Actually, I'm working on a Statistical Genetics Article (Schaid and al,2010) in a retrospective likelihood context. In the article, authors present some result about conditional likelihood but I can't find its, specifically the Fisher Information result.

I have the model of this form:
$\frac{\exp^{\beta*xd}*P(G)}{\sum_{G*} \exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)}$

I calculate the score function from the log-likelihood which is equal to:

$loglik = \log(P(G)) +\beta*xd - log(\sum_{G^*} \exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*))$

$U(\beta) = xd - \frac{\sum_{G*} xd^*\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)}{\sum_{G*}\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)}$

I find for the second derivative this following expression:

$ \frac{\delta^2}{\delta²\beta}loglik = \frac{\sum_{G^*}xd*^2*\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)\sum_{G^*}\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*) - \sum_{G^*}xd^*\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)\sum_{G^*}xd^*\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*) }{(\sum_{G^*}\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*))^2}$

$= \frac{\sum_{G^*}xd*^2*\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)}{\sum_{G^*}\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)}- (\frac{\sum_{G*} xd^*\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)}{\sum_{G*}\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)})^2$

However authors find $\sum_{G^*}Q(G_{G^*},\beta)(xd^* - \mu(\beta))^2$ with $Q(G_{G^*},\beta) = \frac{\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)}{\sum_{G^*}\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)}$ and $\mu(\beta) = \frac{\sum_{G*} xd^*\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)}{\sum_{G*}\exp^{\beta*xd^*}*P(G^*)}$

I'm pretty sure they do some algreba but I don't see what precisely.


1 Answer 1


Finally the result is pretty simple. All you need to do is to consider the second derivative of log-likelihood as a weighted variance.

Let define the expectation as $\mu(\beta)$ and the weigth as $Q(G^*,\beta)$

We can rewrite the fisher Information as:

$xd*^2Q(G^*,\beta) - \mu(\beta)^2$

This result can be considered as a weighted variance of the form:

$$ = \sum_{G^*} Q(G^*,\beta)xd*^2 - 2 \sum_{G^*} xd*Q(G^*,\beta)\mu(\beta) + \sum_{G^*}Q(G^*,\beta)\mu(\beta)^2 $$
$$= \sum_{G^*} Q(G^*,\beta)xd*^2 - 2\mu(\beta)^2 + \mu(\beta)^2 $$
$$= \sum_{G^*}xd*^2Q(G^*,\beta) - \mu(\beta)^2 $$

The trick is not pretty obvious but it's really intuitive as notation.


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.