🧮 Brain Teaser
2026-09-20
✏︎

The Posterior That Remembers Too Little: Jeffreys Prior Invariance

Suppose you observe X∼Binomial(n,θ)X \sim \text{Binomial}(n, \theta) and want to place a prior on θ∈[0,1]\theta \in [0,1].

A colleague suggests using the uniform prior π(θ)=1\pi(\theta) = 1, arguing it is "non-informative." But then you reparametrize: let ϕ=sin⁡−1(θ)\phi = \sin^{-1}(\sqrt{\theta}), the arcsine transform. Your colleague applies the uniform prior to ϕ\phi instead.

(a) Show that the two priors — uniform on θ\theta vs. uniform on ϕ\phi — are not the same (i.e., a uniform prior on θ\theta does not correspond to a uniform prior on ϕ\phi).

(b) The Jeffreys prior is defined as π(θ)∝I(θ)\pi(\theta) \propto \sqrt{I(\theta)}, where I(θ)I(\theta) is the Fisher information. Compute the Jeffreys prior for θ\theta in the binomial model, and show it is Beta(1/2,1/2)\text{Beta}(1/2, 1/2).

(c) Show that the Jeffreys prior is reparametrization invariant: if ϕ=g(θ)\phi = g(\theta) is a smooth bijection and πJ(θ)∝I(θ)\pi_J(\theta) \propto \sqrt{I(\theta)}, then the induced prior on ϕ\phi is also the Jeffreys prior for ϕ\phi.

Why does this matter? It means Jeffreys prior gives the same "non-informative" answer regardless of how you parametrize the problem — something the flat prior catastrophically fails to do.

Answer: 2026-09-20_am

Key Idea / Intuition

A "flat" prior is not a coordinate-free notion: flatness in one parametrization becomes a non-flat (informative) prior in another. The Jeffreys prior is the unique (up to normalization) prior that is invariant under smooth reparametrization, because it is built from the Fisher information, which transforms contravariantly in exactly the right way to cancel the Jacobian. Think of it as the "natural volume form" on the parameter space induced by the statistical model.


Formal Proof / Solution

Part (a): Uniform on θ\theta ≠ Uniform on ϕ\phi

Let ϕ=g(θ)=sin⁡−1(θ)\phi = g(\theta) = \sin^{-1}(\sqrt{\theta}), so ϕ∈[0,π/2]\phi \in [0, \pi/2].

If θ∼Uniform[0,1]\theta \sim \text{Uniform}[0,1], then the density of ϕ\phi is obtained by the change of variables:

πϕ(ϕ)=πθ(θ)∣dθdϕ∣.\pi_\phi(\phi) = \pi_\theta(\theta) \left|\frac{d\theta}{d\phi}\right|.

We compute: θ=sin⁡2(ϕ)\theta = \sin^2(\phi), so dθdϕ=2sin⁡(ϕ)cos⁡(ϕ)=sin⁡(2ϕ)\frac{d\theta}{d\phi} = 2\sin(\phi)\cos(\phi) = \sin(2\phi).

Thus:

πϕ(ϕ)=1⋅sin⁡(2ϕ)=sin⁡(2ϕ),ϕ∈[0,π/2].\pi_\phi(\phi) = 1 \cdot \sin(2\phi) = \sin(2\phi), \quad \phi \in [0, \pi/2].

This is not uniform on ϕ\phi — it peaks at ϕ=π/4\phi = \pi/4 (i.e., θ=1/2\theta = 1/2) and vanishes at the endpoints. So the two priors are genuinely different. □\square


Part (b): Jeffreys Prior for the Binomial is Beta(1/2, 1/2)

For X∼Binomial(n,θ)X \sim \text{Binomial}(n, \theta), the log-likelihood is:

ℓ(θ)=Xlog⁡θ+(n−X)log⁡(1−θ)+const.\ell(\theta) = X \log\theta + (n-X)\log(1-\theta) + \text{const.}

The Fisher information is:

I(θ)=−E[d2ℓdθ2].I(\theta) = -\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{d^2\ell}{d\theta^2}\right].

We compute:

dℓdθ=Xθ−n−X1−θ,d2ℓdθ2=−Xθ2−n−X(1−θ)2.\frac{d\ell}{d\theta} = \frac{X}{\theta} - \frac{n-X}{1-\theta}, \qquad \frac{d^2\ell}{d\theta^2} = -\frac{X}{\theta^2} - \frac{n-X}{(1-\theta)^2}.

Taking expectation with E[X]=nθ\mathbb{E}[X] = n\theta:

I(θ)=nθθ2+n(1−θ)(1−θ)2=nθ+n1−θ=nθ(1−θ).I(\theta) = \frac{n\theta}{\theta^2} + \frac{n(1-\theta)}{(1-\theta)^2} = \frac{n}{\theta} + \frac{n}{1-\theta} = \frac{n}{\theta(1-\theta)}.

Therefore the Jeffreys prior is:

πJ(θ)∝I(θ)=nθ(1−θ)∝θ−1/2(1−θ)−1/2.\pi_J(\theta) \propto \sqrt{I(\theta)} = \sqrt{\frac{n}{\theta(1-\theta)}} \propto \theta^{-1/2}(1-\theta)^{-1/2}.

This is exactly the Beta(1/2,1/2)\text{Beta}(1/2, 1/2) density (up to normalization). □\square

Sanity check: Beta(1/2,1/2)(1/2, 1/2) is the arcsine distribution, which concentrates near 00 and 11 — reflecting genuine uncertainty about extreme values, unlike the flat prior which assigns equal weight everywhere.


Part (c): Reparametrization Invariance of the Jeffreys Prior

Let ϕ=g(θ)\phi = g(\theta) be a smooth bijection. The Fisher information transforms as:

Iϕ(ϕ)=Iθ(θ)(dθdϕ)2I_\phi(\phi) = I_\theta(\theta) \left(\frac{d\theta}{d\phi}\right)^2

because the score function dℓdϕ=dℓdθ⋅dθdϕ\frac{d\ell}{d\phi} = \frac{d\ell}{d\theta} \cdot \frac{d\theta}{d\phi}, so its variance picks up the square of the Jacobian.

The Jeffreys prior on ϕ\phi induced from πJ(θ)\pi_J(\theta) via change of variables is:

π~(ϕ)=πJ(θ(ϕ))∣dθdϕ∣∝Iθ(θ(ϕ))⋅∣dθdϕ∣.\tilde{\pi}(\phi) = \pi_J(\theta(\phi)) \left|\frac{d\theta}{d\phi}\right| \propto \sqrt{I_\theta(\theta(\phi))} \cdot \left|\frac{d\theta}{d\phi}\right|.

But the Jeffreys prior directly defined in the ϕ\phi parametrization is:

πJ(ϕ)(ϕ)∝Iϕ(ϕ)=Iθ(θ(ϕ))⋅(dθdϕ)2=Iθ(θ(ϕ))⋅∣dθdϕ∣.\pi_J^{(\phi)}(\phi) \propto \sqrt{I_\phi(\phi)} = \sqrt{I_\theta(\theta(\phi)) \cdot \left(\frac{d\theta}{d\phi}\right)^2} = \sqrt{I_\theta(\theta(\phi))} \cdot \left|\frac{d\theta}{d\phi}\right|.

These are identical. □\square

The Jacobian from the change-of-variables formula exactly cancels the Jacobian arising in the Fisher information transformation — a perfect algebraic conspiracy that makes the Jeffreys prior the canonical "non-informative" prior.


Summary table:

| Property | Flat Prior | Jeffreys Prior | |---|---|---| | Reparametrization invariant | ✗ | ✓ | | Binomial model | Beta(1,1)\text{Beta}(1,1) | Beta(1/2,1/2)\text{Beta}(1/2,1/2) | | Interpretation | Uniform in θ\theta | Natural volume form |

Written to: questions/2026-08-17_am.md | Answer in: questions/2026-08-17_am_answer.md