Last updated: 2026-01-08
Checks: 6 1
Knit directory: fiveMinuteStats/analysis/
This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr (version 1.7.1). The Checks tab describes the reproducibility checks that were applied when the results were created. The Past versions tab lists the development history.
The R Markdown file has unstaged changes. To know which version of
the R Markdown file created these results, you’ll want to first commit
it to the Git repo. If you’re still working on the analysis, you can
ignore this warning. When you’re finished, you can run
wflow_publish to commit the R Markdown file and build the
HTML.
Great job! The global environment was empty. Objects defined in the global environment can affect the analysis in your R Markdown file in unknown ways. For reproduciblity it’s best to always run the code in an empty environment.
The command set.seed(12345) was run prior to running the
code in the R Markdown file. Setting a seed ensures that any results
that rely on randomness, e.g. subsampling or permutations, are
reproducible.
Great job! Recording the operating system, R version, and package versions is critical for reproducibility.
Nice! There were no cached chunks for this analysis, so you can be confident that you successfully produced the results during this run.
Great job! Using relative paths to the files within your workflowr project makes it easier to run your code on other machines.
Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility.
The results in this page were generated with repository version 25e1cf5. See the Past versions tab to see a history of the changes made to the R Markdown and HTML files.
Note that you need to be careful to ensure that all relevant files for
the analysis have been committed to Git prior to generating the results
(you can use wflow_publish or
wflow_git_commit). workflowr only checks the R Markdown
file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it
depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results
were generated:
Unstaged changes:
Modified: Makefile
Modified: analysis/bayes_conjugate.Rmd
Modified: analysis/index.Rmd
Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.
These are the previous versions of the repository in which changes were
made to the R Markdown (analysis/bayes_conjugate.Rmd) and
HTML (docs/bayes_conjugate.html) files. If you’ve
configured a remote Git repository (see ?wflow_git_remote),
click on the hyperlinks in the table below to view the files as they
were in that past version.
| File | Version | Author | Date | Message |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| html | 5f62ee6 | Matthew Stephens | 2019-03-31 | Build site. |
| Rmd | 0cd28bd | Matthew Stephens | 2019-03-31 | workflowr::wflow_publish(all = TRUE) |
| html | 34bcc51 | John Blischak | 2017-03-06 | Build site. |
| Rmd | 5fbc8b5 | John Blischak | 2017-03-06 | Update workflowr project with wflow_update (version 0.4.0). |
| html | 8e61683 | Marcus Davy | 2017-03-03 | rendered html using wflow_build(all=TRUE) |
| Rmd | d674141 | Marcus Davy | 2017-02-26 | typos, refs |
| html | be18199 | stephens999 | 2017-02-19 | Build site. |
| Rmd | 16f3278 | stephens999 | 2017-02-19 | Files commited by wflow_commit. |
See here for a PDF version of this vignette.
This vignette introduces the idea of “conjugate prior” distributions for Bayesian inference for a continuous parameter. You should be familiar with Bayesian inference for a binomial proportion.
In this example we considered the following problem.
Suppose we sample 100 elephants from a population, and measure their DNA at a location in their genome (“locus”) where there are two types (“alleles”), which it is convenient to label 0 and 1.
In my sample, I observe that 30 of the elephants have the “1” allele and 70 have the “0” allele. What can I say about the frequency, \(q\), of the “1” allele in the population?
The example showed how to compute the posterior distribution for \(q\), using a uniform prior distribution. We saw that, conveniently, the posterior distribution for \(q\) is a Beta distribution.
Here we generalize this calculation to the case where the prior distribution on \(q\) is a Beta distribution. We will find that, in this case, the posterior distribution on \(q\) is again a Beta distribution. The property where the posterior distribution comes from the same family as the prior distribution is very convenient, and so has a special name: it is called “conjugacy”. We say “The Beta distribution is the conjugate prior distribution for the binomial proportion”.
