arXiv:1711.10822v1 [] 29 Nov 2017

Bayesian Simultaneous Estimation for Means in k Sample
Problems
Ryo Imai∗, Tatsuya Kubokawa†and Malay Ghosh‡
November 30, 2017

Abstract
This paper is concerned with the simultaneous estimation of k population means when one
suspects that the k means are nearly equal. As an alternative to the preliminary test estimator based on the test statistics for testing hypothesis of equal means, we derive Bayesian and
minimax estimators which shrink individual sample means toward a pooled mean estimator
given under the hypothesis. Interestingly, it is shown that both the preliminary test estimator and the Bayesian minimax shrinkage estimators are further improved by shrinking the
pooled mean estimator. The performance of proposed shrinkage estimators is investigated
by simulation.
Key words and phrases: Admissibility, Bayes estimator, decision theory, empirical Bayes,
k sample problem, minimaxity, pooled estimator, preliminary test estimator, quadratic loss,
shrinkage estimator, simultaneous estimation.

1

Introduction

Consider the multivariate k sample problem with the following canonical form: p-variate random vectors X 1 , . . . , X k and positive scalar random variable S are mutually independently
distributed as
X i ∼Np (µi , σ 2 V i ),

for i = 1, . . . , k,

S/σ 2 ∼χ2n ,

(1.1)

where the p-variate means µ1 , . . . , µk and the scale parameter σ 2 are unknown, and V 1 , . . . , V k
are p × p known and nonsingular symmetric matrices. In this model, we want to estimate
µ1 , . . . , µk simultaneously relative to the quadratic loss function
L(δ, ω) =

k
X
i=1

kδ i −

µi k2V −1 /σ 2
i

k
X
2
(δ i − µi )⊤ V −1
=
i (δ i − µi )/σ ,

(1.2)

i=1

∗
Graduate School of Economics, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, JAPAN.
E-Mail: imronuronnar13@g.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
†
Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, JAPAN.
E-Mail: tatsuya@e.u-tokyo.ac.jp
‡
Department of Statistics, University of Florida, 102 Griffin-Floyd Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611.
E-Mail: ghoshm@stat.ufl.edu

1

where kak2A = a⊤ Aa for the transpose a⊤ of a, δ = (δ 1 , . . . , δ k ) for estimator δi of µi , and
ω = (µ1 , . . . , µk , σ 2 ) is a set of unknown parameters.
A typical example of the model (1.1) is a k sample problem. For i = 1, . . . , k, a sample with
size ni is obtained from the i-th population, and
X ij ∼ Np (µi , σ 2 V i,0 ),

j = 1, . . . , ni ,

(1.3)

where V i,0 is a known matrix. In this case, X i , V i , S and n in (1.1) correspond to X i =
Pk
Pn i
Pk
−1 Pni
⊤
n−1
i=1 (ni − 1)p, respeci
j=1 X ij , V i,0 /ni , tr [ i=1 V i,0
j=1 (X ij − X i )(X ij − X i ) ] and
tively.
Another example of (1.1) is k linear regression models such that
y i = Z i β i + εi ,

i = 1, . . . , k,

(1.4)

where y i is an ni -variate vector of observations, β i is a p-variate vector of regression coefficients,
Z i is an ni × p matrix of explanatory variables and εi is an ni -variate random vector having
b i = (Z ⊤ Z i )−1 Z ⊤ y i ,
Nni (0, σ 2 I ni ). In this case, X i , V i , S and n in (1.1) correspond to β
i
i
P
P
k
k
−1
b k2 and
(n
−
p),
respectively.
(Z ⊤
ky
−
Z
β
i
i
i
i
i Z i) ,
i=1
i=1
In
i

In this paper, we consider the case that the means µi ’s are close to the hypothesis
H0 : µ1 = · · · = µk .

For example, suppose we consider k laboratories, say Laboratory L1 , . . ., Laboratory Lk , which
use similar instruments to measure several common characteristics. It is then suspected that
the k population mean vectors are nearly equal. In such a situation, rather than estimating
each mean by the corresponding sample mean separately, it might be more preferable to use a
pooled mean estimator. A classical approach towards solution to this problem is a preliminary
test estimator which uses the pooled mean estimator upon acceptance of the null hypothesis H0 ,
and uses separate sample means upon rejection of H0 . However, the preliminary test estimators
are non-smooth and do not necessarily improve on sample means. As an alternative method,
we consider Bayesian methods including hierarchical Bayes and empirical Bayes estimators.
A Bayesian approach to this problem uses the prior distribution of µi assuming a multivariate
normal distribution with mean ν and variance τ 2 where τ 2 is assumed to have a hierarchical
prior distribution. The mean ν corresponds to H0 : µ1 = · · · = µk = ν. Ghosh and Sinha
(1988) considered this prior distribution in the framework of estimating the single mean µ1 and
showed that the resulting empirical and hierarchical Bayes estimators have reasonable forms
of shrinking X 1 towards the pooled estimator of ν. Also they derived conditions for those
shrinkage estimators to be minimax. Shrinkage estimators with minimaxity has been studied in
the literature since Stein (1956) established the inadmissibility of the standard estimator X 1 .
For papers related to the context of this paper, see James and Stein (1961), Strawderman (1971,
73), Efron and Morris (1976) Stein (1981) and Sun (1996).
The Bayesian approach suggested in this paper consists of two kinds of shrinkage. One is
to shrink the k sample means toward a pooled mean estimator, and the other is to shrink the
p-dimensional pooled estimator toward a constant like zero. The former shrinkage is treated
in Section 2.1, and a class of minimax estimators is derived. Out of the class, we develop
2

hierarchical and empirical Bayes estimators with minimaxity. The latter shrinkage is discussed
in Section 2.2, and we show that all the estimators derived by the former shrinkage can be
further improved by using the latter shrinkage.
In Section 3, we find a Bayes and minimax estimator, namely an admissible and minimax
estimator using both kinds of shrinkage. The Bayes estimator which consists of the two kinds of
shrinkage has a new form which we cannot handle with conventional techniques given in Section
2. Thus, we need to extend the classes of minimax estimators in order to treat such a new type
of shrinkage estimators. The minimaxity of the Bayes estimator is successfully established.
In Section 4, through simulation studies, we investigate the performance of several hierarchical Bayes and empirical Bayes estimators and the preliminary test estimators. The simulation
results show that the hierarchical Bayes and empirical Bayes estimators for the two kinds of
prior distributions have good performances.

