Derivative of Log Likelihood Function

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around confusion regarding the differentiation of the log likelihood function in a mixture of Gaussians model, specifically focusing on the numerator term π_{k} N(x_{n}|μ_{k}, Σ). Participants explore the differentiation process of the multivariate Gaussian, noting the complexities introduced by the covariance matrix Σ_k appearing both inside and outside the exponent. There's a suggestion to first tackle the univariate case to gain clarity before extending to the multivariate scenario. The conversation also addresses the correct interpretation of the determinant of Σ_k and its relation to the inverse in the context of differentiation. Ultimately, the original poster resolves their confusion by referencing properties from a matrix cookbook.
NATURE.M
Messages
298
Reaction score
0
So looking through my notes I can't seem to understand how to get from one step to the next. I have attached a screenshot of the 2 lines I'm very confused about. Thanks.

BTW: The equations are for the log likelihood in a mixture of gaussians model

EDIT: To elaborate I am particularly confused about how they get numerator term π_{k} N(x_{n}|μ_{k}, Σ). I can't seem to understand how they are differentiating this to obtain that. I understand how they obtain the denominator term from differentiating the log but that's about all. To differentiate the multivariate gaussian I would think the log function needs to be used to break up the internal terms. Although I can't put this intuition together.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-11-15 at 5.37.12 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-11-15 at 5.37.12 PM.png
    7.6 KB · Views: 649
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it's because ##\Sigma_k## appears both inside and outside (as an inverse) the exponent in the cdf function ##\mathscr{N}##.
So
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}\mathscr{N}(\mu,\Sigma_k)=
\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}\left[C\Sigma_k{}^{-1}\exp[f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\right]$$
for known constant ##C## and function ##f##.
By the product rule, this is then equal to
$$C\exp[f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}\Sigma_k{}^{-1}+\Sigma_k{}^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\right]$$

There will be some messy algebra involved.

You might find it easier to first work through the univariate case, differentiating wrt ##\sigma## and seeing if you can obtain an analogous expression. If that works out, it shouldn't be too hard to extend it to the multivar case.
 
andrewkirk said:
I think it's because ##\Sigma_k## appears both inside and outside (as an inverse) the exponent in the cdf function ##\mathscr{N}##.
So
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}\mathscr{N}(\mu,\Sigma_k)=
\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}\left[C\Sigma_k{}^{-1}\exp[f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\right]$$
for known constant ##C## and function ##f##.
By the product rule, this is then equal to
$$C\exp[f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}\Sigma_k{}^{-1}+\Sigma_k{}^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\right]$$

There will be some messy algebra involved.

You might find it easier to first work through the univariate case, differentiating wrt ##\sigma## and seeing if you can obtain an analogous expression. If that works out, it shouldn't be too hard to extend it to the multivar case.
I don't understand how you got $$C\Sigma_{k}^{-1}$$ In the multivariate gaussian we have $$\frac{1}{|\Sigma_{k}|}$$ How did you convert that determinant into an inverse ? Maybe you meant the same thing but forgot the determinant sign ?
 
Last edited:
NATURE.M said:
I don't understand how you got $$C\Sigma_{k}^{-1}$$ In the multivariate gaussian we have $$\frac{1}{|\Sigma_{k}|}$$ How did you convert that determinant into an inverse ?
I didn't. What I wrote is only broadly indicative of the structure. I didn't look up the multivariate Gaussian formula. With your correction that line becomes:

$$C\exp[f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}|\Sigma_k|^{-1}+|\Sigma_k|^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\right]$$
which is
$$C\exp[f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\left[-|\Sigma_k|^{-2}\frac{\partial |\Sigma_k|}{\partial \Sigma_k}+|\Sigma_k|^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\right]$$

I think if you work through the univariate case first it'll become much clearer.
 
andrewkirk said:
I didn't. What I wrote is only broadly indicative of the structure. I didn't look up the multivariate Gaussian formula. With your correction that line becomes:

$$C\exp[f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}|\Sigma_k|^{-1}+|\Sigma_k|^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\right]$$
which is
$$C\exp[f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\left[-|\Sigma_k|^{-2}\frac{\partial |\Sigma_k|}{\partial \Sigma_k}+|\Sigma_k|^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\right]$$

I think if you work through the univariate case first it'll become much clearer.

Okay so rewriting with exponents of -1/2 (for the gaussian) and repeating the operation we would have:
$$C\exp[f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\left[-\frac{1}{2}|\Sigma_k|^{\frac{-3}{2}}\frac{\partial |\Sigma_k|}{\partial \Sigma_k}+|\Sigma_k|^{\frac{-1}{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \Sigma_k}f(\mu,\Sigma_k)]\right]$$
So the problem becomes the extra $$|\Sigma_k|^{-1}$$ that gets left over after we factor out $$|\Sigma_k|^{\frac{-1}{2}}$$ Any ideas ?
 
So I think I resolved my troubles using a few properties outlined in the matrix cookbook.
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K