My understanding of the bootstrap is that it gives us a method to understand the distribution of an estimator applied to a dataset.
I've read statements of the form "bootstrapping relies on the closeness of the empirical CDF for a sample of size $n$ to the true CDF".
But I wanted to understand the implication of using the bootstrap in a simple case.
Suppose I have a dataset of $N$ Bernoulli trials, with $n$ successes. I want to have an understanding of my uncertainty in $p$, the probability of success.
My understanding is that the bayesian approach to this would give us a pdf for $p$ of $$ P(p|N, n) = \frac{p^{n+ \alpha -1} (1-p)^{N-n+\beta-1}}{B(n+ \alpha, N-n+\beta)} $$ Where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ define the prior.
Naively, I guessed that maybe using the bootstrap on this type of data might give the same answer as a Haldane prior, of $\alpha=0, \ \beta=0$, since if $n=N$, both this and the bootstrap would require that $p=1$.
But when I wrote down what the bootstrap would predict for probabilities of $k$ successes, I get $$ P(p=k/N) = {N \choose k} (n/N)^{k} (1 - n/N)^{N-k} $$
This seems to take a totally different form than the Bayesian answer.
How should I understand both of these approaches? Am I totally misunderstanding the interpretation of bootstrapping in this case? Is there some Bayesian prior secretly implied by the use of the bootstrap in this example?
Any confidence interval for $p$ that you'd get should be derivable through that, right?
– Steve Oct 15 '23 at 18:38Does this imply something about the implicit prior of the bootstrap?
– Steve Oct 15 '23 at 20:40