How is it possible for both the likelihood and log-likelihood to be asymptotically normal?
$begingroup$
I was trying to understand asymptotic normality of the posterior better, and came across a confusing point. So let's say we have a likelihood, $L(theta | X) = Pi_{i=1}^n p(X_i | theta)$, so the log-likelihood is $J(theta) = log L = Sigma_{i=1}^n log(p(X_i | theta))$.
J is itself a sum of random variables, so the log-likelihood J will be asymptotically normal, by the central limit theorem.
But we can also show the likelihood is asymptotically normal through a Taylor expansion. Let $hat{theta}$ be the mle. So we have
$J(theta) = J(hat{theta}) + nabla J cdot (theta-hat{theta}) + frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})H(theta-hat{theta})$. Since $hat{theta}$ is the mle, we know $nabla J = 0$, and $I(theta)=-H$ so this reduces to
(1) $J(theta) = log(L) = J(hat{theta}) - frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})I(theta)(theta-hat{theta})$
Now exponentiating (1), we get
$e^J = L = ke^{-frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})I(theta)(theta-hat{theta})}$, which is also asymptotically normal, with L ~ $N(hat{theta},I(theta)^{-1})$.
Am I making a mistake here...?
bayesian mathematical-statistics likelihood asymptotics
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was trying to understand asymptotic normality of the posterior better, and came across a confusing point. So let's say we have a likelihood, $L(theta | X) = Pi_{i=1}^n p(X_i | theta)$, so the log-likelihood is $J(theta) = log L = Sigma_{i=1}^n log(p(X_i | theta))$.
J is itself a sum of random variables, so the log-likelihood J will be asymptotically normal, by the central limit theorem.
But we can also show the likelihood is asymptotically normal through a Taylor expansion. Let $hat{theta}$ be the mle. So we have
$J(theta) = J(hat{theta}) + nabla J cdot (theta-hat{theta}) + frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})H(theta-hat{theta})$. Since $hat{theta}$ is the mle, we know $nabla J = 0$, and $I(theta)=-H$ so this reduces to
(1) $J(theta) = log(L) = J(hat{theta}) - frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})I(theta)(theta-hat{theta})$
Now exponentiating (1), we get
$e^J = L = ke^{-frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})I(theta)(theta-hat{theta})}$, which is also asymptotically normal, with L ~ $N(hat{theta},I(theta)^{-1})$.
Am I making a mistake here...?
bayesian mathematical-statistics likelihood asymptotics
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
If the log likelihood is asymptotically normal, then the likelihood must be asymptotically lognormal. Can it then at the same time be asymptotically normal? asymptotics can be strange ...
$endgroup$
– kjetil b halvorsen
Feb 27 at 21:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was trying to understand asymptotic normality of the posterior better, and came across a confusing point. So let's say we have a likelihood, $L(theta | X) = Pi_{i=1}^n p(X_i | theta)$, so the log-likelihood is $J(theta) = log L = Sigma_{i=1}^n log(p(X_i | theta))$.
J is itself a sum of random variables, so the log-likelihood J will be asymptotically normal, by the central limit theorem.
But we can also show the likelihood is asymptotically normal through a Taylor expansion. Let $hat{theta}$ be the mle. So we have
$J(theta) = J(hat{theta}) + nabla J cdot (theta-hat{theta}) + frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})H(theta-hat{theta})$. Since $hat{theta}$ is the mle, we know $nabla J = 0$, and $I(theta)=-H$ so this reduces to
(1) $J(theta) = log(L) = J(hat{theta}) - frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})I(theta)(theta-hat{theta})$
Now exponentiating (1), we get
$e^J = L = ke^{-frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})I(theta)(theta-hat{theta})}$, which is also asymptotically normal, with L ~ $N(hat{theta},I(theta)^{-1})$.
Am I making a mistake here...?
bayesian mathematical-statistics likelihood asymptotics
$endgroup$
I was trying to understand asymptotic normality of the posterior better, and came across a confusing point. So let's say we have a likelihood, $L(theta | X) = Pi_{i=1}^n p(X_i | theta)$, so the log-likelihood is $J(theta) = log L = Sigma_{i=1}^n log(p(X_i | theta))$.
J is itself a sum of random variables, so the log-likelihood J will be asymptotically normal, by the central limit theorem.