2

Improvement by Two Kinds of Shrinkage

2.1

Shrinkage toward the pooled estimator

We begin with assuming the prior distribution
µi | ν, τ 2 ∼Np (ν, τ 2 V i ),

for i = 1, . . . , k,

(2.1)

p

ν ∼Uniform(R ),

where Uniform(Rp ) denotes the improper uniform distribution over Rp . The posterior distribution of µi given X i and ν and the marginal distribution of X i given ν are


b ∗i (σ 2 , τ 2 , ν), (σ −2 + τ −2 )−1 ,
µi | X i , ν, τ 2 , σ 2 ∼Np µ
i = 1, . . . , k,
(2.2)
X i | ν, τ 2 , σ 2 ∼Np (ν, (τ 2 + σ 2 )V i ),
b ∗i (σ 2 , τ 2 , ν) is
where µ

σ2
(X i − ν).
(2.3)
τ 2 + σ2
Also, the posterior distribution of ν given X 1 , . . . , X k and the marginal distribution of X 1 , . . . , X k
are
b ∗i (σ 2 , τ 2 , ν) = X i −
µ

ν | X 1 , . . . , X k , τ 2 , σ 2 ∼Np (b
ν , (τ 2 + σ 2 )A),
n
1
fπ (x1 , . . . , xk | τ 2 , σ 2 ) ∝ 2
exp
−
(τ + σ 2 )p(k−1)/2
where
A=

k
X
i=1

V

−1
i

−1

and

b=A
ν

k
X

Pk

i=1 kxi

b k2V −1 o
−ν

2(τ 2 + σ 2 )

V −1
i X i.

i

(2.4)
,

(2.5)

i=1

Then, the Bayes estimator of µi is derived from (2.3) relative to the quadratic loss (1.2) as
2 2
bB
b ∗i (σ 2 , τ 2 , ν
b) = X i −
µ
i (σ , τ ) = µ

3

σ2
b ).
(X i − ν
τ 2 + σ2

(2.6)

Pk

Because τ 2 +σ 2 and σ 2 are unknown, we estimate τ 2 +σ 2 by

b k2V −1 /{p(k−1)−2}
i=1 kX i − ν
i
σ̂ 2 = S/(n + 2), the resulting

from the marginal likelihood in (2.4). When σ 2 is estimated by
empirical Bayes estimator is
n {p(k − 1) − 2}/(n + 2) o
b ),
b EB1
, 1 (X i − ν
µ
= X i − min
i
F
where
k
X
b k2V −1 /S.
kX i − ν
F =

(2.7)

i

i=1

Motivated from the empirical Bayes estimator, we consider the class of estimators
b Si (φ0 ) = X i −
µ

φ0 (F )
b ),
(X i − ν
F

(2.8)

where φ0 (F ) is an absolutely continuous function. We can provide conditions on φ0 (F ) for
b Si (φ0 ). The proof of Theorem 2.1 is given in the appendix.
minimaxity of µ
b Sk (φ0 )) is minimax relative to the quadratic loss
Theorem 2.1 The estimator (b
µS1 (φ0 ), . . . , µ
(1.2) if φ0 (F ) satisfies the following conditions:
(a) φ0 (F ) is non-decreasing in F .
(b) 0 < φ0 (F ) ≤ 2{p(k − 1) − 2}/(n + 2).

b EB1
It follows from Theorem 2.1 that the empirical Bayes estimator (b
µEB1
,...,µ
) is mini1
k
max. Another minimax estimator is the hierarchical Bayes estimator. In addition to the prior
distribution (2.1), we assume that
 σ 2 a+1
π(τ 2 | σ 2 ) ∝ 2
,
τ + σ2
(2.9)
2
2 c−2
π(σ ) ∝(σ ) ,
where a and c are constants. From (2.4), the posterior distribution of (τ 2 , σ 2 ) given X 1 , . . . , X k , S
is
π(τ 2 , σ 2 | x1 , . . . , xk , S)


p(k−1)/2+a+1  1 {n+p(k−1)}/2+2−c
n
∝
exp
−
τ 2 + σ2
σ2
σ2

Pk

i=1 kxi

b k2V −1
−ν

2(τ 2 + σ 2 )

i

−

S o
.
2σ 2

Making the transformation λ = σ 2 /(τ 2 +σ 2 ) and η = 1/σ 2 with the Jacobian |∂(τ 2 , σ 2 )/∂(λ, η)| =
1/(λ2 η 3 ) gives
π(λ, η | x1 , . . . , xk , S) ∝ λp(k−1)/2+a−1 η {n+p(k−1)}/2−c−1 exp
σ2

n

−

k
η o
λη X
b k2V −1 − S ,
kxi − ν
i
2
2
i=1

where 0 < λ < 1 and η > 0. Since
has the prior distribution, from (2.6), the Bayes estimator
of µi relative to the quadratic loss (1.2) is written as
b HB1
µ
=E[µi /σ 2 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]/E[1/σ 2 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
i
=X i −

E[(τ 2 + σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
b ),
(X i − ν
E[(σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
4

(2.10)

where
E[(τ 2 + σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
E[(σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
R 1 R ∞ p(k−1)/2+a {n+p(k−1)}/2−c
η
exp{− ηS
2 (λF + 1)}dηdλ
0 0 λ
.
= R1R∞
p(k−1)/2+a−1
{n+p(k−1)}/2−c
η
exp{− ηS
2 (λF + 1)}dηdλ
0 0 λ

Making the transformations x = F λ and v = Sη gives the expression

E[(τ 2 + σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
φHB1 (F )
=
,
E[(σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
F
where
HB1

φ

RF

(F ) = R F0
0

xp(k−1)/2+a /(1 + x){n+p(k−1)}/2+1−c dx

xp(k−1)/2+a−1 /(1 + x){n+p(k−1)}/2+1−c dx

(2.11)

We can derive a condition on a and c for minimaxity of the hierarchical Bayes estimator.
Theorem 2.2 The hierarchical Bayes estimator (2.10) is minimax if p(k − 1) ≥ 3 and if a and
c satisfy a + c < (n + 2)/2 and
{2p(k − 1) + n − 2}a + 2{p(k − 1) − 2}c ≤

n−2
p(k − 1) − 2n.
2

(2.12)

