Can Maximum Likelihood Estimation Yield Multiple Solutions?

Chen
Messages
976
Reaction score
1
Hi,

I'm taking a basic course in statistical methods, and we recently learned of maximum likelihood estimation. We defined the likelihood as a function of some parameter 'a', and found the estimator of 'a' by requiring a maximum likelihood with respect to it.

As an example, we took the results of some fictional experiment, in which the measurements 't' are distributed according to exp(-at), with a statistical error that is normally distributed with a known variance. We defined the likelihood function and maximized it, numerically, in order to find the estimated value of 'a'.

However, in this example we assumed that we know the variance of the statistical error. If this value of 'sigma' is not known, then we must maximize the likelihood function with respect to both 'a' and 'sigma'. And now comes my question - isn't it possible that we will get more than one solution for this extremum problem? Couldn't it be that two different sets of 'a' and 'sigma' will give rise to the same distribution that we saw in the experiment? If that happens, what are the "real" estimators? And besides, even if we deal only with one parameter 'a', couldn't the likelihood function have maxima for two or more values of it?

Sorry about the lengthy post... :smile:

Thanks,
Chen
 
Physics news on Phys.org
All points you have raised are good points; it all depends on the lkhd function. If the lkhd is everywhere concave, then you won't have these problems.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top