+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Thread: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

  1. #16
    Devorador de queso
    Points: 95,540, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Awards:
    Posting AwardCommunity AwardDiscussion EnderFrequent Poster
    Dason's Avatar
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    12,930
    Thanks
    307
    Thanked 2,629 Times in 2,245 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities




    Quote Originally Posted by schleprock2 View Post
    Thanks for the feedback, but I don't think this is really getting me anywhere. I was really looking for suggested solutions, not additional problems related to the original question.
    So you don't really see how your original problem is actually a multinomial? I wasn't giving you more work for the hell of it. Like I said it was *directly* related to your original problem. Take a minute and try to find the connection.
    I don't have emotions and sometimes that makes me very sad.

  2. #17
    Points: 30, Level: 1
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 20

    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Dason View Post
    So you don't really see how your original problem is actually a multinomial? I wasn't giving you more work for the hell of it. Like I said it was *directly* related to your original problem. Take a minute and try to find the connection.
    I believe I already agreed that it was multinomial, though I also said I felt it could be stated as binomial. After all, the former is just a generalization of the latter.

    To be honest, I'm not sure you're understanding the problem. This may be my fault for not explaining it clearly. So let me try a slightly different angle.

    You suggested thinking about the problem in terms of a multinomial (binomial) -- which I agreed with -- and suggested applying MLE -- which I also agreed with. However, ultimately I'm not interested in just solving for p (probability of success, or probability of "blue" in your example). I’m interested in solving for the parameters of the underlying distribution that drives p.

    So yes, I can do as you suggested and establish the likelihood function for a multinomial distribution, take the natural log, take the derivative with respect to p, and solve for the p that maximizes log-likelihood. Then what? I’m left with an estimate of p, which doesn’t get me anywhere because p is a function of mu and sigma. My first thought was to substitute the Normal CDF as p – in other words include mu and sigma in the likelihood function explicitly – but again the CDF has no closed form solution, so this didn’t seem to be a viable approach.

    I don’t know if this is coming across, but in any case I don’t think the problem is as easy as you are making it out to be. If I’m mistaken about any of the above, please let me know where.

  3. #18
    Devorador de queso
    Points: 95,540, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Awards:
    Posting AwardCommunity AwardDiscussion EnderFrequent Poster
    Dason's Avatar
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    12,930
    Thanks
    307
    Thanked 2,629 Times in 2,245 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    I completely understand the problem. What I'm trying to get you to do is set up the **** likelihood! You just seem too stubborn to do that.

    So you agree that it's multinomial given the bin probabilities right? And how do you find the bin probabilities? Well they're just probabilities derived from the normal distribution (so these probabilities are functions of mu and sigma). So there you have it - that's how you get your likelihood.

    Trust me I completely understand the problem - I was trying to get you to make that last step but I think you were just stopping at "oh I guess it could be a multinomial but I don't care about the ps" when you should have taken it one step further and realized the ps are functions of mu and sigma.
    I don't have emotions and sometimes that makes me very sad.

  4. #19
    Points: 30, Level: 1
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 20

    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Dason View Post
    I completely understand the problem. What I'm trying to get you to do is set up the **** likelihood! You just seem too stubborn to do that.
    Rather than laboriously type out the likelihood function in a response -- finding the right symbol codes and whatnot -- I linked yesterday to a web page that showed the likelihood function (admittedly, for a binomial) that I would've ended up typing. Here it is again: https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat504/node/28. Regardless, you can safely assume for the purposes of this and future discussions that I understand MLE, how to set up a likelihood function, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dason View Post
    So you agree that it's multinomial given the bin probabilities right? And how do you find the bin probabilities? Well they're just probabilities derived from the normal distribution (so these probabilities are functions of mu and sigma). So there you have it - that's how you get your likelihood.
    I think this is where we diverge. I've agreed several times that these probabilities are driven by mu and sigma. But the function is not closed-form. The PDF is, but the CDF isn't...it's a definite integration of the PDF from -infinity to x. So if you could please explain to me how to use that integral (i.e. the Normal CDF) in place of p such that I can maximize likelihood relative to mu and sigma, that would be fantastic. Or if there's a simpler way to do it, that would be even better. Either way, I hope you can see where the maximum likelihood function for a multinomial isnt the piece of the puzzle that Im missing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dason View Post
    Trust me I completely understand the problem - I was trying to get you to make that last step but I think you were just stopping at "oh I guess it could be a multinomial but I don't care about the ps" when you should have taken it one step further and realized the ps are functions of mu and sigma.
    See above. I fully realize that the ps are functions of mu and sigma. What I dont yet understand but am hoping you do is how to employ the CDF of a Normal in the multinomial likelihood function.

