/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Q29E Consider a random sample \({{\rm... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

Consider a random sample \({{\rm{X}}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{,}}{{\rm{X}}_{\rm{2}}}.....{\rm{,}}{{\rm{X}}_{\rm{n}}}\) from the shifted exponential pdf

\({\rm{f(x;\lambda ,\theta ) = }}\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{{\rm{\lambda }}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{ - \lambda (x - \theta )}}}}}&{{\rm{x}} \ge {\rm{\theta }}}\\{\rm{0}}&{{\rm{ otherwise }}}\end{array}} \right.\). Taking \({\rm{\theta = 0}}\) gives the pdf of the exponential distribution considered previously (with positive density to the right of zero). An example of the shifted exponential distribution appeared in Example \({\rm{4}}{\rm{.5}}\), in which the variable of interest was time headway in traffic flow and \({\rm{\theta = }}{\rm{.5}}\) was the minimum possible time headway. a. Obtain the maximum likelihood estimators of \({\rm{\theta }}\) and \({\rm{\lambda }}\). b. If \({\rm{n = 10}}\) time headway observations are made, resulting in the values \({\rm{3}}{\rm{.11,}}{\rm{.64,2}}{\rm{.55,2}}{\rm{.20,5}}{\rm{.44,3}}{\rm{.42,10}}{\rm{.39,8}}{\rm{.93,17}}{\rm{.82}}\), and \({\rm{1}}{\rm{.30}}\), calculate the estimates of \({\rm{\theta }}\) and \({\rm{\lambda }}\).

Short Answer

Expert verified

(a) Maximum likelihood estimators are \({\rm{\hat \lambda = }}\frac{{\rm{n}}}{{\sum\limits_{{\rm{i = 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {\left( {{{\rm{X}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{ - \hat \theta }}} \right)} }}\) and \({\rm{\hat \theta = min(}}{{\rm{X}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{)}}\).

(b) The estimates are \({\rm{\hat \theta = 0}}{\rm{.64}}\) and \({\rm{\hat \lambda = 0}}{\rm{.202}}\).

Step by step solution

01

Define exponential function

A function that increases or decays at a rate proportional to its present value is called an exponential function.

02

Explanation

(a) Allow joint pdf or pmb for random variables \({{\rm{X}}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{,}}{{\rm{X}}_{\rm{2}}}{\rm{, \ldots ,}}{{\rm{X}}_{\rm{n}}}\).

\({\rm{f}}\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{2}}}{\rm{, \ldots ,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{n}}}{\rm{;}}{{\rm{\theta }}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{,}}{{\rm{\theta }}_{\rm{2}}}{\rm{, \ldots ,}}{{\rm{\theta }}_{\rm{m}}}} \right){\rm{, n,m}} \in {\rm{N}}\)

where \({{\rm{\theta }}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{,i = 1,2, \ldots ,m}}\) are unknown parameters. The likelihood function is defined as a function of parameters \({{\rm{\theta }}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{,i = 1,2, \ldots ,m}}\) where function f is a function of parameter. The maximum likelihood estimates (mle's), or values \(\widehat {{{\rm{\theta }}_{\rm{i}}}}\) for which the likelihood function is maximised, are the maximum likelihood estimates,

\({\rm{f}}\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{2}}}{\rm{, \ldots ,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{n}}}{\rm{;}}{{{\rm{\hat \theta }}}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{,}}{{{\rm{\hat \theta }}}_{\rm{2}}}{\rm{, \ldots ,}}{{{\rm{\hat \theta }}}_{\rm{m}}}} \right) \ge {\rm{f}}\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{2}}}{\rm{, \ldots ,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{n}}}{\rm{;}}{{\rm{\theta }}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{,}}{{\rm{\theta }}_{\rm{2}}}{\rm{, \ldots ,}}{{\rm{\theta }}_{\rm{m}}}} \right)\)

As,\({\rm{i = 1,2, \ldots ,m}}\)for every\({{\rm{\theta }}_{\rm{i}}}\). Maximum likelihood estimators are derived by replacing\({{\rm{X}}_{\rm{i}}}\)with\({{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}\).