Proof. It suffices to show that φHB1 (F ) satisfies the conditions (a) and (b) in Theorem 2.1.
For the proof of (a), see the proof of Theorem 3.2. To check the condition (b), we note that
Z 1
Z ∞
xℓ
dx =
wℓ (1 − w)m−ℓ−2 dw = B(ℓ + 1, m − ℓ − 1),
(2.13)
m
(1
+
x)
0
0
for the beta function B(·, ·). Using the condition (a), we see that
R ∞ p(k−1)/2+a
x
/(1 + x){n+p(k−1)}/2+1−c dx
HB1
HB1
φ
(F ) ≤ lim φ
(F ) = R ∞0 p(k−1)/2+a−1
F →∞
/(1 + x){n+p(k−1)}/2+1−c dx
0 x
B(p(k − 1)/2 + a + 1, n/2 − a − c)
p(k − 1) + 2a
=
=
.
B(p(k − 1)/2 + a, n/2 − a − c + 1)
n − 2(a + c)
Thus, the condition (b) is satisfied if a + c < n/2 and if
p(k − 1) − 2
p(k − 1) + 2a
≤2
,
n − 2(a + c)
n+2
which is equivalently rewritten by (2.12). Hence, the minimaxity of the hierarchical Bayes
estimator is established.

Remark 2.1 Assuming the uniform distribution for ν in (2.1) yields the Bayes estimator
b ∗i (σ 2 , τ 2 , ν
b ). It is interesting to note that this Bayes estimator is also interpreted as an empirµ
b is the maximum likelihood
ical Bayes estimator, because when ν is an unknown parameter, ν
estimator (MLE) of ν in the marginal likelihood X i ∼ Np (ν, (τ 2 + σ 2 )V i ) for i = 1, . . . , k.
b ∗i (σ 2 , τ 2 , ν
b ) is a Bayes empirical Bayes estimator.
Thus, the estimator µ
5

2.2

Shrinkage of the pooled estimator

b EB1
b HB1
The empirical Bayes estimator µ
and the hierarchical Bayes estimator µ
shrink k ini
i
b . Because ν
b is a p-dimensional estimator
dividual estimators X i toward the common mean ν
b for further improvement. To this
against the uniform prior over Rp , we can consider to shrink ν
end, we first assume the prior distribution
µi | ν, τ 2 ∼Np (ν, τ 2 V i ),

for i = 1, . . . , k,

(2.14)
ν | γ , ∼Np (0, γ A),
−1
P
k
−1
for γ > 0 and A =
. It is noted that the normal prior is considered instead of
V
i=1
i
the uniform prior in (2.1). Then the posterior distributions are given by


2 2
−2
−2 −1
bB
,
i = 1, . . . , k,
µi | X i , ν, τ 2 , σ 2 ∼Np µ
(σ
,
τ
,
ν),
(σ
+
τ
)
i
(2.15)

γ 2 (τ 2 + σ 2 ) 
γ2
b
A
,
ν
,
ν | X, τ 2 , γ 2 , σ 2 ∼Np 2
γ + τ 2 + σ2 γ 2 + τ 2 + σ2
2

2

b ∗i (σ 2 , τ 2 , ν) is given in (2.3). The marginal density of X is
where X = (X 1 , . . . , X k ), and µ
Pk
b k2V −1 o
n
i=1 kxi − ν
1
2 2
2
i
fπ (x1 , . . . , xk | τ , γ , σ ) ∝ 2
exp −
2(τ 2 + σ 2 )
(τ + σ 2 )p(k−1)/2
(2.16)
n
o
kb
ν k2A−1
1
exp −
× 2
.
2(γ 2 + τ 2 + σ 2 )
(γ + τ 2 + σ 2 )p/2
Then from (2.3) and (2.15), the Bayes estimator of µi is

σ2
(X i − E[ν | X])
τ 2 + σ2

σ2 
γ2
b
=X i − 2
ν
X
−
i
τ + σ2
γ 2 + τ 2 + σ2
σ2
σ2
b
b.
=X i − 2
(X
−
ν
)
−
ν
(2.17)
i
τ + σ2
γ 2 + τ 2 + σ2
P
b k2V −1 /{p(k − 1) − 2} and kb
ν k2A−1 /(p − 2),
We shall estimate τ 2 + σ 2 , γ 2 + τ 2 + σ 2 by ki=1 kX i − ν
2 2 2
bB
µ
i (σ , τ , γ ) =X i −

i

respectively, from the marginal likelihood in (2.16). When σ 2 is estimated by σ̂ 2 = S/(n + 2),
the resulting empirical Bayes estimator is
n (p − 2)/(n + 2) o
n {p(k − 1) − 2}/(n + 2) o
b ) − min
b , (2.18)
b EB2
, 1 (X i − ν
,1 ν
µ
= X i − min
i
F
G
P
b k2V −1 /S and
where F = ki=1 kX i − ν
i

G = kb
ν k2A−1 /S.

b EB2
b and shrinking ν
b toward zero. Motivated
The estimator µ
enjoys shrinking X i toward ν
i
from the empirical Bayes estimator, we consider the class of double shrinkage estimators
b Si (φ0 , ψ0 ) = X i −
µ

φ0 (F )
ψ0 (G)
b,
b) −
ν
(X i − ν
F
G
6

(2.19)

where φ0 (F ) and ψ0 (G) are absolutely continuous functions. We can provide conditions on
b Si (φ0 ) in (2.8). The proof of Theorem 2.3 is given in the appendix.
ψ0 (G) for improving on µ

b Sk (φ0 )) in (2.8) is improved on by the double shrinkTheorem 2.3 The estimator (b
µS1 (φ0 ), . . . , µ
S
S
b k (φ0 , ψ0 )) in (2.19) relative to the quadratic loss (1.2) if ψ0 (G)
age estimator (b
µ1 (φ0 , ψ0 ), . . . , µ
satisfies the following conditions:
(a) ψ0 (G) is non-decreasing in G.
(b) 0 < ψ0 (G) ≤ 2(p − 2)/(n + 2).

b EB1
It follows from Theorem 2.3 that the empirical Bayes estimator (b
µEB1
,...,µ
) in (2.7)
1
k
EB2
EB2
b k ) in (2.18). The preliminary test estimator based on the
is improved on by (b
µ1 , . . . , µ
statistic F for testing the hypothesis H0 : µ1 = · · · = µk is

