# Why do people use $\mathcal{L}(\theta|x)$ for likelihood instead of $P(x|\theta)$?

According to the Wikipedia article Likelihood function, the likelihood function is defined as:

$$\mathcal{L}(\theta|x)=P(x|\theta),$$

with parameters $\theta$ and observed data $x$. This equals $p(x|\theta)$ or $p_\theta(x)$ depending on notation and whether $\theta$ is treated as random variable or fixed value.

The notation $\mathcal{L}(\theta|x)$ seems like an unnecessary abstraction to me. Is there any benefit to using $\mathcal{L}(\theta|x)$, or could one equivalently use $P(x|\theta)$? Why was $\mathcal{L}(\theta|x)$ introduced?

• In this context, it reminds us that the likelihood function is a function of $\theta$ with the data $x$ fixed. On the other hand, the joint distribution is a function of the data $x$ given $\theta$. – knrumsey Jun 11 '17 at 22:25
• @BigAgnes Thanks. Aren't observed variables fixed by definition, though? I'm also confused why we can call $p(x|\theta)$ a joint distribution. Isn't it a scalar since both $x$ and $\theta$ are fixed (assuming a Frequentist approach where $\theta$ is not a random variable). – danijar Jun 11 '17 at 22:34
• Closely related: stats.stackexchange.com/questions/224037/… – Tim Jun 12 '17 at 7:50

Likelihood is a function of $\theta$, given $x$, while $P$ is a function of $x$, given $\theta$.

• The likelihood function is not a density (or pmf) -- it doesn't integrate (/sum) to 1.

• Indeed, $\mathcal L$ may be continuous while $P$ is discrete (e.g. likelihood for a binomial parameter) or vice-versa (e.g. likelihood for an Erlang distribution with unit rate parameter but unspecified shape)

Imagine a bivariate function of a single potential observation $x$ (say a Poisson count) and a single parameter (e.g. $\lambda$) -- in this example discrete in $x$ and continuous in $\lambda$ -- then when you slice that bivariate function of $(x,\lambda)$ one way you get $p_\lambda(x)$ (each slice gives a different pmf) and when you slice it the other way you get $\mathcal L_x(\lambda)$ (each a different likelihood function).

(That bivariate function simply expresses the way $x$ and $\lambda$ are related via your model)

As soon as you specify $x$, you identify a particular $\mathcal L$, that we call the likelihood of that sample. It tells you about $\theta$ for that sample -- in particular what values had more or less likelihood of giving that sample.

Likelihood is a function that tell you about the relative chance (in that ratios of likelihoods can be thought of as ratios of probabilities of being in $x+dx$) that this value of $\theta$ could produce your data.

I agree with @Big Agnes. Here is what my professor taught in class: One way is to think of likelihood function $L(\theta | \mathbf{x})$ as a random function which depends on the data. Different data gives us different likelihood functions. So you may say conditioning on data. Given a realization of data, we want to find a $\hat{\theta}$ such that $L(\theta | \mathbf{x})$ is maximized or you can say $\hat{\theta}$ is most consistent with data. This is same to say we maximize "observed probability" $P (\mathbf{x} | \theta)$. We use $P(\mathbf{x} | \theta)$ to do calculation but it is different from $P(\mathbf{X} | \theta)$. Small $\mathbf{x}$ stands for observed values, while $\mathbf{X}$ stands for random variable. If you know $\theta$, then $P(\mathbf{x} | \theta)$ is the probability/ density of observing $\mathbf{x}$.

• Thanks. Could I equivalently use $P(x|\theta)$ (with lowercase x) instead of $\mathcal{L}(\theta|x)$? When we write ${max}_\theta{P(x|\theta)}$ it should be clear that $x$ is fixed and we're trying to find the most consistent $\theta$. Or does $\mathcal{L}(\theta|x)$ refer to something more abstract that has a different implementation in some situations? – danijar Jun 11 '17 at 22:52
• Also, could you elaborate why $\mathcal{L}(\theta|x)$ is a random function? It seems like it should be deterministic since both $x$ and $\theta$ are fixed (unless we give $\theta$ a Bayesian treatment and consider it a random variable). – danijar Jun 11 '17 at 22:54
• It is better to use $L(\theta | \mathbf{x})$ (actually likelihood is defined in such way), because it is a function of $\theta$ rather than $\mathbf{x}$. I don't know if $L(\theta | \mathbf{x})$ refers to something abstract. As for random function argument, it is just a way of thinking of likelihood function. The true $\theta$ is fixed, but we don't know it. That's why we estimate it. You plug in your observations into $L(\theta | \mathbf{x})$, and different data gives you different functions. So likelihood function depends on your observation, so it is like a function of random variables. – jwyao Jun 11 '17 at 23:09
• $L(\theta | \mathbf{x})$ looks like a posterior distribution but in fact, it isn't. There is no assumption on the (prior) distribution $\pi (\theta)$ of $\theta$. – jwyao Jun 11 '17 at 23:11
• So one could write $\mathcal{L}_x(\theta)$ to express this more clearly? (I know we shouldn't write this in practice since it's not common notation.) – danijar Jun 11 '17 at 23:17

In logist regression, for example, the objective function defaults to maximum likeihood. The likelihood is defined as $\mathcal{L}(\theta; x_1,...,x_n) = f(x_1,...,x_n; \theta)$, where f is a probability density function or probability massive function.

According to the Bayesian inference, $f(x_1,...,x_n; \theta) = \frac{f(\theta; x_1,...,x_n) * f(x_1,...,x_n)}{f(\theta)}$ holds, that is $likelihood = \frac{posterior * prior}{evidence}$. Notice that the maximum likelihood estimate treats the ratio of prior to evidence as a constant, which omits the prior beliefs, thus MLE is considered to be a frequentist technique(rather than Bayesian).

Hope this helps.

I think the other answers given by jwyao and Glen_b are quite good. I just wanted to add a very simple example which is too long for a comment.

Consider one observation $X$ from a Bernoulli distribution with probability of success $\theta$. With $\theta$ fixed (known or unknown), the distribution of $X$ is given by $p(X|\theta)$.

$$P(x|\theta) = \theta^x(1-\theta)^{1-x}$$

In other words, we know that $P(X=1) = 1 - P(X=0) = \theta$.

Alternatively, we could look treat the observation as fixed and view this as a function of $\theta$.

$$L(\theta | x) = \theta^x(1-\theta)^{1-x}$$

For example, in a maximum likelihood setting, we seek to find $\theta$ which maximizes the likelihood as a function of $\theta$. For example, if we observe $X = 1$, then the likelihood becomes

$$L(\theta | x) = \begin{cases} \theta, & \theta \in [0,1] \\ 0, & else \end{cases}$$

and we see that the MLE would be $\hat\theta = 1$.

Not sure that I've really added any value to the discussion, but I just wanted to give a simple example of the different ways of viewing the same function.