Statistical Science

Nonparametric Bayesian Clay for Robust Decision Bricks

Christian P. Robert and Judith Rousseau

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text


This note discusses Watson and Holmes [Statist. Sci. (2016) 31 465–489] and their proposals towards more robust Bayesian decisions. While we acknowledge and commend the authors for setting new and all-encompassing principles of Bayesian robustness, and while we appreciate the strong anchoring of these within a decision-theoretic framework, we remain uncertain as to what extent such principles can be applied outside binary decisions. We also wonder at the ultimate relevance of Kullback–Leibler neighbourhoods into characterising robustness and we instead favour extensions along nonparametric axes.

Article information

Statist. Sci., Volume 31, Number 4 (2016), 506-510.

First available in Project Euclid: 19 January 2017

Permanent link to this document

Digital Object Identifier

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)

Zentralblatt MATH identifier

Decision-theory Gamma-minimaxity misspecification prior selection robust methodology


Robert, Christian P.; Rousseau, Judith. Nonparametric Bayesian Clay for Robust Decision Bricks. Statist. Sci. 31 (2016), no. 4, 506--510. doi:10.1214/16-STS567.

Export citation


  • Bardenet, R., Doucet, A. and Holmes, C. (2014). Towards scaling up Markov chain Monte Carlo: An adaptive subsampling approach. In Proc. 31st Intern. Conf. Machine Learning (ICML) 405–413.
  • Berger, J. O. (1985). Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis, 2nd ed. Springer, New York.
  • Berger, J., Insua, D. and Ruggeri, F. (1996). Bayesian robustness. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop Held in Rimini, May 2225, 1995. IMS, Hayward, CA.
  • Bissiri, P., Holmes, C. and Walker, S. (2013). A general framework for updating belief distributions. Technical report, available at arXiv:1306.6430v1.
  • Cappé, O. and Robert, C. P. (2000). Markov chain Monte Carlo: 10 years and still running. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 95 1282–1286.
  • Chopin, N. and Robert, C. (2007). Comments on “Estimating the integrated likelihood via posterior simulation using the harmonic mean identity”. In Bayesian Statistics (O. U. P. Bernardo et al., eds.). Oxford Sci. Publ. 8 371–416. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
  • DeGroot, M. H. (1970). Optimal Statistical Decisions. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  • Marin, J., Pudlo, P., Robert, C. and Ryder, R. (2011). Approximate Bayesian computational methods. Stat. Comput. 21 279–291.
  • Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  • Robert, C. and Casella, G. (2011). A short history of Markov chain Monte Carlo: Subjective recollections from incomplete data. Statist. Sci. 26 102–115.
  • Rubin, H. (1987). A weak system of axioms for “rational” behavior and the nonseparability of utility from prior. Statist. Decisions 5 47–58.
  • Samaniego, F. J. (2010). A Comparison of the Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches to Estimation. Springer, New York.
  • Simpson, D. P., Martins, T. G., Riebler, A., Fuglstad, G.-A., Rue, H. and Sørbye, S. H. (2014). Penalising model component complexity: A principled, practical approach to constructing priors. Available at arXiv:1403.4630.
  • Watson, J. and Holmes, C. (2016). Approximate models and robust decisions. Statist. Sci. 31 465–489.

See also