Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

MLE estimator for mean always equal to the mean?

  1. Sep 2, 2015 #1
    Suppose you have a distribution ##p(x, \mu)##.
    You take a sample of n points ## (x_{1}...x_{n})## from independent and identical distributions of ##p(x, \mu)##.

    The maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) for the mean ## \mu ## is the value of ## \mu ## that maximizes the joint distribution ## \prod^{n}_{i = 1} p(x_{i},\mu) ##. It is easy to find using calculus.

    The sample mean is simply ## \frac{(x_{1}+x_{2}+...+x_{n})}{n} ##.
    It turns out that for Gaussian, Poisson, and Bernoulli distributions, the MLE estimator for the mean equals the sample mean. I was curious if this is the case for ALL distributions? If so, how would I prove this? If not, what is one distribution for which this isn't the case?

    Thanks!

    BiP
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 2, 2015 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    I would start by trying some stuff with the uniform distribution.
     
  4. Sep 3, 2015 #3

    Stephen Tashi

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Consider a family of discrete densities defined by a parameter N that have the form p(X=N) = 0.5 p(X = N+1)= 0.5.

    Suppose we take 3 independent samples from such a distribution and get {2,2,2}.
     
  5. Sep 4, 2015 #4

    gill1109

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You have noticed something special about so-called "exponential families". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_family Many famous families of distributions are exponential families but there are also plenty of famous families of distributions which aren't.
     
  6. Sep 5, 2015 #5

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Consider the distribution with pdf given by ##\frac 1 {\pi(1+x^2)}## for ##x \in \mathbb R##. This is the Cauchy distribution. Given a finite sample drawn from this distribution, you certainly can calculate ##\frac{\sum x_i} n##, but this has no meaning because this distribution does not have a mean. This is a pathological distribution. The mean and variance are undefined (do the integrals).
     
  7. Sep 5, 2015 #6

    gill1109

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    My example would be the Laplace distribution aka double exponential (warning: there are more distributions with the same name) with pdf given by exp(-|x - mu|)/2. The mean is well-defined and it's mu. The mle based on a sample of size n is the median (the middle observation if n is odd, and anything between the two middle observations if n is even).

    To bring the Cauchy distribution into the story, we should make it a one-parameter distribution with pdf proportional to 1 /(1 + (x - mu)^2). Now we have a family of distributions depending on mu. The parameter mu is the centre of symmetry of these distributions but indeed they do not have an expectation value (nor a variance). But the mle, based on a sample of size n from this distribution, is for large n the best you can possibly do. You must look out for local maxima then. There is a theorem that for large n there will be one "good" global maximum of the likelihood, and a Poisson (1) distributed number of "bad" local maxima.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: MLE estimator for mean always equal to the mean?
Loading...