Can You Estimate Parameters for a Non-Closed Form Probability Distribution?

jimmy1
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
I have a probability distribution of the form \sum_{i=0}^n f(n,x,y). There is no closed form expression for it. I need to know if there is any method that I can use to estimate the parameters {n, x, y} given some data from the above distribution.
I've tried a maximum likelihood approach, but I'm having trouble getting the derivative with respect to n. Is it possible to get this derivative, and use a maximum likelihood approch to estimate n
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is your f indexed by i? If not, then you have (n+1)f(n,x,y), which is differentiable w/r/t/ n, as long as f is.

If f is indexed by i, then you might think of the sum as an integral and may be able to apply Leibniz's Rule (see under "Alternate form": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz's_rule).
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply. I had a look at that Leibniz's Rule link, but I'm not fully sure how to go about using it??

Anyway, I was thinking of a slightly more simple idea. I basically need an estimate of the 3 parameters {n, x, y}, preferiably using MLE. Since it's difficult to get the derivative w.r.t n, I was thinking of trying various values of n (say n=1,..,50), and for each value of n estimate MLE of x,y.

So basically, I now end up with 50 different estimates for {n, x, y}. So my question is, is there any mathematical way to tell which one of these 50 estimates is the best one? ie. Is there some sort of likelihood test I could use?
 
I'd just look at the (log) likelihood numbers and select the largest.
 
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.

Similar threads

Back
Top