Bayesian routes and unit roots: De rebus prioribus semper est disputandum
回应了八位学者对作者之前关于客观贝叶斯分析随机趋势论文的评论，强调时间序列中客观贝叶斯分析的必要性，并介绍了Phillips和Ploberger的新方法及实证结果。
Abstract This paper provides detailed responses to the following eight discussants of my paper ‘To criticize the critics: an objective Bayesian analysis of stochastic trends’: Gary Koop and Mark Steel; Edward Learner; In‐Moo Kim and G. S. Maddala; Dale J. Poirier; Peter C. Schotman and Herman K. van Dijk; James H. Stock; David DeJong and Charles H. Whiteman; and Christopher Sims. This reply puts new emphasis on the call made in the earlier paper for objective Bayesian analysis in time‐series; it underlines the need for a new approach, especially with regard to posterior odds testing; and it draws attention to a new methodology of Bayesian analysis developed in a recent paper by Phillips and Ploberger (1991a). Some new simulations that shed light on certain comments of the discussants are provided; new empirical evidence is reported with the extended Nelson‐Plosser data supplied by Schotman and van Dijk; and the new Phillips‐Ploberger posterior odds test is given a brief empirical illustration.