Because of the independence, the likelihood function becomes,

\(\begin{array}{c}{\rm{f}}\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{x}}}{\rm{, \ldots ,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{n}}}{\rm{;\lambda ,\theta }}} \right){\rm{ = \lambda }}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{ - \lambda }}\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{ - \theta }}} \right)}}{\rm{ \times \lambda }}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{ - \lambda }}\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{2}}}{\rm{ - \theta }}} \right)}}{\rm{ \times \ldots \times \lambda }}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{ - \lambda }}\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{n}}}{\rm{ - \theta }}} \right)}}\\{\rm{ = }}{{\rm{\lambda }}^{\rm{n}}}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{ - \lambda }}\sum\limits_{{\rm{i - 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{ - \theta }}} \right)} }}\end{array}\)

Look at the log likelihood function to determine the maximum.

\(\begin{array}{c}{\rm{lnf}}\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{x}}}{\rm{, \ldots ,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{n}}}{\rm{;\lambda ,\theta }}} \right){\rm{ = ln}}\left( {{{\rm{\lambda }}^{\rm{n}}}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{ - \lambda }}\sum\limits_{{\rm{i - 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{ - \theta }}} \right)} }}} \right)\\{\rm{ = nln\lambda - \lambda }}\sum\limits_{{\rm{i = 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{ - \theta }}} \right)} \end{array}\)

03

Evaluating the maximum likelihood estimators

The maximum likelihood estimator is generated by taking the derivative of the log likelihood function in regard to\({\rm{\lambda }}\)and equating it to\({\rm{0}}\).

As a result, the derivative,

\(\begin{array}{c}\frac{{\rm{d}}}{{{\rm{d\theta }}}}{\rm{f}}\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{x}}}{\rm{, \ldots ,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{n}}}{\rm{;\lambda ,\theta }}} \right){\rm{ = }}\frac{{\rm{d}}}{{{\rm{d\lambda }}}}\left( {{\rm{nln\lambda - \lambda }}\sum\limits_{{\rm{i = 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{ - \theta }}} \right)} } \right)\\{\rm{ = n}}\frac{{\rm{1}}}{{\rm{\lambda }}}{\rm{ - }}\sum\limits_{{\rm{i = 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{ - \theta }}} \right)} \end{array}\)

As a result, solving equation provides the maximum likelihood estimator \({\rm{\hat \lambda }}\).

\(\begin{array}{c}{\rm{n}}\frac{{\rm{1}}}{{{\rm{\hat \lambda }}}}{\rm{ - }}\sum\limits_{{\rm{i = 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{ - \hat \theta }}} \right)} {\rm{ = 0}}\\\frac{{\rm{1}}}{{{\rm{\hat \lambda }}}}{\rm{ = }}\frac{{\rm{1}}}{{\rm{n}}}\sum\limits_{{\rm{i = 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{ - \hat \theta }}} \right)} \end{array}\)

For\({\rm{\hat \lambda }}\). Hence, the maximum likelihood estimator is,

\({\rm{\hat \lambda = }}\frac{{\rm{n}}}{{\sum\limits_{{\rm{i = 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {\left( {{{\rm{X}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{ - \hat \theta }}} \right)} }}\)

The maximum likelihood estimator of parameter\({\rm{\theta }}\)is shown as\({\rm{\hat \theta }}\), with the estimator calculated as follows.

