1
$\begingroup$

Let $X_1,X_2,\ldots, X_{n_1}$ be IID with PDF $f(x-\theta) $, for $-\infty<x<\infty$ and $-\infty<\theta<\infty$. Denote the CDF of $X_i$ by $F(x-\theta)$. Let $Z_1,Z_2, \ldots, Z_{n_2}$ denote the censored observations. For these observations we only know that $Z_j >a $ for some $a$ that is known and that the $Z_j$s are independent of the $X_i$s.

Then the "observed" and "complete" , that is for both the observed and the censored data, likelihoods are given by:

$$L(\theta| \mathbf{x} )= [1-F(a-\theta)]^{n_2} \prod_{i=1}^{n_1} f(x_i -\theta) $$

$$ L( \theta |\mathbf{x,z})=\prod^{n_1}_{i=1}f(x_i -\theta) \prod_{i=1}^{n_2}f(z_i-\theta) $$

My question is why do the likelihoods take that form? I believe for the $Z_j$s we have a left censoring as they only take greater than $a$ values, as opposed to the $X_is$ that are not restricted in that way. We also know that they are mutually independent.

Could it be that the "observed" likelihood is obtained after using that independence? We have $n_2$ observations greater than $a$, times the joint density of the $X_i$s, right?.

A little more explanation on these two equations would go a long way.

Thank you in advance.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do not understand the questions in your comment. By definition, the likelihood of $(x,z)$ is the probability of observing $(x,z)$ as a function of $\theta$. The information you give in your first paragraph more or less stipulates how to find the probability of any individual $x_i$ or $z_j$ and the independence assumption implies those probabilities are multiplied: that's all that's going on here. For an example, you might like to read over my answer at stats.stackexchange.com/a/49456/919. $\endgroup$ – whuber Jan 9 '14 at 20:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @whuber I guess I do not understand why we have the probability that $Z$ is greater than $a$ in the likelihood of $x$. I am having trouble understanding the presence of the first term in the product, based on the information I have given. $\endgroup$ – JohnK Jan 9 '14 at 20:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The first equation makes no sense. Before "becoming" a likelihood, it was a joint density, $f(\mathbf x \mid \theta) = \prod_{i=1}^{n_1} f(x_i -\theta)$. The $\mathbf z$'s must somehow appear in the argument of $L()$ in order for anything related to them to be included in the RHS. $\endgroup$ – Alecos Papadopoulos Jan 9 '14 at 20:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Alecos although the description of notation is a little off in the post, its meaning is clear: to understand the censoring, we contemplate the (hypothetical) uncensored data (giving the second likelihood, where the $z_i$ are uncensored observations governed by the distribution $\theta$). After censoring, the likelihood equals the first expression. The indexing and naming of variables may be a little problematic here; I prefer to use unique indexes for the variables, as illustrated at stats.stackexchange.com/a/49456, because it helps avoid confusion. $\endgroup$ – whuber Jan 9 '14 at 21:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ John, I just did, and you have misinterpreted the book (or you have transcribed the information here in a way that is confusing, at least to me -and I am not referring to the likelihoods). Later I will write an answer on the issue. (cc @whuber) $\endgroup$ – Alecos Papadopoulos Jan 9 '14 at 21:21
5
$\begingroup$

In the case of your first equation:

$$L(\theta| \mathbf{x} )= [1-F(a-\theta)]^{n_2} \prod_{i=1}^{n_1} f(x_i -\theta) $$

it's assumed you only observe the $n_1$ values of $\mathbf{x}$, but that you also know there were $n_2$ observations censored at $a$. It might have been better for the authors to have written the left hand side as $L(\theta | \mathbf{x}, n_2, a)$ for clarity.

If you didn't know anything about the censored observations, including how many of them there were, the likelihood function would then be a function solely of the $\mathbf{x}$, by necessity. You'd then get:

$$L(\theta| \mathbf{x} )=\prod_{i=1}^{n_1} f(x_i -\theta) $$

which is what I suspect you expected to see for $L(\theta | \mathbf{x})$.

In the case of your second equation:

$$L( \theta |\mathbf{x,z})=\prod^{n_1}_{i=1}f(x_i -\theta) \prod_{i=1}^{n_2}f(z_i-\theta) $$

it's assumed that you are observing all the $\mathbf{z}$ values, as in, none of them are censored. Hence the likelihood function is the product of the likelihood functions for the $\mathbf{x}$ and the $\mathbf{z}$, and the label "complete data log likelihood".

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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