I'm working through chapter 9 in Bishop (Mixture models and EM) and I'm stuck on equation 9.29. For those without the book:
Bishop states that the log likelihood for a latent variable model with
- data, $X$
- latent variables, $Z$
- latent model parameters $\theta$
is given by:
$$ ln \; p(\textbf{X}| \boldsymbol{\theta}) = ln \; \left\{ \sum_{\textbf{Z}} p(\textbf{X,Z}|\boldsymbol{\theta} ) \right\} \: \: (1) $$
Shouldn't the log likelihood be over the data as well as the latent variables? Every example I've seen of a likelihood is over the data. If this is the case shouldn't the likelihood be:
$$ p(\textbf{X}| \boldsymbol{\theta}) = \prod_{ \textbf{x} \in \textbf{X}} \sum_{\textbf{Z}} p(\textbf{x,Z}|\boldsymbol{\theta} ) \: \: (2) $$
(multiplying over the data)
$$ ln \: p(\textbf{X}| \boldsymbol{\theta}) = \sum_{ \textbf{x} \in \textbf{X} } ln \left\{ \sum_{\textbf{Z}} p(\textbf{x,Z}|\boldsymbol{\theta} ) \right\} \: \: (3) $$
where $\textbf{x}$ is one observation in $\textbf{X}$
It strikes me that (1) is the equivalent of equation $9.7$ in Bishop (p430)
$$ p(\textbf{x}) = \sum_{k=1}^K \pi_k {N}(\textbf{x}| \boldsymbol{\mu} , \boldsymbol{\sigma}) \: \: (4)$$
Which is not described as a likelihood. When (4) is turned into a likelihood later on (equation 9.14), it is given as:
$$ ln\; p(X|\pi,\mu,\Sigma) = \sum_{n=1}^{N} ln \left\{ \sum_{k=1}^K \pi_k N(x_n|\mu_k,\Sigma_k) \right\} \: \: (5) $$
where Bishop sums over the latent variable $Z$ and the observations $x$.Which looks an awful lot like my attempt at the log likelihood (3)
My questions:
Surely if the progression from (4) to (5) holds shouldn't the log likelihood be (3) rather than (1) ?
Did bishop just miss out the sum over the data?