X i if F > (p(k − 1)/n)Fp(k−1),n,α
PT
bi =
µ
b
ν
otherwise
b ),
=X i − I[F ≤(p(k−1)/n)Fp(k−1),n,α ] (X i − ν

(2.20)

where Fp(k−1),n,α is the upper α point of the F distribution with (p(k − 1), n) degrees of freedom,
and I[·] denotes the indicator function. Because the preliminary test estimator belongs to the
b Pk T ) can be improved on by
class (2.8), Theorem 2.3 implies that the estimator (b
µP1 T , . . . , µ
PT∗
PT∗
b k ) with
(b
µ1 , . . . , µ
b Pi T ∗ = µ
b Pi T − min
µ

3

n (p − 2)/(n + 2)
G

Bayes and minimax estimation

o
b.
,1 ν

(2.21)

We shall derive the Bayes and minimax estimator. To this end, we assume the following prior
distribution in addition to (2.14):

π(τ 2 | σ 2 ) ∝

σ 2 a+1
,
τ 2 + σ2

b+1
σ2
π(γ 2 | τ 2 , σ 2 ) ∝ 2
,
γ + τ 2 + σ2
π(σ 2 ) ∝(σ 2 )c−3 , for σ 2 ≤ 1/L,

(3.1)

where a, b and c are constants and L is a positive constant. When a > 0, b > 0 and c > 0, the
prior distribution (3.1) is proper, because by making the transformation ξ = σ 2 /(γ 2 + τ 2 + σ 2 ),
λ = σ 2 /(τ 2 + σ 2 ) and η = 1/σ 2 with the Jacobian |∂(τ 2 , σ 2 )/∂(λ, η)| = 1/(λ2 ξ 2 η 4 ), we have
Z

0

Z

∞Z ∞

b+1  1 3−c
σ2
σ 2 a+1 
dτ 2 dγ 2 dσ 2
τ 2 + σ2
γ 2 + τ 2 + σ2
σ2
0
0
Z ∞
Z ∞Z 1Z 1
Z 1
Z 1
1
1
b−1
a−1
a+1 b+1 3−c
ξ dξ
=
λ dλ
λ ξ η
dλdξdη =
dη < ∞.
2ξ 2η4
1+c
λ
η
L
L
0
0
0
0

1/L

7

From (2.15), the posterior distribution of (τ 2 , γ 2 , σ 2 ) given X 1 , . . . , X k , S is
π(τ 2 , γ 2 , σ 2 | x1 , . . . , xk , S)
o
n
 σ 2 p(k−1)/2+a+1
SF
exp
−
∝ 2
τ + σ2
2(τ 2 + σ 2 )

o  1 (pk+n)/2+3−c
p/2+b+1
n
σ2
SG
× 2
×
exp
−
,
γ + τ 2 + σ2
2(γ 2 + τ 2 + σ 2 )
σ2

(3.2)

for σ 2 < 1/L. Using the transformation ξ = σ 2 /(γ 2 + τ 2 + σ 2 ), λ = σ 2 /(τ 2 + σ 2 ) and η = 1/σ 2
again, we can rewrite the posterior distribution as
n Sη
o
π(ξ, λ, η | x1 , . . . , xk , S) ∝ λp(k−1)/2+a−1 ξ p/2+b−1 η (n+pk)/2−c−1 exp −
(λF + ξG + 1) ,
2
where 0 < ξ < 1, 0 < λ < 1 and η ≥ L. Using the same arguments as in (2.10), from (2.17), the
hierarchical Bayes estimator of µi relative to the quadratic loss (1.2) is written as
b HB2
µ
= Xi −
i

E[(γ 2 + τ 2 + σ 2 )−1 | X, S]
E[(τ 2 + σ 2 )−1 | X, S]
b,
b) −
ν
(X i − ν
2
−1
E[(σ ) | X, S]
E[(σ 2 )−1 | X, S]

(3.3)

where X = (X 1 , . . . , X k ),

E[(τ 2 + σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
E[(σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
R 1 R 1 R ∞ p(k−1)/2+a p/2+b−1 (n+pk)/2−c
λ
ξ
η
exp{− ηS
2 (λF + ξG + 1)}dηdξdλ
.
= R 10R 10R ∞L
p(k−1)/2+a−1 ξ p/2+b−1 η (n+pk)/2−c exp{− ηS (λF + ξG + 1)}dηdξdλ
λ
2
0 0 L

Making the transformations x = F λ, y = Gξ and v = Sη gives the expression
E[(τ 2 + σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
φHB2 (F, G, S)
=
,
E[(σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
F
where
RF RGR∞

xp(k−1)/2+a y p/2+b−1 v (n+pk)/2−c exp{−v(x + y + 1)/2}dvdydx
(F, G, S) = R F0 R G0 R ∞LS
.
p(k−1)/2+a−1 y p/2+b−1 v (n+pk)/2−c exp{−v(x + y + 1)/2}dvdydx
0
0
LS x
(3.4)
Similarly
ψ HB2 (F, G, S)
E[(ξ 2 + τ 2 + σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
=
,
E[(σ 2 )−1 | X 1 , . . . , X k , S]
G
HB2

φ

where
RF RGR∞

xp(k−1)/2+a−1 y p/2+b v (n+pk)/2−c exp{−v(x + y + 1)/2}dvdydx
(F, G, S) = R F0 R G0 R ∞LS
.
p(k−1)/2+a−1 y p/2+b−1 v (n+pk)/2−c exp{−v(x + y + 1)/2}dvdydx
x
0
0
LS
(3.5)
Thus, the hierarchical Bayes estimator in (3.3) is expressed as
ψ

HB2

b HB2
µ
= Xi −
i

ψ HB2 (F, G, S)
φHB2 (F, G, S)
b.
b) −
ν
(X i − ν
F
G
8

(3.6)

This estimator does not belong to the class (2.19), because shrinkage functions φHB2 (F, G, S)
and ψ HB2 (F, G, S) include both F and G.
To show minimaxity of the hierarchical Bayes estimator (3.6), we begin by deriving an
unbiased risk estimator for the following double shrinkage estimators with more general forms:
b i (φ, ψ) = X i −
µ

ψ(F, G, S)
φ(F, G, S)
b,
b) −
ν
(X i − ν
F
G

(3.7)

where φ(F, G, S) and ψ(F, G, S) are absolutely continuous functions.

