3
$\begingroup$

Given a non-normal distribution (a table) and a specific sample, how do I find the $MLE$ of the mean using the given sample?

To be more specific I was given the following distribution:

$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \text{Number of Weeks} & 1 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline Prob. & 2\theta & 3\theta & 1-5\theta \\ \hline \end{array}$$

And the sample says that for 5 different people the results were: $1,2,3,2,3$ weeks. I know that $\bar{x} = \frac{11}{5}$ and that $E(x) = 1\cdot2\theta + 2\cdot3\theta + 3\cdot(1-5\theta) = 8\theta -15\theta +3 = -7\theta + 3$. I also know that $E(\bar{x}) = E(x)$.

What I don't know is how do I estimate the MLE using the above information.

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

Hint: Given this data, the likelihood is $$\mathcal{L}(\theta |x) \propto Pr(X|\theta) = (2\theta)^1 (3\theta)^2 (1-5\theta)^2 $$

Now find the $\theta$ which maximises this, with the constraint that $2\theta$, $3\theta$ and $(1-5\theta)$ must be all be non-negative as they are probabilities.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Quaker In your question, you calculate the mean in terms of $\theta$. And MLE's have a property called functional invariance. $\endgroup$ – Gregor Jan 28 '14 at 20:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @shujaa I was asked to find the MLE of $\Theta$ in one of the former tasks, in this one I was asked to find the MLE of the mean not the parameter. There is a possibility that the question is not written properly and I would love to know if this is the case. $\endgroup$ – Quaker Jan 28 '14 at 20:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Quaker The mean is $\phi(\theta)$ for a function $\phi$ given by yourself in your question. That's why shujaa points out the functional invariance property. $\endgroup$ – Stéphane Laurent Jan 28 '14 at 20:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (+1: very clear). Quaker, another option to consider--to help with the insight--is to rewrite the likelihood directly in terms of the mean, which you note equals $3-7\theta$. What the others are saying is, it doesn't matter whether you obtain the MLE for $\theta$ or for the mean, because the MLE of the mean must equal $3$ minus $7$ times the MLE of $\theta$. (Such nice relationships among estimators do not hold for most other estimation procedures.) $\endgroup$ – whuber Jan 28 '14 at 20:45
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Yes. Part of this is obvious and part is subtle. The obvious thing is that whatever value of $\theta$ maximizes the likelihood will correspond to the value of $3-7\theta$ that maximizes the likelihood, because the function $\theta\to 3-7\theta$ is one-to-one. You're not changing the likelihood; you're just changing how you express the parameter on which it depends--kind of like converting between pounds and kilos. The subtle parts in real applications are (1) you better check that the correspondence really is one-to-one and (2) confidence intervals may change in more complicated ways. $\endgroup$ – whuber Jan 28 '14 at 21:24

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.