Issue about the percentage of falling of height of Likelihood

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the intersection of the 1 sigma edges of a joint distribution with the associated Likelihood in a 2D contour plot. Participants explore the implications of chi-squared distributions and confidence levels in relation to the height at which these intersections occur, focusing on theoretical and mathematical interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a figure illustrating the joint distribution and expresses confusion about the expected height at which the 1 sigma edge intersects the Likelihood, suggesting it should be around 25%-30% of the maximum height.
  • Another participant proposes that the intersection should occur at roughly 70% of the maximum height, justifying this with a chi-squared distribution analysis.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of 1- and 2-tailed tests on the interpretation of likelihood and confidence levels.
  • There is mention of the significance of having two degrees of freedom and how this affects the likelihood range covered by the 1 sigma contour.
  • One participant questions the justification for a "loss" of likelihood of approximately 30% when projecting from 2D contours to 1D Likelihood.
  • Another participant confirms their calculations for the chi-squared distribution at 1 C.L., yielding a height of approximately 0.32 from the maximum height, seeking agreement on this interpretation.
  • A later post asks for clarification on whether the vertical bar in the initial figure accurately represents the expected intersection height of roughly 30% of the maximum Likelihood.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the expected height of intersection between the 1 sigma edge and the Likelihood, with no consensus reached on the correct interpretation or value. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact percentage of likelihood loss and its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific mathematical formulations and properties of chi-squared distributions, but there are unresolved assumptions regarding the interpretation of confidence levels and their application to the joint distribution and Likelihood projections.

fab13
Messages
300
Reaction score
7
I have currently an issue about the height at which the projection of 1 sigma edges in 2D contour should intersect the associated Likelihood.

Here a figure to illustrate my issue :

SXB1K.png
At bottom left is represented the joint distribution (shaded blue = contours at 2 sigma (95% C.L) and classic blue = contours at 1 sigma (68% C.L) of the 2 parameters considered (w0 and wa).
On the top is represented the normalized Likelihood of w0 parameter.

In all contours (with all triplot representing other parameters) and in all tripltot of thesis documents I have seen, the projection from the edge of 1 sigma contours on the likelihood intersects the likelihood at a height relatively low (on my scheme, roughly at 25%-30%, at first sight, of the maximum height of the likelihood).

However, one tells me that Likelihood should be intersected by the 1 sigma edge of joint distribution at roughly 70% of the maximum height of Likelihood (green bar and text on my figure)

For this, he justifies like this :

Concerning $$\Delta \chi^{2}$$, distribution function is a `\chi^2` law with 2 freedom degrees ; pdf is written as :

$$ f(\Delta\chi^{2})=\dfrac{1}{2} e^{-\dfrac{\Delta\chi^{2}}{2}} $$

So for a fixed `confidence level C.L`, we have :

$$1-CL= \int_{\Delta\chi^{2}_{CL}}^{+\infty}\dfrac{1}{2}e^{-\dfrac{\Delta\chi^{2}}{2}}\text{d}\chi^{2}$$

`$$=e^{-\dfrac{\Delta\chi_{CL}^{2}}{2}}` $$

and taking `CL=0.68`, we get :

$$ \Delta \chi ^{2}_{CL}=-2\ln(1-CL) $$

$$ \Delta \chi^{2}_{CL}=2.28 $$

And Finally, he concludes by saying that Maximum of Likelihood shoud fall from about 30% , i.e :

$$ e^{-\dfrac{(2.3)^2}{2}} = 0.31 $$

So I don't know why I get a falling of about 70% ~ (1-0.31) and not only of 31% ~ 0.3 like one says on my figure (red line on my figure above).

ps1 : I have seen an ineresting remark on https://docs.scipy.org/doc//numpy-1.10.4/reference/generated/numpy.random.normal.html which suggests a maximum at 60.7% of the max, which is not really what I expect (~ 70%).

ps2 : I have also found another interesting page, maybe more important since it talks about multivariate distribution :

https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.stats.multivariate_normal.html

and here too, a justification of my reasoning :

2O8xi.jpg


If someone could explain me the trick to get an intersection at 70% of the maximal height of normalized Likelihood ...

Any help is welcome. [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SXB1K.png
[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2O8xi.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't this just the difference between a 1- and 2-tailed test?
 
The 2 degrees of freedom are the key point here. "1 sigma" covers a larger likelihood range. There are two distributions where you can (and expect to) "lose" likelihood relative to the peak. The outer edge might be less likely in one distribution but it's then the peak of the other distribution (conditional if they are correlated).
 
So, it is impossible to justify this "lose" lileklihood of ~ 30% with 1C.L of 2D contours ? if yes, what is expected as percentage of "losing" factor if I take the projection from the 1 C.L of 2D contours on 1D Likelihood ?

Thanks
 
I don't understand what you are asking, but check the chi2 distribution.
 
yes, I did above a small calculus which represents the ##\Delta\chi2## for 2 degrees of freedom when we are at 1 C.L. It gives a ##\Delta\chi2 = 2.28##.

Such way that I have a height of ##exp(-\Delta\chi2/2) = 0.3198##. It would correspond to a falling of ~ 0.32 from the maximal height, do you agree ?

Otherwise, which value (height) is expected for intersection when I project the 1 C.L 2D contours on the Likelihood (like for example on my figure at the beginning of the post) ?

Best regards
 
Finally, is thre anyone who tells me if, on my initial top figure of the post, the vertical bar represents what is expected, i.e only roughly 30% of the max height of Likelihood ?

Any advise is welcome
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K