Theorem 3.1 An unbiased estimator of the risk function of (3.7) relative to the loss (1.2) is
[2{p(k − 1) − 2} − (n + 2)φ]φ
4φ
4SφφS
− 4φF −
(F φF + GφG ) +
F
F
F
4ψ
4SψψS
{2(p − 2) − (n + 2)ψ}ψ
− 4φG −
(F ψF + GψG ) +
,
(3.8)
−
G
G
G

UER(φ, ψ) =pk −

where φF = ∂φ(F, G, S)/∂F , φG = ∂φ(F, G, S)/∂G, φS = ∂φ(F, G, S)/∂S, and ψF , ψG and ψS
are defined similarly.
Considering the case with ψ(F, G, S) = 0 in (3.8), we can extend Theorem 2.1 to the general
case.
b k (φ)) with the form µ
b i (φ) = X i −{φ(F, G, S)/F }(X i −
Proposition 3.1 The estimator (b
µ1 (φ), . . . , µ
b ) is minimax relative to the quadratic loss (1.2) if φ(F, G, S) satisfies the following conditions:
ν
(a) φ(F, G, S) is non-decreasing in F and G, and non-increasing in S.
(b) 0 < φ(F, G, S) ≤ 2{p(k − 1) − 2}/(n + 2).
The unbiased risk estimator (3.8) also enables us to extend Theorem 2.3 to the general case.
b k (φ)) given in Proposition 3.1 is improved on by
Proposition 3.2 The estimator (b
µ1 (φ), . . . , µ
b k (φ, ψ)) in (3.7) relative to the quadratic loss
the double shrinkage estimator (b
µ1 (φ, ψ), . . . , µ
(1.2) if ψ(F, G, S) satisfies the following conditions:
(a) ψ(F, G, S) is non-decreasing in F and G, and non-increasing in S.
(b) 0 < ψ(F, G, S) ≤ 2(p − 2)/(n + 2).
We now derive conditions under which the hierarchical Bayes estimator (3.6) is minimax,
namely it satisfies the conditions in Propositions 3.1 and 3.2. Combining the condition for the
minimaxity and the condition for the proper prior, we can get a condition for the Bayes estimator
to be admissible and minimax.
Theorem 3.2 The hierarchical Bayes estimator (3.6) is minimax if p(k − 1) ≥ 3, p ≥ 3 and if
a, b and c satisfy a + b + c < n/2 and
{2p(k − 1) + n − 2}a + 2{p(k − 1) − 2}(b + c) ≤p(k − 1)(n − 2)/2 − 2n,
(2p + n − 2)b + 2(p − 2)(a + c) ≤p(n − 2)/2 − 2n.

(3.9)
(3.10)

Further, (3.6) is a Bayes minimax estimator, namely admissible and minimax, provided constants a, b and c are positive and satisfy the above conditions.
9

The latter part of Theorem 3.2 follows from the fact that the prior distribution (3.1) is proper
when a > 0, c > 0 and L > 0. Then, the Bayes estimator (3.6) is admissible and minimax. Since
k ≥ 2, we can find such constants if p ≥ 5 and n > 2p/(p − 4). This shows that p is at least 5.
Remark 3.1 Although the condition of L > 0 is imposed technically in order to guarantee
the admissibility, we have no information on L as well as the Bayes estimator based on triple
integrals is computationally hard to derive. From a practical point of view, we set L = 0. In this
b HB2
case, the hierarchical prior (3.1) is improper and µ
is no longer guaranteed to be admissible.
i
However, the minimaxity still holds, and the resulting generalized Bayes estimator is
b HB2
µ
= Xi −
i

ψ HB2 (F, G)
φHB2 (F, G)
b) −
b,
(X i − ν
ν
F
G

(3.11)

where φHB2 (F, G, S) and ψ HB2 (F, G, S) are expressed based on double integrals as
HB2

φ

RF RG

xp(k−1)/2+a y p/2+b−1 (x + y + 1)−{(n+pk)/2−c+1} dydx

RF RG

xp(k−1)/2+a−1 y p/2+b (x + y + 1)−{(n+pk)/2−c+1} dydx

(F, G) = R F0 R G0
0

0

ψ HB2 (F, G) = R F0 R G0
0

0

xp(k−1)/2+a−1 y p/2+b−1 (x + y + 1)−{(n+pk)/2−c+1} dydx
xp(k−1)/2+a−1 y p/2+b−1 (x + y + 1)−{(n+pk)/2−c+1} dydx

,
.

In our simulation experiments given in the next section, we use this generalized Bayes estimator.

4

Simulation Study

We investigate the numerical performances of the risk functions of the preliminary-test estimator
and several empirical and hierarchical Bayes estimators through simulation. The estimators
which we compare are the following seven:
JS: the James-Stein estimator
b JS
µ
i = Xi −

S
p−2
n + 2 kX i k2

X i,

V −1
i

b Pi T given in (2.20),
PT: the preliminary-test estimator µ
b Pi T ∗ in (2.21),
PT*: the preliminary-test and shrinkage estimator µ
EB1
bi
EB: the empirical Bayes estimator µ
in (2.7),
b EB2 in (2.18)
EB*: the improved empirical Bayes estimator µ
b HB1
HB1: the hierarchical Bayes estimator µ
in
(2.10),
i
b HB2
HB2: the hierarchical Bayes estimator µ
in
(3.11).
i

b Pi T ∗ is
b Pi T and µ
The significance size α in the preliminary-test and related estimators µ
b HB1
b HB2
α = 0.05. For the hierarchical Bayes estimators µ
and µ
, we used the constants a =
i
i
b = c = 0.1 and L = 0.

