Graduate Does Maximizing Likelihood Over Truncated Support Increase Probability?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kullbach_liebler
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Maximizing likelihood over truncated support can lead to a greater probability than evaluating at a specific parameter vector, as indicated by the proposition discussed. The conditions for this statement to hold include having more elements in the intersection of sets defined by certain thresholds than outside of them. Clarification is sought on how to present this proposition more effectively, suggesting a more verbal explanation alongside the mathematical notation. A question arises regarding the scenario where the maximizing value equals the initial parameter vector, prompting further exploration of implications. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the relationship between parameter optimization and probability outcomes in statistical contexts.
kullbach_liebler
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Suppose ##\mathbf{X}## is a random variable with a finite support ##\Omega## and with some pdf ##f(\cdot; \mathbf{v}_0)## where ##\mathbf{v}_0## is the parameter vector. Define, ##\mathcal{A}:= \{\mathbf{x}:S(\mathbf{x}) \geq \gamma\} \subset \Omega## and ##\tilde{\mathbf{x}}:=S(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}) = \gamma##, ##\mathcal{B}:=\{\mathbf{x} \geq \tilde{\mathbf{x}}\}## where ##S:\mathbf{x} \mapsto \mathbb{R}^n##. Moreover, suppose that,

$$\#(\mathcal{B} \cap \mathcal{A}) > \#(\neg \mathcal{B} \cap \mathcal{A})$$
and
$$!\exists \mathbf{x}^*>\tilde{\mathbf{x}}:=\arg \max_{\mathbf{x}}S(\mathbf{x}).$$

Then, it implies that,

\begin{align}
\max_{\mathbf{v}}\sum_{\mathbf{x} :S(\mathbf{x}) \geq \gamma} f(\mathbf{x};\mathbf{v}) > \sum_{\mathbf{x} :S(\mathbf{x}) \geq \gamma} f(\mathbf{x};\mathbf{v}_0)
\end{align}

My questions:

1) Is the statement true?;
2) How could I improve the presentation of this proposition?;
3) What are the mildest possible conditions under which (1) will hold?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
kullbach_liebler said:
2) How could I improve the presentation of this proposition?;
I don't know what a statistical journal would want, but for the purpose of getting an answer on an internet forum, you could give a more verbal statement of the proposition before presenting it using only notation.

\begin{align}
\max_{\mathbf{v}}\sum_{\mathbf{x} :S(\mathbf{x}) \geq \gamma} f(\mathbf{x};\mathbf{v}) > \sum_{\mathbf{x} :S(\mathbf{x}) \geq \gamma} f(\mathbf{x};\mathbf{v}_0)
\end{align}

This appears to say the maximum value of a function ( which is a summation rather than an integration) when taken over a set is greater than the value of that function evaluated at the particular element ##v_o## in that set. Is that the general idea?
 
kullbach_liebler said:
1) Is the statement true?
Let ## \mathbf{v_max} ## be a value of ## \mathbf{v} ## which maximizes the sum. What happens when ## \mathbf{v_0} = \mathbf{v_max} ##?
 
First trick I learned this one a long time ago and have used it to entertain and amuse young kids. Ask your friend to write down a three-digit number without showing it to you. Then ask him or her to rearrange the digits to form a new three-digit number. After that, write whichever is the larger number above the other number, and then subtract the smaller from the larger, making sure that you don't see any of the numbers. Then ask the young "victim" to tell you any two of the digits of the...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
13K
Replies
1
Views
2K