But we can also show the likelihood is asymptotically normal through a Taylor expansion. Let $hat{theta}$ be the mle. So we have
$J(theta) = J(hat{theta}) + nabla J cdot (theta-hat{theta}) + frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})H(theta-hat{theta})$. Since $hat{theta}$ is the mle, we know $nabla J = 0$, and $I(theta)=-H$ so this reduces to
(1) $J(theta) = log(L) = J(hat{theta}) - frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})I(theta)(theta-hat{theta})$
Now exponentiating (1), we get
$e^J = L = ke^{-frac{1}{2}(theta-hat{theta})I(theta)(theta-hat{theta})}$, which is also asymptotically normal, with L ~ $N(hat{theta},I(theta)^{-1})$.
Am I making a mistake here...?
bayesian mathematical-statistics likelihood asymptotics
bayesian mathematical-statistics likelihood asymptotics
edited Feb 27 at 21:08
kjetil b halvorsen
31k983222
31k983222
asked Feb 27 at 20:14
user49404user49404
1137
1137
2
$begingroup$
If the log likelihood is asymptotically normal, then the likelihood must be asymptotically lognormal. Can it then at the same time be asymptotically normal? asymptotics can be strange ...
$endgroup$
– kjetil b halvorsen
Feb 27 at 21:12
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
If the log likelihood is asymptotically normal, then the likelihood must be asymptotically lognormal. Can it then at the same time be asymptotically normal? asymptotics can be strange ...
$endgroup$
– kjetil b halvorsen
Feb 27 at 21:12
2
2
$begingroup$
If the log likelihood is asymptotically normal, then the likelihood must be asymptotically lognormal. Can it then at the same time be asymptotically normal? asymptotics can be strange ...
$endgroup$
– kjetil b halvorsen
Feb 27 at 21:12
$begingroup$
If the log likelihood is asymptotically normal, then the likelihood must be asymptotically lognormal. Can it then at the same time be asymptotically normal? asymptotics can be strange ...
$endgroup$
– kjetil b halvorsen
Feb 27 at 21:12
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think you just have to be precise about what you mean by "asymptotically normal." For example, when people say that "a sum of random variables is asymptotically normal by the central limit theorem," they usually really mean a precise statement about convergence in distribution, e.g.,
Central Limit Theorem (Lindeberg–Lévy version).
Suppose $(X_n)_{n=1}^infty$ is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables with mean $mu$ and variance $sigma^2 < infty$. Let $S_n = n^{-1}(X_1 + cdots + X_n)$ (the $n$th sample mean). Then
$$
sqrt{n} (S_n - mu) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ (here $Rightarrow$ denotes convergence in distribution).
This doesn't say that $S_n Rightarrow N(mu, sigma^2/n)$ as $n to infty$, which is formally impossible because the expression on the right-hand side involves $n$, but it is often informally stated as $S_n approx N(mu, sigma^2/n)$ for large $n$ (the symbol $approx$ should be read "is approximately distributed as").
In your case, you have a sequence $(L_n)_{n=1}^infty$ of log-likelihoods that, after appropriate standardization, become a sequence $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ that satisfies
$$
sqrt{n}(S_n - theta) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ (for some $theta$ and $sigma^2$). Now you can recall the delta method:
Delta Method.
Suppose $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ is a sequence of random variables satisfying
$$
sqrt{n} (S_n - theta) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ for some constants $theta$ and $sigma^2$.
Let $g : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be a function such that $g^prime(theta)$ exists and is nonzero.
Then
$$
sqrt{n}(g(S_n) - g(theta)) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2 left(g^prime(theta)right)^2)
$$
as $n to infty$.
The hand-wavey interpretastion of this is that if
$$
S_n approx N(theta, sigma^2 / n)
$$
for large $n$, then
$$
g(S_n) approx N(g(theta), sigma^2left(g^prime(theta)right)^2/n)
$$
for large $n$ (provided that $g^prime(theta)$ exists and is nonzero).
In particular, it shouldn't be surprising that the sequences $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ and $(exp(S_n))_{n=1}^infty$ are simultaneously "asymptotically normal."
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– user49404
Feb 27 at 23:26
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f394768%2fhow-is-it-possible-for-both-the-likelihood-and-log-likelihood-to-be-asymptotical%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think you just have to be precise about what you mean by "asymptotically normal." For example, when people say that "a sum of random variables is asymptotically normal by the central limit theorem," they usually really mean a precise statement about convergence in distribution, e.g.,
Central Limit Theorem (Lindeberg–Lévy version).