  5. #20
    Devorador de queso
    Points: 95,540, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Awards:
    Posting AwardCommunity AwardDiscussion EnderFrequent Poster
    Dason's Avatar
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    12,930
    Thanks
    307
    Thanked 2,629 Times in 2,245 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    Quote Originally Posted by schleprock2 View Post
    Rather than laboriously type out the likelihood function in a response -- finding the right symbol codes and whatnot -- I linked yesterday to a web page that showed the likelihood function (admittedly, for a binomial) that I would've ended up typing. Here it is again: https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat504/node/28. Regardless, you can safely assume for the purposes of this and future discussions that I understand MLE, how to set up a likelihood function, etc.

    I think this is where we diverge. I've agreed several times that these probabilities are driven by mu and sigma. But the function is not closed-form. The PDF is, but the CDF isn't...it's a definite integration of the PDF from -infinity to x. So if you could please explain to me how to use that integral (i.e. the Normal CDF) in place of p such that I can maximize likelihood relative to mu and sigma, that would be fantastic. Or if there's a simpler way to do it, that would be even better. Either way, I hope you can see where the maximum likelihood function for a multinomial isnt the piece of the puzzle that Im missing.

    See above. I fully realize that the ps are functions of mu and sigma. What I dont yet understand but am hoping you do is how to employ the CDF of a Normal in the multinomial likelihood function.
    Just use the CDF. There isn't a closed form for it but we do have a symbol for the function and software can evaluate the CDF. Just like how you might not be able to easily tell me what the square root of 23423421 is without using a calculator we can do the same thing for the normal CDF.
    I don't have emotions and sometimes that makes me very sad.

  6. #21
    Points: 30, Level: 1
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 20

    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Dason View Post
    Just use the CDF. There isn't a closed form for it but we do have a symbol for the function and software can evaluate the CDF. Just like how you might not be able to easily tell me what the square root of 23423421 is without using a calculator we can do the same thing for the normal CDF.
    Yes, of course software can evaluate the CDF. Or, equivalently, I could look it up in a table in a back of a textbook. But earlier you were suggesting that I just incorporate this into a log-likelihood function. How does that software or that table help me here? I'll reflect your earlier suggestion back at you: try substituting the Normal CDF formula for the p in a multinomial likelihood function and you'll see what I mean.

  7. #22
    Devorador de queso
    Points: 95,540, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Awards:
    Posting AwardCommunity AwardDiscussion EnderFrequent Poster
    Dason's Avatar
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    12,930
    Thanks
    307
    Thanked 2,629 Times in 2,245 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    You don't just put the CDF in as p. Plus you have more than one "p" since it's multinomial (you really need to quit pretending that it's binomial). You can use the CDF to get the values for each p though. If I told you mu=100 and sigma = 20 can you tell me the probability of an observation falling into each "bin"? Now instead of using actual numbers do the same thing but keep it as mu and sigma.

    All the likelihood (or log-likelihood) is is just a function that given choices for your parameters it gives you some number. It doesn't matter if you have to evaluate a normal CDF or anything like that. But when you do an evaluation of the likelihood you have values for the parameters so it's perfectly possible to evaluate the corresponding normal CDF.
    I don't have emotions and sometimes that makes me very sad.

  8. #23
    TS Contributor
    Points: 22,410, Level: 93
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 940

    Posts
    3,020
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 565 Times in 537 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    I am not sure what exactly OP is struggling with. Since post #7 OP response with the term "CDF", I think OP really has some understanding in MLE and in survival analysis as well.

    Now the data have been binned - in other words we have censored data: interval, left, and right censoring. It seems that the problem of OP is that the likelihood is not in closed form, so there is no closed form solution for the MLE and OP does not like that.

    IMHO:
    1. If OP agrees to use MLE to estimate the parameters, you need to accept the fact there will be no closed form solution available and you have to use numerical method for the maximization.

    2. If OP must need some kind of closed form solution, you may try to seek other estimation method. But I am not sure if there is a common known method to provide closed form for this problem.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to BGM For This Useful Post:

    schleprock2 (10-28-2014)

  10. #24
    Devorador de queso
    Points: 95,540, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Awards:
    Posting AwardCommunity AwardDiscussion EnderFrequent Poster
    Dason's Avatar
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    12,930
    Thanks
    307
    Thanked 2,629 Times in 2,245 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    Thanks BGM. I think maybe they were struggling with the fact that there isn't going to be a closed form solution to the MLE. I guess I didn't point out that there never explicitly has to be a closed form solution. The main goal is to explicitly write out the likelihood and once you do that you can use a computer to find a maximum.
    I don't have emotions and sometimes that makes me very sad.