In this simulation, we generate random numbers of X 1 , . . . , X k and S based on the model
(1.1) for p = k = 5, n = 20, σ 2 = 2 and V i = (0.1 × i)I p , i = 1, . . . , k. For the mean vectors µi ,

10

we treat the eight cases:
(µ1 , . . . , µ5 ) =(0, 0, 0, 0, 0), (2j 5 , 2j 5 , 2j 5 , 2j 5 , 2j 5 ),
(−0.4j 5 , −0.2j 5 , 0, 0.2j 5 , 0.4j 5 ), (−j 5 , −0.5j 5 , 0, 0.5j 5 , j 5 ), (−2j 5 , −j 5 , 0, j 5 , 2j 5 ),
(1.2j 5 , 1.4j 5 , 1.6j 5 , 1.8j 5 , 2.0j 5 ), (j 5 , 1.5j 5 , 2j 5 , 2.5j 5 , 3j 5 ), (0, j 5 , 2j 5 , 3j 5 , 4j 5 ),
where j p = (1, . . . , 1)⊤ ∈ Rp . The first two are the cases of equal means, the next three are the
P
cases that 5i=1 µi = 0 and the last three are unbalanced cases.

b 5 ), based on 5,000 replication of simulation, we obtain an
For each estimator δ = (b
µ1 , . . . , µ
approximated value of the risk function R(ω, δ) = E[L(δ, ω)] for the loss function given in (1.2).
Table 1 reports the percentage relative improvement in average loss (PRIAL) of each estimator
δ over δ U = (X 1 , . . . , X 5 ), defined by
PRIAL = 100{R(ω, δ U ) − R(ω, δ)}/R(ω, δ U ).

Table 1: Values of PRIAL of estimators PT, PT*, EB1, EB2, HB1 and HB2
(µ1 , . . . , µ5 )
(0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
(2, 2, 2, 2, 2) ⊗ j 5
(−0.4, −0.2, 0.0, 0.2, 0.4) ⊗ j 5
(−1, −0.5, 0, 0.5, 1) ⊗ j 5
(−2, −1, 0, 1, 2) ⊗ j 5
(1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0) ⊗ j 5
(1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3) ⊗ j 5
(0, 1, 2, 3, 4) ⊗ j 5

JS
PT PT*
54.1 74.1 87.2
9.0 74.1 74.4
48.3 64.1 75.3
37.4 17.4 23.0
25.0 −11.6 −10.0
12.7 64.1 64.6
9.5 17.4 17.9
18.9 −11.6 −10.8

EB1
70.3
70.3
63.6
40.6
17.5
63.6
40.6
17.5

EB2
83.4
70.6
74.9
46.2
19.1
64.2
41.1
18.3

HB1
69.7
69.7
64.7
44.6
17.5
64.7
44.6
17.5

HB2
82.6
70.0
76.5
52.2
18.9
65.2
44.9
17.6

It is noted from Theorem 2.3 that PT and EB1 can be improved on by PT* and EB2.
These results can be confirmed by the simulation result in Table 1. Concerning the hierarchical
Bayes estimators HB1 and HB2, Theorem 3.2 shows that the estimator HB2 is minimax, while
we could not demonstrate that HB2 dominates HB1. However, Table 1 illustrates that HB2 is
better than HB1.
Concerning PT, EB1 and HB1, their values of PRIAL are high under the hypothesis H0 :
µ1 = · · · = µ5 , but decrease when the means are far away from the hypothesis. The empirical
Bayes estimator EB1 and the hierarchical Bayes estimator HB1 are comparable, and EB2 and
HB2 are also comparable. The simulation results in these setups illustrate that the hierarchical
Bayes estimator HB2 and the empirical Bayes estimator EB2 have good performances.

5

Proofs

We here provide the proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2. Theorems 2.1 and 2.3 can be derived from
Theorem 3.1 through Propositions 3.1 and 3.2.

11

5.1

Proof of Theorem 3.1

For the proof, the Stein identity due to Stein (1973, 81) and the chi-square identity due to Efron
and Morris (1976) are useful. See also Bilodeau and Kariya (1989) for a multivariate version of
the Stein identity.
Lemma 5.1 (1) Assume that Y = (Y1 , . . . , Yp )⊤ is a p-variate random vector having Np (µ, Σ)
and that h(·) is an absolutely continuous function from Rp to Rp . Then, we have the Stein
identity
 

E[(Y − µ)⊤ h(Y )] = E tr Σ∇Y h(Y )⊤ ,
(5.1)

provided the expectations in both sides exist, where ∇Y = (∂/∂Y1 , . . . , ∂/∂Yp )⊤ .

(2) Assume that S is a random variable such that S/σ 2 ∼ χ2n and that g(·) is an absolutely
continuous function from R to R. Then, we have the chi-square identity
E[Sg(S)] = σ 2 E[ng(S) + 2Sg ′ (S)],

(5.2)

provided the expectations in both sides exist.
The risk function is decomposed as
R(ω,b
µ(φ, ψ)) =

k
X

E[(b
µi (φ, ψ) − µi )⊤ V −1
µi (φ, ψ) − µi )/σ 2 ]
i (b

i=1

=

k
X

2
E[(X i − µi )⊤ V −1
i (X i − µi )/σ ]

i=1

−2

+

k
k
h
h
X
X
ψ i
φ i
⊤ −1
b
b
ν
E
(X
−
µ
)
V
−
2
E (X i − µi )⊤ V −1
(X
−
ν
)
i
i
i
i
i
σ2 F
σ2G
i=1
k
X

1
σ2

i=1

i=1

E

h φ
F

b) +
(X i − ν

=I1 − 2I2 − 2I3 + I4 ,

ψ ⊤ −1  φ
ψ i
b Vi
b
b) + ν
ν
(X i − ν
G
F
G

(say)

(5.3)

for φ = φ(F, G, S) and ψ = ψ(F, G, S).
It is easy to see I1 = pk. Let ∇i = ∂/∂X i = (∂/∂Xi1 , . . . , ∂/∂Xip )⊤ for X i = (Xi1 , . . . , Xip )⊤ .
b )/S and ∇i G = 2V −1
It is noted that ∇i F = 2V −1
ν /S. For I2 , it is observed that
i (X i − ν
i Ab

I2 =

=

=

k
h h n
X
φ(F, G, S) oii
b )⊤
E tr ∇i (X i − ν
F
i=1
k
X

i=1
k
X
i=1

o φ(F, G, S) i
h hn
h
n φ(F, G, S) o⊤ ii
b )⊤
b ) ∇i
E tr ∇i (X i − ν
+ tr (X i − ν
F
F

h
h
n 2V −1 (X − ν
b) 
ν φG o⊤ ii
φ
φ
φF  2V −1
i
i Ab
i
b
E tr (I − AV −1
)
−
+
+
tr
(X
−
ν
)
+
i
i
F
S
F2
F
S
F

k

h
b )⊤ V −1
ν φG i
φ
φF  X (X i − ν
φ
i Ab
+
.
=E p(k − 1) + 2F − 2 +
F
F
F
S
F
i=1

12

Noting that

Pk

i=1 (X i

b )⊤ V −1
−ν
i = 0, one gets

I2 = E[{p(k − 1) − 2}φ/F + 2φF ].

