빈도주의 :
- 만약 우리가 f값을 안다면(실제로는 모르지만), 설문 결과로 얻게 될 F는 얼마가 될 것인가?
- 200명을 대상으로 '반복적으로' 설문조사를 시행한다면, 그 결과값 F는 95%의 확률로 33%와 48% 사이에 위치하게 될 것이다.
베이지안 :
- 만약 F라는 데이터가 주어진다면, 참값 f는 얼마가 될 것인가?
- 200명을 대상으로 '단 한 번의' 설문조사를 해서 F=40%라는 결과를 얻었다면, 참값 f는 95%의 확률로 33%와 48%사이에 위치할 것이다.
Last time we derived the Frequentist result that when f=40%, if you repeatedly conduct surveys of N=200 people, then 95% of those surveys will produce values for F that are between 33% and 48%, which was our definition of F being "close" to f.
The Frequentist answers a subtly different question: if we knew f(which we don't), what would the survey result F be likely to be? So I drew it with a backward pointing arrow instead.
In contrast, the Bayesian result says: given that you actually conducted one survey of N=200 people in which you measured F=40%, then the true value f is 95% likely to be between 33% and 48%.
The Bayesian approach directly answers our question: given the data F, where is the true f likely to be? So I drew it with a forward arrow in the diagram.
(출처 : http://meandering-through-mathematics.blogspot.kr/2011/05/bayesian-probability.html)
Bayesian probability is one of the different interpretations of the concept of probability and belongs to the category of evidential probabilities. The Bayesian interpretation of probability can be seen as an extension of the branch of mathematical logic known as propositional logic that enables reasoning with propositions whose truth or falsity is uncertain. To evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated in the light of new, relevant data.[1]
The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation. Bayesian probability interprets the concept of probability as "an abstract concept, a quantity that we assign theoretically, for the purpose of representing a state of knowledge, or that we calculate from previously assigned probabilities,"[2] in contrast to interpreting it as a frequency or "propensity" of some phenomenon.
The term "Bayesian" refers to the 18th century mathematician and theologian Thomas Bayes, who provided the first mathematical treatment of a non-trivial problem of Bayesian inference.[3] Nevertheless, it was the French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace who pioneered and popularised what is now called Bayesian probability.[4]
Broadly speaking, there are two views on Bayesian probability that interpret the probability concept in different ways. According to the objectivist view, the rules of Bayesian statistics can be justified by requirements of rationality and consistency and interpreted as an extension of logic.[2][5] According to the subjectivist view, probability quantifies a "personal belief".[6] Many modern machine learning methods are based on objectivist Bayesian principles.[7] In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under the frequentist view, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability.
Bayesian methodology [edit]
특징
In general, Bayesian methods are characterized by the following concepts and procedures:
- The use of random variables to model all sources of uncertainty in statistical models. This includes not just sources of true randomness, but also uncertainty resulting from lack of information.
- The sequential use of the Bayes' formula: when more data become available after calculating a posterior distribution, the posterior becomes the next prior.
- For the frequentist a hypothesis is a proposition (which must be either true or false), so that the frequentist probability of a hypothesis is either one or zero. In Bayesian statistics, a probability can be assigned to a hypothesis that can differ from 0 or 1 if the true value is uncertain.
'Articles (Etc)' 카테고리의 다른 글
Focus Group Interview(FGI, 포커스 그룹 인터뷰)와 데이터 분석 (1) : FGI시 고려해야 할 사항 (0) | 2013.06.27 |
---|---|
무슨 전공을 선택해야 할지 모르겠어요!!! - 레지던트(Resident, 전공의) 전공 고르기 (0) | 2013.06.26 |
미국 전문의 및 세부전문의 (0) | 2013.06.11 |
Angoff method를 이용한 커트라인을 정하기. (0) | 2013.06.10 |
왜 보스턴 병원들은 준비가 되어 있었을까? (0) | 2013.06.08 |