  11. #25
    Human
    Points: 12,672, Level: 73
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 178
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    GretaGarbo's Avatar
    Posts
    1,361
    Thanks
    455
    Thanked 462 Times in 402 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    Dragan recently showed this Taylor series approximation for the normal CDF (post #8). If it feels better and more concrete to be able to do a kind of pocket calculator computations.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to GretaGarbo For This Useful Post:

    schleprock2 (10-28-2014)

  13. #26
    Points: 30, Level: 1
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 20

    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    Quote Originally Posted by BGM View Post
    I am not sure what exactly OP is struggling with. Since post #7 OP response with the term "CDF", I think OP really has some understanding in MLE and in survival analysis as well.

    Now the data have been binned - in other words we have censored data: interval, left, and right censoring. It seems that the problem of OP is that the likelihood is not in closed form, so there is no closed form solution for the MLE and OP does not like that.

    IMHO:
    1. If OP agrees to use MLE to estimate the parameters, you need to accept the fact there will be no closed form solution available and you have to use numerical method for the maximization.

    2. If OP must need some kind of closed form solution, you may try to seek other estimation method. But I am not sure if there is a common known method to provide closed form for this problem.
    Thanks BGM. You're correct that I was hoping to find a closed form solution to the problem. Instead, I was able to maximize the likelihood via numerical methods -- and, FWIW, using a binomial distribution rather than multinomial. The "brute force" approach isn't ideal for what I was hoping to do, but I think it is likely the best solution available.

  14. #27
    Devorador de queso
    Points: 95,540, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Awards:
    Posting AwardCommunity AwardDiscussion EnderFrequent Poster
    Dason's Avatar
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    12,930
    Thanks
    307
    Thanked 2,629 Times in 2,245 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    I honestly don't know what you're doing when you're saying you used the binomial instead of the multinomial. It worries me as it implies you're doing something kind of wrong. You have more than two options so this is a multinomial problem. Why are you so against using the multinomial?!?
    I don't have emotions and sometimes that makes me very sad.

  15. #28
    Points: 30, Level: 1
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 20

    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Dason View Post
    I honestly don't know what you're doing when you're saying you used the binomial instead of the multinomial. It worries me as it implies you're doing something kind of wrong. You have more than two options so this is a multinomial problem. Why are you so against using the multinomial?!?
    I hope you don't worry too much about it...I've tested the method and confirmed that it works, so confident I'm not doing anything wrong. I had already begun to set the problem up using the binomial distribution, so continued on that path. To see why it works, recognize that the likelihood I'm looking to maximize in the example from the original post is the product of 3 binomial distributions:

    1st: 23 successes out of 100 trials, p1 = 1 - Phi((200 - mu)/sigma)
    2nd: 9 successes out of 100 trials, p2 = 1 - Phi((300 - mu)/sigma)
    3rd: 2 successes out of 100 trials, p3 = 1 - Phi((400 - mu)/sigma)

  16. #29
    Devorador de queso
    Points: 95,540, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Awards:
    Posting AwardCommunity AwardDiscussion EnderFrequent Poster
    Dason's Avatar
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    12,930
    Thanks
    307
    Thanked 2,629 Times in 2,245 Posts

    Re: parameter estimation based on observed survival probabilities


    Quote Originally Posted by schleprock2 View Post
    I hope you don't worry too much about it...I've tested the method and confirmed that it works
    From what you've written I don't think you have it quite right. It is possible that I'm interpretting the data incorrectly but from the way it's phrased I don't think I am. There are two different ways I can interpret the data you've given but regardless you end up with 4 different bins. "< 200", "between 200 and 300", "between 300 and 400", "greater than 400". You need to find the number of observations that fall into each of those bins. Then the first bin will get it's probability through one evaluation of the normal CDF, for the second and third bins you'll need to take the different between two evaluations of the normal CDF, and the last bin in the only one that should have the form "1 - Phi((something - mu)/sigma)".

    I still don't get why you continually claim that you are using the binomial. If you think they're the same thing then just use the correct terminology because you have more than two outcomes so it isn't binomial. It's a restricted case of the multinomial where the probabilities for each bin are dictated by the normal distribution.
    Last edited by Dason; 10-28-2014 at 05:59 PM.
    I don't have emotions and sometimes that makes me very sad.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

           




Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts






Advertise on Talk Stats