(5.4)

Similarly, we have
I3 =
=

k
h h n ψ(F, G, S) oii
X
b⊤
E tr ∇i ν
G
i=1
k
X
i=1

Since

Pk

b
i=1 ν

h

h n 2V −1 ν
b ) φF o⊤ ii
ψ
ψ
ψG  2V −1
i (X i − ν
i b
b
E tr (AV −1
)
−
+
.
+
tr
+
ν
i
G
S
G2
G
S
G

⊤

b ) = 0, one gets
V −1
i (X i − ν

I3 = E[(p − 2)ψ/G + 2ψG ].

(5.5)

Concerning I4 , it is noted that
i
1 hS 2
E
φ
(F,
G,
S)
+
σ2
F
i
1 hS 2
= 2E
φ (F, G, S) +
σ
F

I4 =

k
i
i
1 hS 2
1 hX
⊤ −1 φψ
b
b
ν
(X
−
ν
)
V
E
ψ
(F,
G,
S)
+
2
E
i
i
σ2
G
σ2
FG
i=1
i
h
1
S 2
ψ (F, G, S) .
E
2
σ
G

Using the chi-square identity, we have
h nφ2
oi
h S φ2 i
φ2
2φ n F
G
=E
− φF − φG + φG
+ 2S
+ 2S
E 2
σ F
F
SF
F
S
S
i
h

φ
S
φ2
=E (n + 2) − 4 F φF + GφG + 4 φφS .
F
F
F

Similarly,

E

h
h S ψ2 i
i

ψ2
S
ψ
=
E
(n
+
2)
+
4
−
4
ψψ
F
ψ
+
Gψ
S .
F
G
σ2 G
G
G
G

Thus, one gets
h
i


φ2
S
S
φ
ψ2
ψ
I4 = E (n+2) −4 F φF +GφG +4 φφS +(n+2) −4 F ψF +GψG +4 ψψS . (5.6)
F
F
F
G
G
G

Combining (5.4), (5.5) and (5.6) gives the expression in Theorem 3.1.

5.2

Proof of Theorem 3.2

It suffices to show that φHB2 (F, G, S) satisfies the conditions (a) and (b) in Proposition 3.1,
and that ψ HB2 (F, G, S) satisfies the conditions (a) and (b) in Proposition 3.2. For simplicity,
let h(x, y, v) = xα y β v γ exp{−v(x + y + 1)/2} for α = p(k − 1) + a − 1, β = p/2 + b − 1 and
γ = (n + pk)/2 − c. Then, φHB2 (F, G, S) and ψ HB2 (F, G, S) are written as
Z F Z GZ ∞
Z F Z GZ ∞
φHB2 (F, G, S) =
xh(x, y, v)dvdydx/
h(x, y, v)dvdydx,
0
0
0
0
LS
LS
Z F Z GZ ∞
Z F Z GZ ∞
HB2
h(x, y, v)dvdydx
yh(x, y, v)dvdydx/
ψ
(F, G, S) =
0

0

0

LS

13

0

LS

We shall check the conditions (a) and (b) in Proposition 3.1 for φHB2 (F, G, S). The proof for
ψ HB2 (F, G, S) is omitted, because it can be shown similarly.
We begin by showing that φHB2 (F, G, S) is increasing in F . The derivative of φHB2 (F, G, S)
with respect to F is proportional to
Z F Z GZ ∞
Z GZ ∞
F h(F, y, v)dvdy ×
h(x, y, v)dvdydx
0
0
0
LS
LS
Z GZ ∞
Z F Z GZ ∞
h(F, y, v)dvdy
xh(x, y, v)dvdydx ×
−
0
0
LS
0
LS
Z F
Z GZ ∞
nZ GZ ∞
o
(F − x)
=
h(F, y, v)dvdy ×
h(x, y, v)dvdy dx,
0

0

0

LS

LS

which is non-negative.
We next show that φHB2 (F, G, S) is increasing in G. The derivative of φHB2 (F, G, S) with
respect to G is proportional to
Z F Z GZ ∞
Z FZ ∞
xh(x, G, v)dvdx ×
h(x, y, v)dvdydx
0
0
0
LS
LS
Z F Z GZ ∞
Z FZ ∞
−
xh(x, y, v)dvdydx ×
h(x, G, v)dvdx
0
0
0
LS
LS
nZ F Z ∞
o2
=
h(x, G, v)dvdx
0
LS
h R G R ∞ h(X, y, v)dvdy io
n
h R G R ∞ h(X, y, v)dvdy i
∗
∗
LS
0 R LS
−E X 0 R∞
,
× E [X]E
∞
h(X,
G,
v)dv
LS
LS h(X, G, v)dv
where E ∗ [·] denote the expectation with respect to the probability
Z FZ ∞
Z Z ∞
h(x, G, v)dvdx/
P (X ∈ A) =
h(x, G, v)dvdx.
A

RGR∞

0

LS

R∞

LS

Let g(X) = 0 LS h(X, y, v)dvdy/ LS h(X, G, v)dv. If g(X) is decreasing in X, it is seen that
g(X) and X are monotone in opposite directions, which implies that E ∗ [Xg(X)]−E ∗ [X]E ∗ [g(X)] ≤
0 from the covariance inequality. Thus, we need to show that g(X) is decreasing in X. Note
that g(x) is written as
Z GZ ∞
Z ∞
g(x) =
Gβ v γ e−v(x+G+1)/2 dv.
y β v γ e−v(x+y+1)/2 dvdy/
0

LS

LS

g ′ (x)

