Birnbaum’s theorem

A Birnbaum’s theorem is a proof of the likelihood principle.

• AKA: Birnbaum’s Argument.
• Context:
  • It states that the likelihood principle is a logical consequence of the sufficiency principle and conditionality principle.
• See: Sufficiency Principle, Conditionality Principle, Likelihood Principle.

---

---

References

2016

• (Wikipedia, 2016) ⇒ https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Likelihood_principle#/History Retrieved 2016-07-30
  • (...) Birnbaum proved that the likelihood principle follows from two more primitive and seemingly reasonable principles, the conditionality principle and the sufficiency principle. The conditionality principle says that if an experiment is chosen by a random process independent of the states of nature [math]\displaystyle{ \theta }[/math], then only the experiment actually performed is relevant to inferences about [math]\displaystyle{ \theta }[/math]. The sufficiency principle says that if [math]\displaystyle{ T(X) }[/math] is a sufficient statistic for [math]\displaystyle{ \theta }[/math], and if in two experiments with data [math]\displaystyle{ x_1 }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ x_2 }[/math] we have [math]\displaystyle{ T(x_1)=T(x_2) }[/math], then the evidence about [math]\displaystyle{ \theta }[/math] given by the two experiments is the same.(...)Birnbaum's proof of the likelihood principle has been disputed by philosophers of science, including Deborah Mayo.

2014

• Deborah Mayo, 2014 ⇒ Mayo, D. G. (2014). On the Birnbaum argument for the strong likelihood principle. Statistical science, 29(2), 227-239. DOI:doi:10.1214/13-STS457 [1]
  • An essential component of inference based on familiar frequentist notions, such as pp-values, significance and confidence levels, is the relevant sampling distribution. This feature results in violations of a principle known as the strong likelihood principle (SLP), the focus of this paper. In particular, if outcomes [math]\displaystyle{ x^∗ }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ y^∗ }[/math] from experiments [math]\displaystyle{ E1 }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ E2 }[/math] (both with unknown parameter [math]\displaystyle{ \theta }[/math]) have different probability models [math]\displaystyle{ f_1(⋅) }[/math], </math>f_2(⋅)</math>, then even though [math]\displaystyle{ f_1(x^∗;\theta)=cf2(y^*;\theta) }[/math] for all [math]\displaystyle{ \theta }[/math], outcomes [math]\displaystyle{ x^∗ }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ y^∗ }[/math] may have different implications for an inference about [math]\displaystyle{ \theta }[/math]. Although such violations stem from considering outcomes other than the one observed, we argue this does not require us to consider experiments other than the one performed to produce the data. David Cox [Ann. Math. Statist. 29 (1958) 357–372] proposes the Weak Conditionality Principle (WCP) to justify restricting the space of relevant repetitions. The WCP says that once it is known which [math]\displaystyle{ E_i }[/math] produced the measurement, the assessment should be in terms of the properties of [math]\displaystyle{ E_i }[/math]. The surprising upshot of Allan Birnbaum’s [J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 57 (1962) 269–306] argument is that the SLP appears to follow from applying the WCP in the case of mixtures, and so uncontroversial a principle as sufficiency (SP). But this would preclude the use of sampling distributions. The goal of this article is to provide a new clarification and critique of Birnbaum’s argument. Although his argument purports that [(WCP and SP) entails SLP], we show how data may violate the SLP while holding both the WCP and SP. Such cases also refute [WCP entails SLP].

---