To find the maximum in terms\({\rm{\theta }}\)of the likelihood function,

\({{\rm{\lambda }}^{\rm{n}}}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{ - \lambda }}\sum\limits_{{\rm{i - 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{ - \theta }}} \right)} }}{\rm{ = }}{{\rm{\lambda }}^{\rm{n}}}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{ - \lambda }}\sum\limits_{{\rm{i - 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}} }}{\rm{ \times }}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{ - n\lambda \theta }}}}{\rm{ }}\)

it's worth noting that\({\rm{\theta }}\)only appears in the term

\({{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{ - n\lambda \theta }}}}\)

Furthermore, the likelihood function is defined only for values where all\({{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}\); are greater or equal to\({\rm{\theta }}\), and where the minimum value of all\({{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}\); is greater or equal to\({\rm{\theta }}\).

Because\({\rm{\theta }}\)only exists in the specified term, and the exponent\({\rm{n\lambda \theta }}\)is positive, and the likelihood function is zero for\({\rm{\theta }}\)bigger than\({\rm{min}}\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}} \right)\), the highest value is attained when

\({\rm{\hat \theta = min(}}{{\rm{X}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{)}}\)

04

Explanation

(b) The minimum values - the maximum likelihood estimate of \({\rm{\theta }}\) is calculated using available data.

\({\rm{\hat \theta = 0}}{\rm{.64}}\)

The fact that\({\rm{n = 10}}\)and\({\rm{\hat \theta = 0}}{\rm{.64}}\),

\(\sum\limits_{{\rm{i = 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}} {\rm{ = 3}}{\rm{.11 + 0}}{\rm{.64 + \ldots + 1}}{\rm{.3 = 55}}{\rm{.8}}\)

The maximum likelihood estimates of\({\rm{\lambda }}\)is,

\(\begin{array}{c}{\rm{\hat \lambda = }}\frac{{\rm{n}}}{{\sum\limits_{{\rm{i = 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {\left( {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}{\rm{ - \hat \theta }}} \right)} }}\\{\rm{ = }}\frac{{\rm{n}}}{{\sum\limits_{{\rm{i = 1}}}^{\rm{n}} {{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{i}}}} {\rm{ - n\hat \theta }}}}\\{\rm{ = }}\frac{{{\rm{10}}}}{{{\rm{55}}{\rm{.8 - 6}}{\rm{.4}}}}\\{\rm{ = 0}}{\rm{.202}}\end{array}\)

Therefore, \({\rm{\hat \lambda = 0}}{\rm{.202}}\) and \({\rm{\hat \theta = 0}}{\rm{.64}}\).

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Let\({\rm{X}}\)denote the proportion of allotted time that a randomly selected student spends working on a certain aptitude test. Suppose the pdf of\({\rm{X}}\)is

\({\rm{f(x;\theta ) = }}\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{{\rm{(\theta + 1)}}{{\rm{x}}^{\rm{\theta }}}}&{{\rm{0£ x£ 1}}}\\{\rm{0}}&{{\rm{ otherwise }}}\end{array}} \right.\)

where\({\rm{ - 1 < \theta }}\). A random sample of ten students yields data\({{\rm{x}}_{\rm{1}}}{\rm{ = }}{\rm{.92,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{2}}}{\rm{ = }}{\rm{.79,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{3}}}{\rm{ = }}{\rm{.90,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{4}}}{\rm{ = }}{\rm{.65,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{5}}}{\rm{ = }}{\rm{.86}}\),\({{\rm{x}}_{\rm{6}}}{\rm{ = }}{\rm{.47,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{7}}}{\rm{ = }}{\rm{.73,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{8}}}{\rm{ = }}{\rm{.97,}}{{\rm{x}}_{\rm{9}}}{\rm{ = }}{\rm{.94,}}{{\rm{x}}_{{\rm{10}}}}{\rm{ = }}{\rm{.77}}\).

a. Use the method of moments to obtain an estimator of\({\rm{\theta }}\), and then compute the estimate for this data.

b. Obtain the maximum likelihood estimator of\({\rm{\theta }}\), and then compute the estimate for the given data.