The derivative
is proportional to
Z ∞
Z GZ ∞
v γ e−v(x+G+1)/2 dv
y β v γ+1 e−v(x+y+1)/2 dvdy
−
LS
0
LS
Z ∞
Z GZ ∞
β γ −v(x+y+1)/2
v γ+1 e−v(x+G+1)/2 dv
y v e
dvdy
+
LS
0
LS
h R G y β e−V (x+y+1)/2 dy io
h R G y β e−V (x+y+1)/2 dy i
nZ ∞
o2 n
†
†
†
γ −v(x+G+1)/2
0
0
+ E [V ]E
=
−E V
v e
dv
−V (x+G+1)/2
e
e−V (x+G+1)/2
LS
hZ G
i
io
nZ ∞
h Z G
o2 n
y β e(G−y)V dy + E † [V ]E †
y β e(G−y)V dy ,
=
v γ e−v(x+G+1)/2 dv
− E† V
LS

0

0

14

where E † [·] denotes the expectation with respect to the probability
Z ∞
Z
γ −v(x+G+1)/2
v γ e−v(x+G+1)/2 dv
v e
dv/
P (V ∈ A) =
LS

A

for fixed x. Because
implies that

RG
0

y β e(G−y)V dy is increasing in V for y < G, the covariance inequality

h Z
−E V
†

G

β (G−y)V

y e

0

i

†

dy + E [V ]E

†

hZ

G

β (G−y)V

y e
0

i

dy ≤ 0,

which means that g′ (x) ≤ 0. Hence, it is established that φHB2 (F, G, S) is increasing in G.
We now show that φHB2 (F, G, S) is decreasing in S. The derivative of φHB2 (F, G, S) with
respect to S is proportional to
Z FZ G
Z F Z GZ ∞
−L
xh(x, y, LS)dydx
h(x, y, v)dvdydx
0
0
0
0
LS
Z F Z GZ ∞
Z FZ G
+L
xh(x, y, v)dvdydx
h(x, y, LS)dydx
0
0
0
LS
0
nZ F Z G
o2
=L
h(x, y, LS)dydx
0
0
h R G R ∞ h(X, y, v)dvdy io
h R G R ∞ h(X, y, v)dvdy i
n
∗∗
∗∗
∗∗
0
LS
+ E X 0 R GLS
,
× − E [X] × E
RG
0 h(X, y, LS)dy
0 h(X, y, LS)dy
where E ∗∗ [·] is the expectation with respect to the probability
P (X ∈ A) =

Z Z
A

Note that

RGR∞
0

G

h(x, y, LS)dydx/
0

h(X, y, v)dvdy
R GLS
0 h(X, y, LS)dy

=

RGR∞
0

RLSG

Z

F
0

Z

G

h(x, y, LS)dydx.
0

y β v γ e(LS−v)X−v(y+1)/2 dvdy

,
y β (LS)γ e−LS(y+1)/2 dy
RGR∞
RG
which is decreasing in X. Thus, X and 0 LS h(X, y, v)dvdy/ 0 h(X, y, LS)dy are monotone
in opposite directions, so that the derivative φHB2 (F, G, S) with respect to S is negative due to
the covariance inequality. Hence, the condition (a) is satisfied for φHB2 (F, G, S).
0

Finally, from the condition (a), we see that
φHB2 (F, G, S) ≤ lim lim lim φHB2 (F, G, S)
F →∞ G→∞ S→0
R ∞ R ∞ R ∞ α+1 β γ
y v exp{−y(x + y + 1)/2}dvdydx
0 R 0 x
= 0 R∞
∞ α β γ
0
0 x y v exp{−y(x + y + 1)/2}dvdydx
Γ(α + 2)Γ(β + 1)Γ(γ − α − β − 2)
α+1
p(k − 1) + 2a
=
=
=
.
Γ(α + 1)Γ(β + 1)Γ(γ − α − β − 1)
γ−α−β−2
n − 2(a + b + c)

15

Similarly,
ψ HB2 (F, G, S) ≤ lim lim lim ψ HB2 (F, G, S)
F →∞ G→∞ S→0
R ∞ R ∞ R ∞ α β+1 γ
v exp{−y(x + y + 1)/2}dvdydx
0 R 0 x y
= 0 R∞
∞ α β γ
0
0 x y v exp{−y(x + y + 1)/2}dvdydx
Γ(α + 1)Γ(β + 2)Γ(γ − α − β − 2)
β+1
p + 2b
=
=
=
.
Γ(α + 1)Γ(β + 1)Γ(γ − α − β − 1)
γ −α−β −2
n − 2(a + b + c)
Thus, the condition (b) in Proposition 3.1 is satisfied if a + b + c < n/2 and if
p(k − 1) − 2
p(k − 1) + 2a
≤2
,
n − 2(a + b + c)
n+2
which is equivalently rewritten by (3.9). Also, the condition (b) in Proposition 3.2 is satisfied if
a + b + c < n/2 and if
p−2
p + 2b
≤2
,
n − 2(a + b + c)
n+2
which leads to (3.10). Hence, the minimaxity of the hierarchical Bayes estimator is established.

Acknowledgments
Research of the second author was supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
(15H01943 and 26330036) from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

References
[1] M. Bilodeau, T. Kariya, Minimax estimators in the normal MANOVA model, J. Multivariate Anal. 28 (1989) 260–270.
[2] B. Efron, C. Morris, Families of minimax estimators of the mean of a multivariate normal
distribution, Ann. Statist. 4 (1976) 11–21.
[3] M. Ghosh, B.K. Sinha, Empirical and hierarchical Bayes competitors of preliminary test
estimators in two sample problems, J. Multivariate Anal. 27 (1988) 206–227.
[4] W. James, C. Stein, Estimation with quadratic loss, in: Proc. Fourth Berkeley Sympos.
Math. Statist. and Prob., Vol.I, Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1961, pp.361–379.
[5] C. Stein, Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a multivariate normal
distribution, Proc. Third Berkeley Symp. Math. Statist. Probab. 1 (1956) 197–206, Univ.
California Press, Berkeley.
[6] C. Stein, Estimation of the mean of a multivariate normal distribution, Ann. Statist. 9
(1981) 1135–1151.
[7] W.E. Strawderman, Proper Bayes minimax estimators of the multivariate normal mean,
Ann. Math. Statist. 42 (1971) 385–388.
16

[8] W.E. Strawderman, Proper Bayes minimax estimators of the multivariate normal mean
vector for the case of common unknown variances, Ann. Statist. 1 (1973) 1189–1194.
[9] L. Sun, Shrinkage estimation in the two-way multivariate normal model, Ann. Statist. 24
(1996) 825-840.

17