Suppose $(X_n)_{n=1}^infty$ is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables with mean $mu$ and variance $sigma^2 < infty$. Let $S_n = n^{-1}(X_1 + cdots + X_n)$ (the $n$th sample mean). Then
$$
sqrt{n} (S_n - mu) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ (here $Rightarrow$ denotes convergence in distribution).
This doesn't say that $S_n Rightarrow N(mu, sigma^2/n)$ as $n to infty$, which is formally impossible because the expression on the right-hand side involves $n$, but it is often informally stated as $S_n approx N(mu, sigma^2/n)$ for large $n$ (the symbol $approx$ should be read "is approximately distributed as").
In your case, you have a sequence $(L_n)_{n=1}^infty$ of log-likelihoods that, after appropriate standardization, become a sequence $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ that satisfies
$$
sqrt{n}(S_n - theta) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ (for some $theta$ and $sigma^2$). Now you can recall the delta method:
Delta Method.
Suppose $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ is a sequence of random variables satisfying
$$
sqrt{n} (S_n - theta) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ for some constants $theta$ and $sigma^2$.
Let $g : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be a function such that $g^prime(theta)$ exists and is nonzero.
Then
$$
sqrt{n}(g(S_n) - g(theta)) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2 left(g^prime(theta)right)^2)
$$
as $n to infty$.
The hand-wavey interpretastion of this is that if
$$
S_n approx N(theta, sigma^2 / n)
$$
for large $n$, then
$$
g(S_n) approx N(g(theta), sigma^2left(g^prime(theta)right)^2/n)
$$
for large $n$ (provided that $g^prime(theta)$ exists and is nonzero).
In particular, it shouldn't be surprising that the sequences $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ and $(exp(S_n))_{n=1}^infty$ are simultaneously "asymptotically normal."
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– user49404
Feb 27 at 23:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you just have to be precise about what you mean by "asymptotically normal." For example, when people say that "a sum of random variables is asymptotically normal by the central limit theorem," they usually really mean a precise statement about convergence in distribution, e.g.,
Central Limit Theorem (Lindeberg–Lévy version).
Suppose $(X_n)_{n=1}^infty$ is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables with mean $mu$ and variance $sigma^2 < infty$. Let $S_n = n^{-1}(X_1 + cdots + X_n)$ (the $n$th sample mean). Then
$$
sqrt{n} (S_n - mu) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ (here $Rightarrow$ denotes convergence in distribution).
This doesn't say that $S_n Rightarrow N(mu, sigma^2/n)$ as $n to infty$, which is formally impossible because the expression on the right-hand side involves $n$, but it is often informally stated as $S_n approx N(mu, sigma^2/n)$ for large $n$ (the symbol $approx$ should be read "is approximately distributed as").
In your case, you have a sequence $(L_n)_{n=1}^infty$ of log-likelihoods that, after appropriate standardization, become a sequence $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ that satisfies
$$
sqrt{n}(S_n - theta) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ (for some $theta$ and $sigma^2$). Now you can recall the delta method:
Delta Method.
Suppose $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ is a sequence of random variables satisfying
$$
sqrt{n} (S_n - theta) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ for some constants $theta$ and $sigma^2$.
Let $g : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be a function such that $g^prime(theta)$ exists and is nonzero.
Then
$$
sqrt{n}(g(S_n) - g(theta)) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2 left(g^prime(theta)right)^2)
$$
as $n to infty$.
The hand-wavey interpretastion of this is that if
$$
S_n approx N(theta, sigma^2 / n)
$$
for large $n$, then
$$
g(S_n) approx N(g(theta), sigma^2left(g^prime(theta)right)^2/n)
$$
for large $n$ (provided that $g^prime(theta)$ exists and is nonzero).
In particular, it shouldn't be surprising that the sequences $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ and $(exp(S_n))_{n=1}^infty$ are simultaneously "asymptotically normal."
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– user49404
Feb 27 at 23:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you just have to be precise about what you mean by "asymptotically normal." For example, when people say that "a sum of random variables is asymptotically normal by the central limit theorem," they usually really mean a precise statement about convergence in distribution, e.g.,
Central Limit Theorem (Lindeberg–Lévy version).
Suppose $(X_n)_{n=1}^infty$ is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables with mean $mu$ and variance $sigma^2 < infty$. Let $S_n = n^{-1}(X_1 + cdots + X_n)$ (the $n$th sample mean). Then
$$
sqrt{n} (S_n - mu) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ (here $Rightarrow$ denotes convergence in distribution).