As before we use Bayes Theorem which we can write in words as \[\text{posterior} \propto \text{likelihood} \times \text{prior},\] or in mathematical notation as \[ p(q | D) \propto p(D | q) p(q),\] where \(D\) denotes the observed data.
In this case, the likelihood \(p(D | q)\) is given by \[p(D | q) \propto q^{30} (1-q)^{70}\]
If our prior distribution on \(q\) is a Beta distribution, say Beta\((a,b)\), then the prior density \(p(q)\) is \[p(q) \propto q^{a-1}(1-q)^{b-1} \qquad (q \in [0,1]).\]
Combining these two we get: \[p(q | D) \propto q^{30} (1-q)^{70} q^{a-1} (1-q)^{b-1}\\ \propto q^{30+a-1}(1-q)^{70+b-1}\]
At this point we again apply the “trick” of recognizing this density as the density of a Beta distribution - specifically, the Beta distribution with parameters \((30+a,70+b)\).
Of course, there is nothing special about the 30 “1” alleles and 70 “0” alleles we observed here. Suppose we observed \(n_1\) of the “1” allele and \(n_0\) of the “0” allele. Then the likelihood becomes \[p(D | q) \propto q^{n_1} (1-q)^{n_0},\] and you should be able to show (Exercise) that the posterior is \[q|D \sim \text{Beta}(n_1+a, n_0+b).\]
When doing Bayesian inference for a binomial proportion, \(q\), if the prior distribution is a Beta distribution then the posterior distribution is also Beta.
We say “the Beta distribution is the conjugate prior for a binomial proportion”.
Show that the Gamma distribution is the conjugate prior for a Poisson mean.
That is, suppose we have observations \(X\) that are Poisson distributed, \(X \sim Poi(\mu)\). Assume that your prior distribution on \(\mu\) is a Gamma distribution with parameters \(n\) and \(\lambda\). Show that the posterior distribution on \(\mu\) is also a Gamma distribution.
Hint: you should take the following steps. 1. write down the likelihood \(p(X|\mu)\) for \(\mu\) (look up the Poisson distribution if you cannot remember it). 2. Write down the prior density for \(\mu\) (look up the density of a Gamma distribution if you cannot remember it). 3. Multiply them together to obtain the posterior density (up to a constant of proportionality), and notice that it has the same form as the gamma distribution.
sessionInfo()
# R version 4.3.3 (2024-02-29)
# Platform: aarch64-apple-darwin20 (64-bit)
# Running under: macOS 15.7.1
#
# Matrix products: default
# BLAS: /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/4.3-arm64/Resources/lib/libRblas.0.dylib
# LAPACK: /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/4.3-arm64/Resources/lib/libRlapack.dylib; LAPACK version 3.11.0
#
# locale:
# [1] en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/C/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8
#
# time zone: America/Chicago
# tzcode source: internal
#
# attached base packages:
# [1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
#
# loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
# [1] vctrs_0.6.5 cli_3.6.5 knitr_1.50 rlang_1.1.6
# [5] xfun_0.52 stringi_1.8.7 promises_1.3.3 jsonlite_2.0.0
# [9] workflowr_1.7.1 glue_1.8.0 rprojroot_2.0.4 git2r_0.33.0
# [13] htmltools_0.5.8.1 httpuv_1.6.14 sass_0.4.10 rmarkdown_2.29
# [17] evaluate_1.0.4 jquerylib_0.1.4 tibble_3.3.0 fastmap_1.2.0
# [21] yaml_2.3.10 lifecycle_1.0.4 whisker_0.4.1 stringr_1.5.1
# [25] compiler_4.3.3 fs_1.6.6 Rcpp_1.1.0 pkgconfig_2.0.3
# [29] later_1.4.2 digest_0.6.37 R6_2.6.1 pillar_1.11.0
# [33] magrittr_2.0.3 bslib_0.9.0 tools_4.3.3 cachem_1.1.0