You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Grinsztajn et al. (2021) argue (pp 6217) that some loose bounds for R0 are [1, 10]. I sort of agree. But what I wanna know is this: if I write
Pr(R0 \in [1, 10] | w) >= alpha,
where w are the prior hyperparameters and alpha \in (0, 1) is a prior probability level,
(i) is it easy to set w to achieve a certain alpha? How does that look for each of {gamma, log-normal, half-normal} priors?
(ii) Does this work in the sense of guaranteeing non-degenerate prior predictives and posterior inferences?
One reason to believe (ii) is shaky is that for (certain) gamma priors and the half-normal priors, the induced prior on R0 is heavy-tailed. Thus it might still assign non-trivial mass to intervals in the vicinity of 100, say.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Grinsztajn et al. (2021) argue (pp 6217) that some loose bounds for
R0
are [1, 10]. I sort of agree. But what I wanna know is this: if I writewhere w are the prior hyperparameters and alpha \in (0, 1) is a prior probability level,
(i) is it easy to set w to achieve a certain alpha? How does that look for each of {gamma, log-normal, half-normal} priors?
(ii) Does this work in the sense of guaranteeing non-degenerate prior predictives and posterior inferences?
One reason to believe (ii) is shaky is that for (certain) gamma priors and the half-normal priors, the induced prior on
R0
is heavy-tailed. Thus it might still assign non-trivial mass to intervals in the vicinity of 100, say.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: