Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2018 / iii / Paper 219 / 2

Write $v={\sigma }_{\mathrm{int}}^2$, $r_s={\sigma }_{m,s}^2$ and $d_s=\mu (z_s;H_0,w,{\Omega }_M)$. The latent absolute magnitude and measurement error are independent normal variables, so their convolution is normal. After integrating out the individual intrinsic magnitudes, each apparent magnitude has distributionConsequently the likelihood function for the independent sample isThis is the marginal observational likelihood of a hierarchical Bayesian model, not the likelihood conditional on each unknown intrinsic magnitude. The individual errors remain heteroscedastic through their known $r_s$.

Let $\mathcal{D}=(\{{\hat{m}}_s\},\{z_s\})$. Bayes' theorem and the stated prior factorization give the posterior densityThe normalizing constant, when finite and positive, is the integral of this product over its admissible parameter domain. An improper prior requires checking posterior propriety before interpreting this expression as a probability density.

Choose a fixed $H_{\mathrm{ref}}>0$, and write $h(H_0)=-5{\log }_{10}(H_0/H_{\mathrm{ref}})$ and $d_s(w,{\Omega }_M)=\mu (z_s;H_{\mathrm{ref}},w,{\Omega }_M)$. The predicted magnitude is $M_0+h(H_0)+d_s$. Thus the likelihood depends on $M_0,H_0$ only through $\beta =M_0+h(H_0)$, the absolute magnitude–Hubble constant degeneracy. Since $d{M}_0=d\beta$ at fixed $H_0$, integrating with a flat density over the entire real line removes $H_0$.

Explicitly, let $a_s=(v+r_s{)}^{-1}$, $S={\sum }_s{a}_s$, $x_s={\hat{m}}_s-d_s$, $\bar{x}=S^{-1}{\sum }_s{a}_s{x}_s$ and $Q={\sum }_s{a}_s(x_s-\bar{x}{)}^2$. Completing the square gives ${\sum }_s{a}_s(x_s-\beta {)}^2=Q+S(\beta -\bar{x}{)}^2$, so flat-prior elimination of a Gaussian common mean yieldsindependently of $H_0$. The proportionality includes the arbitrary constant of the flat prior, which cancels within this posterior analysis.

If the remaining posterior integral is finite, prior independence gives $p(H_0\mid \mathcal{D})\propto p(H_0)$ and hence $\boxed{p(H_0\mid \mathcal{D})=p(H_0)}$: these data supply no marginal update of the Hubble constant. The quoted Gaussian is consequently retained with its stated $a,b$. Strictly, the model uses $H_0>0$ inside a logarithm, so the Gaussian prior must be restricted and normalized on that domain:where $\varphi ,\Phi$ are the standard normal density and distribution function. Ignoring its negligible negative tail gives the stated untruncated Gaussian approximation.

A log-flat improper prior $p(v)\propto 1/v$ is not appropriate when all known $r_s={\sigma }_{m,s}^2$ are positive: the integrated likelihood in (iii) has a positive finite limit as $v\downarrow 0$, so its integral against $dv/v$ diverges. One defensible noninformative choice is the scalar Jeffreys prior for an additive variance component, calculated holding the mean parameters fixed:Indeed the normal variance score has information $I_{vv}=\frac{1}{2}{\sum }_s(v+r_s{)}^{-2}$. This is a scalar conditional-information prior, not a claim that its product with the flat mean prior is the joint Jeffreys prior. It is bounded near zero and is $O(v^{-1})$ at infinity. The integrated likelihood is uniformly bounded near zero and is bounded by a constant times $v^{-(N-1)/2}$ at infinity, independently of the mean-shape parameters, since $e^{-Q/2}\le 1$. Thus $N>1$ and a proper external prior on the physically admissible $(w,{\Omega }_M)$ ensure posterior propriety. Proper weak scale priors are another option. If known errors vanish, the boundary argument and appropriate prior need separate reconsideration.

For an efficient parameterization, use $\theta =(\beta ,u,w,{\Omega }_M)$ with $u=\log v$ and $\beta =M_0+h(H_0)$. A chain on this joint reduced parameter space targetsThe factor $e^u$ is the Jacobian determinant. At each iteration propose ${\theta }^{\prime }=\theta +\epsilon$, with $\epsilon \sim N(0,{\Sigma }_q)$ for a fixed nonsingular proposal covariance, and accept with probability $\min \{1,\tilde{\pi }({\theta }^{\prime })/\tilde{\pi }(\theta )\}$. Proposals outside the physical prior domain have target zero. Tune ${\Sigma }_q$ during warmup and freeze it for the retained random-walk Metropolis algorithm. To obtain samples of the full original parameter vector, independently draw $H_0$ from its retained positive prior and reconstruct $M_0=\beta -h(H_0)$; the resulting vector is $(M_0,v,H_0,w,{\Omega }_M)$. Analytically marginalizing $\beta$ using (iii) would also be valid.

Use several dispersed chains, trace plots, rank-normalized split $\hat{R}$, and the effective sample size of a Markov chain for each parameter and for $w,w^2$. These Markov chain Monte Carlo convergence diagnostics reveal poor mixing and disagreement but do not prove convergence. Estimate the integrated autocorrelation time ${\tau }_{\mathrm{int}}$; with $B$ retained draws, $B_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx B/{\tau }_{\mathrm{int}}$. Default to no thinning of a Markov chain, so the thinning factor is $1$. If storage requires thinning, choose a spacing after inspecting the autocorrelation and verify the retained-chain effective sample size; no finite spacing guarantees independent draws.

Using the retained $w_b$ samples, computeThese are posterior summaries, provided the corresponding moments exist, not uncertainties of the numerical estimates. A proper prior alone does not ensure finite second moments; choose or check the external prior accordingly. The Monte Carlo standard error of the posterior mean is approximately $\widehat{\mathrm{SD}}(w)/\sqrt{B_{\mathrm{eff}}}$.

Let $\pi$ be the normalized density $\tilde{\pi }$ in the transformed coordinates of (iv). Its fixed Gaussian increment gives a symmetric proposal distribution: $q({\theta }^{\prime }\mid \theta )=q(\theta \mid {\theta }^{\prime })$. For distinct states, the accepted transition density is $K(\theta ,{\theta }^{\prime })=q({\theta }^{\prime }\mid \theta )\alpha (\theta ,{\theta }^{\prime })$, where $\alpha =\min \{1,\pi ({\theta }^{\prime })/\pi (\theta )\}$. ThenThe rejection probability gives a mass on the diagonal, which trivially satisfies the same balance identity. Thus $\boxed{\pi (d\theta )K(\theta ,d{\theta }^{\prime })=\pi (d{\theta }^{\prime })K({\theta }^{\prime },d\theta )}$, the detailed balance condition, and integrating it proves invariance of the target.

The transformed density includes its Jacobian, so mapping back preserves the desired posterior law. Warmup adaptation is excluded from this fixed-kernel proof. Independent augmentation with $H_0$ is itself a reversible conditional update; alternatively the original joint augmented space can be sampled directly. This is the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm balance argument.