1
$\begingroup$

Assume that we have two independent Poisson random variables, $X_1 \sim Poi(\lambda)$ and $X_2 \sim Poi(\lambda\psi)$. My question regards inference about $\psi$, which could be seen as the relative change in Poisson intensity from one time period to another. I especially want the MLE of $\psi$. What I have been trying to do is to get the joint likelihood and marginalize $\lambda$, but I haven't been successful. Instead I always end up with an expression where I would have to know $\lambda$ to be able to get the MLE of $\psi$. Hope someone here has a good idea of how to approach this.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I can't guarantee that I'll have time to answer this, but are $X_1$ and $X_2$ independent? or do they have some sort of non-independent joint density? $\endgroup$ Commented May 8, 2017 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ They are independent, thanks for pointing that out. I've edited my question now so that is clear. $\endgroup$
    – infstat
    Commented May 8, 2017 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ You have data of $X_1$ and $X_2$? I would think $X_1$ constrains $\lambda$ independent of $X_2$. And $X_2$ can only constrain the $\lambda\psi$ product, with no ability to distinguish the two. What logically would constrain $\psi$ if you have no constraint on $\lambda$? (e.g. if $X_1$ was not observed) $\endgroup$
    – GeoMatt22
    Commented May 8, 2017 at 23:46

3 Answers 3

1
$\begingroup$

Let $L(\lambda, \psi)$ be the likelihood function or joint probability density function. (I think you already got it.)

Get $\frac{\partial \log(L(\lambda, \psi))}{\partial \lambda}$ and $\frac{\partial \log(L(\lambda, \psi))}{\partial \psi}$

Set two partial derivatives to zero. Get the solution of $\lambda$ and $ \psi$ in term of $X_1$ and $X_2$. That is your answer.

If the analytical form of the solution is unavailable, you need to use computer software to get the numerical solutions.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

A numerical solution to the multiplicative parameter is possible, indeed. Here is a simple solution simulated in R:

    > set.seed(4242)
    > 
    > lambda <- runif(1, min = 0, max = 10)
    > mu <- runif(1, min = 0, max = 10)
    > 
    > lambda
    [1] 9.861143
    > 
    > mu 
    [1] 3.477161
    > 
    > x <- rpois(n = 1000, lambda = lambda)
    > y <- rpois(n = 1000, lambda = mu*lambda)
    > 
    > ll <- function(lambda,mu) {
    +   -sum(dpois(x = x, lambda = lambda)*dpois(x = y, lambda = lambda*mu))
    + }
    > 
    > m <- stats4::mle(ll, start = list(lambda = 5 , mu = 5), method = "L-BFGS-B",
    +                lower = c(0.001, .001))
    > ab <- stats4::coef(m)
    > ab
      lambda       mu 
    9.183705 3.674439 
$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

This is the solution I've reached, based on the answer from a_statistician:

The joint density is given by $$f_{X_1},_{X_2}(x_1, x_2)=e^{-\lambda} e^{-(1+\psi)}\lambda^{x_1+x_2}\psi^{x_2}/x_1!x_2!$$ and the log-likelihood is given by $$l(\lambda, \psi)=-n\lambda-n(1+\psi)+\ln\lambda\sum(x_{i1}+x_{i2})+\ln\psi\sum x_{i2}-\ln(\prod x_{i1}!x_{i2}!).$$ The partial derivative of $l(\lambda, \psi)$ with respect to $\psi$ is $-n+\frac {\sum x_{i2}}\psi$. Setting this equal to zero and solving for $\psi$ yields the MLE of $\psi$: $$\hat\psi=\frac {\sum x_{i2}}n.$$

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ What does $n$ mean? $\endgroup$
    – user158565
    Commented May 10, 2017 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ I use it to denote the sample size of the sample from the joint distribution of $X_1$ and $X_2$. A very reasonable question, since thinking about it, I feel that my solution is maybe not intuitive? $\endgroup$
    – infstat
    Commented May 12, 2017 at 8:48
  • $\begingroup$ I do not think there are more than one observation. There are only two numbers $X_1$ and X_2$. $\endgroup$
    – user158565
    Commented May 12, 2017 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ Okey that might be true, makes me a bit confused. How would you write the likelihood function? $\endgroup$
    – infstat
    Commented May 17, 2017 at 9:13
  • $\begingroup$ "How would you write the likelihood function?" You already did it by your first equation. $\endgroup$
    – user158565
    Commented May 17, 2017 at 13:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.