EGO
The parameter that maximises the likelihood
function is not the most likely parameter value
 How can we get the distribution of the
parameters given the data?
 Bayes’ formula tells us

likelihood
(this is a constant)
UPDATING INFORMATION VIA BAYES

Can also work with
1. Start with information before the experiment:
the prior
2. Add information from the experiment: the
likelihood
3. Update to get final information: the posterior
• If more data come along later, the posterior
becomes the prior for the next time
UPDATING INFORMATION VIA BAYES
1. Start with
information before
the experiment: the
prior
2. Add information
from the
experiment: the
likelihood
3. Update to get final
information: the
posterior
UPDATING INFORMATION VIA BAYES
1. Start with
information before
the experiment: the
prior
2. Add information
from the
experiment: the
likelihood
3. Update to get final
information: the
posterior
UPDATING INFORMATION VIA BAYES
1. Start with
information before
the experiment: the
prior
2. Add information
from the
experiment: the
likelihood
3. Update to get final
information: the
posterior
SUMMARISING THE POSTERIOR
Mean:
Median:
Mode:
SUMMARISING THE POSTERIOR

95% credible interval: chop off 2.5% from either
side of posterior
SUMMARISING THE POSTERIOR
Bye bye
delta
approxi
mations
!!!
SOUNDS TOO EASY! WHAT’S THE CATCH?!

Here are where the difficulties are:
1.
2.
3.


building the model
obtaining the posterior
model assessment
Same issues arise in frequentist statistics (1, 3);
estimating MLEs and CIs difficult for non à la
carte problems
Let’s see an example! Back to AIDS!