Graduate Constructing PDFs for Max Likelihood Density Estimation Problem

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on constructing probability density functions (PDFs) for a maximum likelihood density estimation problem under specific constraints. The goal is to create continuous, positive functions on the interval (-1,1) that integrate to one, vanish at the endpoints, and reach a specified height at x=0. Beta distribution PDFs are suggested as a suitable option, as they can be adjusted to meet most of the required properties by selecting appropriate parameters. By transposing these beta functions to the interval [-1,1] and modifying their height, the desired characteristics can be achieved. The conversation highlights the mathematical representation of these functions and their applicability in solving the optimization problem.
AEW
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
Construct some probability density functions for the maximum likelihood density estimation problem.
I have the following constrained optimization problem corresponding to the maximum likelihood density estimation:
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\text{maximize} && L(f) \\
&\text{subject to} && f \in H \\
&&& \int_a^b f(x) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d} x = 1 \\
&&& f(x) \geq 0 \text{ for all } x \in [a,b].
\end{aligned}
$$
where ##x## is a random variable with probability density function (PDF) ##f## on an interval ##[a,b] \subset \textrm{IR}##, and ##H## is a subspace of ##L^1 [a,b]## (i.e., Lebesgue integrable on ##[a,b]##).

I need to construct some PDFs ##f_n## to prove the existence of a solution to the above optimization problem, which should have the following properties:
- Continuous and positive on the interval ##(-1,1)##,
- Integrates to one on the interval ##[-1,1]##,
- Vanishes at ##(-1)## and ##1##,
- Equal to ##n## at ##x=0## (e.g., ##f_2=2## at ##x=0##).

These functions ##f_n## are graphically represented in the figure below. My question is how to mathematically represent the functions ##f_n##.

Thanks.

fn.png
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The PDFs of the beta distribution have all but one of the properties you want, on the interval [0,1], provided you choose ##\alpha = \beta##. That leaves one free parameter you can use to set the summit of each curve at the level you want.
If you select a family of betas with peak heights at the even integers, you can then just transpose them to the interval [-1,1] and halve their height to get what you need.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes AEW and FactChecker
andrewkirk said:
The PDFs of the beta distribution have all but one of the properties you want, on the interval [0,1], provided you choose ##\alpha = \beta##. That leaves one free parameter you can use to set the summit of each curve at the level you want.
If you select a family of betas with peak heights at the even integers, you can then just transpose them to the interval [-1,1] and halve their height to get what you need.
Thank you, @andrewkirk, for your answer. That was helpful.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K