We defined a negative binomial\({\rm{rv}}\)as the number of failures that occur before the\({\rm{rth}}\)success in a sequence of independent and identical success/failure trials. The probability mass function (\({\rm{pmf}}\)) of\({\rm{X}}\)is\({\rm{nb(x,r,p) = }}\)\(\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{{\rm{x + r - 1}}}\\{\rm{x}}\end{array}} \right){{\rm{p}}^{\rm{r}}}{{\rm{(1 - p)}}^{\rm{x}}}\quad {\rm{x = 0,1,2, \ldots }}\)

a. Suppose that. Show that\({\rm{\hat p = (r - 1)/(X + r - 1)}}\)is an unbiased estimator for\({\rm{p}}\). (Hint: Write out\({\rm{E(\hat p)}}\)and cancel\({\rm{x + r - 1}}\)inside the sum.)

b. A reporter wishing to interview five individuals who support a certain candidate begins asking people whether\({\rm{(S)}}\)or not\({\rm{(F)}}\)they support the candidate. If the sequence of responses is SFFSFFFSSS, estimate\({\rm{p = }}\)the true proportion who support the candidate.

A vehicle with a particular defect in its emission control system is taken to a succession of randomly selected mechanics until\({\rm{r = 3}}\)of them have correctly diagnosed the problem. Suppose that this requires diagnoses by\({\rm{20}}\)different mechanics (so there were\({\rm{17}}\)incorrect diagnoses). Let\({\rm{p = P}}\)(correct diagnosis), so\({\rm{p}}\)is the proportion of all mechanics who would correctly diagnose the problem. What is the mle of\({\rm{p}}\)? Is it the same as the mle if a random sample of\({\rm{20}}\)mechanics results in\({\rm{3}}\)correct diagnoses? Explain. How does the mle compare to the estimate resulting from the use of the unbiased estimator?

At time \({\rm{t = 0, 20}}\) identical components are tested. The lifetime distribution of each is exponential with parameter \({\rm{\lambda }}\). The experimenter then leaves the test facility unmonitored. On his return \({\rm{24}}\) hours later, the experimenter immediately terminates the test after noticing that \({\rm{y = 15}}\) of the \({\rm{20}}\) components are still in operation (so \({\rm{5}}\) have failed). Derive the mle of \({\rm{\lambda }}\). (Hint: Let \({\rm{Y = }}\) the number that survive \({\rm{24}}\) hours. Then \({\rm{Y}} \sim {\rm{Bin(n,p)}}\). What is the mle of \({\rm{p}}\)? Now notice that \({\rm{p = P(}}{{\rm{X}}_{\rm{i}}} \ge {\rm{24)}}\), where \({{\rm{X}}_{\rm{i}}}\) is exponentially distributed. This relates \({\rm{\lambda }}\) to \({\rm{p}}\), so the former can be estimated once the latter has been.)

At time \({\rm{t = 0}}\), there is one individual alive in a certain population. A pure birth process then unfolds as follows. The time until the first birth is exponentially distributed with parameter \({\rm{\lambda }}\). After the first birth, there are two individuals alive. The time until the first gives birth again is exponential with parameter \({\rm{\lambda }}\), and similarly for the second individual. Therefore, the time until the next birth is the minimum of two exponential (\({\rm{\lambda }}\)) variables, which is exponential with parameter \({\rm{2\lambda }}\). Similarly, once the second birth has occurred, there are three individuals alive, so the time until the next birth is an exponential \({\rm{rv}}\) with parameter \({\rm{3\lambda }}\), and so on (the memoryless property of the exponential distribution is being used here). Suppose the process is observed until the sixth birth has occurred and the successive birth times are \({\rm{25}}{\rm{.2,41}}{\rm{.7,51}}{\rm{.2,55}}{\rm{.5,59}}{\rm{.5,61}}{\rm{.8}}\) (from which you should calculate the times between successive births). Derive the mle of l. (Hint: The likelihood is a product of exponential terms.)

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.