Doklady Mathematics

, Volume 93, Issue 2, pp 155–158 | Cite as

Nonasymptotic approach to Bayesian semiparametric inference

  • M. E. PanovEmail author


The classical semiparametric Bernstein–von Mises (BvM) results is reconsidered in a non-classical setup allowing finite samples and model misspecication. We obtain an upper bound on the error of Gaussian approximation of the posterior distribution for the target parameter which is explicit in the dimension of the target parameter and in the dimension of sieve approximation of the nuisance parameter. This helps to identify the so called critical dimension p n of the sieve approximation of the full parameter for which the BvM result is applicable. If the bias induced by sieve approximation is small and dimension of sieve approximation is smaller then critical dimension than the BvM result is valid. In the important i.i.d. and regression cases, we show that the condition “p n 2 q/n is small”, where q is the dimension of the target parameter and n is the sample size, leads to the BvM result under general assumptions on the model.


Nuisance Parameter Fisher Information Matrix Target Parameter Gaussian Process Regression Full Parameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. Le Cam and G. L. Yang, Asymptotics in Statistics: Some Basic Concepts (Springer, Berlin, 1990).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Buhlmann and S. van de Geer, Statistics for HighDimensional Data: Methods, Theory, and Applications (Springer, Berlin, 2011).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Schwartz, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 4, 10–26 (1965).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Barron, M. J. Schervish, and L. Wasserman, Ann. Stat. 27, 536–561 (1996).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    X. Shen, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 97 (457), 222–235 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Cheng and M. R. Kosorok, Ann. Stat. 36, 1819–1853 (2008).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. J. Bickel and B. J. K. Kleijn, Ann. Stat. 40, 206–237 (2012).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    I. Castillo, Probab. Theory Relat.Fields 152, 53–99 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. Rivoirard and J. Rousseau, Ann. Stat. 40, 1489–1523 (2012).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. Castillo and J. Rousseau, Available at arXiv:1305.4482 [math.ST].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. N. Chentsov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 147 (1), 45–48 (1962).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Panov and V. Spokoiny, Bayesian Anal. 10, 665–710 (2015).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Zaytsev, E. Burnaev, and V. Spokoiny, J. Math. Sci. 203 (6), 789–798 (2014).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Andresen and V. Spokoiny, Electron. J. Stat. 8, 3077–3125 (2014).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Information Transmission ProblemsRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Moscow Institute of Physics and TechnologyDolgoprudnyi, Moscow oblastRussia
  3. 3.Datadvance CompanyMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations