This quarter (my last quarter at OSU!), I decided to take a class in Bayesian statistics. We just finished up our midterm where we tackled a pretty fun, easy problem where we explored the Bayesian equivalents of the t-test and the F-test aka the bread and butter of intro statistics.

# The problem

The following data is the amount of aluminum in 19 samples of pottery at two kiln sites. We have the following data for each of the samples:

• $n_1 = 14, \bar{x}_1 = 12.275, s_1 = 1.31$
• $n_2 = 5, \bar{x}_2 = 18.18, s_2 = 1.78$

Assume that the amount of aluminum at site 1 has a normal distribution $N(\mu_1, \sigma^2_1)$ and site 2 has another normal distribution $N(\mu_2, \sigma^2_2)$. We want to construct a 95\% Bayesian intervals for:

• The difference in means $\mu_1 - \mu_2$
• The ratio of the two variances $\sigma^2_1 / \sigma^2_2$

# Bayesian methods

In order to answer this question, we have to use the following facts on the posterior distributions for the Normal parameters which were derived on page 65 of Bayesian Data Analysis (best Bayesian book 4ever). If we define our data vector as $X$, the marginal posterior distributions for $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$ are:

• $\mu \lvert \sigma^2, X \sim N(\bar{X}, \sigma^2/n)$
• $\sigma^2 \lvert X \sim \text{Scaled Inv-}\chi^2 (n - 1, s^2)$

If we make the reasonable assumptions that the samples are independent from one another, we can compute the posterior distributions for each $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$, sample from those posterior distributions, and then get the Bayesian intervals using those random samples.

There is no built-in sampling function in R for the inverse $\chi^2$ distribution, but if we use the fact that $\frac{(n-1)s^2}{\sigma^2} \sim \chi^2_{n-1}$, we can work around this.

If we random sample $X$ from the $\chi^2_{n-1}$ distribution, we can get an inverse $\chi^2$ distributed random observation $\sigma^2$ using $\sigma^2 = \frac{(n-1)s^2}{X}$. We then use this $\sigma^2$ value in our conditional Bayesian posterior for $\mu$.

The R code that I used for this problem is provided here:

The 95\% Bayesian credible interval we get for $\mu_1 - \mu_2$ is $(-8.24, -3.58)$.

There are a few ways to compute the Bayesian posterior interval for $\frac{\sigma^2_1}{\sigma^2_2}$. The first way is to recognize that since the conditional posterior for $\sigma^2_1$ and $\sigma^2_2$ is scaled inverse-$\chi^2$, we can reorganize the ratio of the variables into an F-distribution.

This also holds for $\sigma^2_2$. Therefore, the ratio of $\frac{\sigma^2_1}{\sigma^2_2}$ can be turned into a scaled F-distribution through the following steps.

So now we can either simulate a lot of scaled inverse-$\chi^2$ random variables for $\sigma^2_1$ and $\sigma^2_2$ which we have already done, simulate a lot of random observations from an F distribution and scale them, or just find the quantiles of this scaled F distribution. Any of the following produce approximately the same intervals:

The 95% Bayesian credible interval we get then for $\sigma^2_1 / \sigma^2_2$ is $(.07, 2.4)$

Note that we assumed that we have a noninformative prior on the random vector $(\mu, \sigma^2)$. Bayesian Data Analysis suggests using a prior proportional to $\frac{1}{\sigma^2}$.

We could have used a conjugate prior, such as the Normal-Scaled-inverse-$\chi^2$ distribution which was mentioned in the textbook, but this would have required us to specify guesses for $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$, $\sigma^2_1$, and $\sigma^2_2$. Since we did not have this information available to us, it was probably in our best interest to let the data speak for itself’’.

# Comparison to frequentist methods

Using the base R functions t.test and var.test, we find that the t-test with the unequal variance assumption gives us a 95% frequentist confidence interval for $\mu_1 - \mu_2$ of $(-7.8, -3.4)$ and a 95\% frequentist inverval for $\sigma^2_1 / \sigma^2_2$: of $(.069, 2.42)$.

Note that var.test() uses this formula to calculate the confidence interval for $\frac{\sigma^2_1}{\sigma^2_2}$:

Looks familiar, right? It’s pretty much what we derived up above for the Bayesian method!

# Conclusion

These intervals are close to our Bayesian intervals, but not exactly the same. I think the value in doing basic Bayesian problems is that not only do I practice Bayesian concepts, I also get a refresher on the properties and definitions of familiar probability distributions. A helpful ancillary benefit for someone with an MS oral exam coming up!