This doesn't say that $S_n Rightarrow N(mu, sigma^2/n)$ as $n to infty$, which is formally impossible because the expression on the right-hand side involves $n$, but it is often informally stated as $S_n approx N(mu, sigma^2/n)$ for large $n$ (the symbol $approx$ should be read "is approximately distributed as").
In your case, you have a sequence $(L_n)_{n=1}^infty$ of log-likelihoods that, after appropriate standardization, become a sequence $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ that satisfies
$$
sqrt{n}(S_n - theta) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ (for some $theta$ and $sigma^2$). Now you can recall the delta method:
Delta Method.
Suppose $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ is a sequence of random variables satisfying
$$
sqrt{n} (S_n - theta) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ for some constants $theta$ and $sigma^2$.
Let $g : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be a function such that $g^prime(theta)$ exists and is nonzero.
Then
$$
sqrt{n}(g(S_n) - g(theta)) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2 left(g^prime(theta)right)^2)
$$
as $n to infty$.
The hand-wavey interpretastion of this is that if
$$
S_n approx N(theta, sigma^2 / n)
$$
for large $n$, then
$$
g(S_n) approx N(g(theta), sigma^2left(g^prime(theta)right)^2/n)
$$
for large $n$ (provided that $g^prime(theta)$ exists and is nonzero).
In particular, it shouldn't be surprising that the sequences $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ and $(exp(S_n))_{n=1}^infty$ are simultaneously "asymptotically normal."
$endgroup$
I think you just have to be precise about what you mean by "asymptotically normal." For example, when people say that "a sum of random variables is asymptotically normal by the central limit theorem," they usually really mean a precise statement about convergence in distribution, e.g.,
Central Limit Theorem (Lindeberg–Lévy version).
Suppose $(X_n)_{n=1}^infty$ is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables with mean $mu$ and variance $sigma^2 < infty$. Let $S_n = n^{-1}(X_1 + cdots + X_n)$ (the $n$th sample mean). Then
$$
sqrt{n} (S_n - mu) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ (here $Rightarrow$ denotes convergence in distribution).
This doesn't say that $S_n Rightarrow N(mu, sigma^2/n)$ as $n to infty$, which is formally impossible because the expression on the right-hand side involves $n$, but it is often informally stated as $S_n approx N(mu, sigma^2/n)$ for large $n$ (the symbol $approx$ should be read "is approximately distributed as").
In your case, you have a sequence $(L_n)_{n=1}^infty$ of log-likelihoods that, after appropriate standardization, become a sequence $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ that satisfies
$$
sqrt{n}(S_n - theta) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ (for some $theta$ and $sigma^2$). Now you can recall the delta method:
Delta Method.
Suppose $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ is a sequence of random variables satisfying
$$
sqrt{n} (S_n - theta) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2)
$$
as $n to infty$ for some constants $theta$ and $sigma^2$.
Let $g : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be a function such that $g^prime(theta)$ exists and is nonzero.
Then
$$
sqrt{n}(g(S_n) - g(theta)) Rightarrow N(0, sigma^2 left(g^prime(theta)right)^2)
$$
as $n to infty$.
The hand-wavey interpretastion of this is that if
$$
S_n approx N(theta, sigma^2 / n)
$$
for large $n$, then
$$
g(S_n) approx N(g(theta), sigma^2left(g^prime(theta)right)^2/n)
$$
for large $n$ (provided that $g^prime(theta)$ exists and is nonzero).
In particular, it shouldn't be surprising that the sequences $(S_n)_{n=1}^infty$ and $(exp(S_n))_{n=1}^infty$ are simultaneously "asymptotically normal."
edited Feb 27 at 21:46
answered Feb 27 at 21:36
Artem MavrinArtem Mavrin
901710
901710
$begingroup$
This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– user49404
Feb 27 at 23:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– user49404
Feb 27 at 23:26
$begingroup$
This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– user49404
Feb 27 at 23:26
$begingroup$
This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– user49404
Feb 27 at 23:26
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f394768%2fhow-is-it-possible-for-both-the-likelihood-and-log-likelihood-to-be-asymptotical%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
If the log likelihood is asymptotically normal, then the likelihood must be asymptotically lognormal. Can it then at the same time be asymptotically normal? asymptotics can be strange ...
$endgroup$
– kjetil b halvorsen
Feb 27 at 21:12