Let $X_1, X_2, \ldots , X_n$ be a random sample from a distribution with the following pdf

$$f(x|\theta) = \begin{cases} 1/(\theta_2−\theta_1), &\quad\text {for}\quad \theta_1 \leq x\leq \theta_2\\ 0 &\quad\text { otherwise}\quad \end{cases}$$ Suppose that $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are unknown.

How would I go about writing the likelihood function for this distribution on $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$.


The easiest way might be to begin by writing the density as it should be written, that is, as $$ f(x\mid\theta)=\frac{\mathbf 1_{\theta_1\leqslant x\leqslant\theta_2}}{\theta_2-\theta_1}, $$ where $\theta=(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ with $\theta_1\lt\theta_2$. Then the likelihood of an i.i.d. sample $\mathbf x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ is $$ f(\mathbf x\mid\theta)=\prod_{k=1}^nf(x_k\mid\theta)=\frac{\mathbf 1_{\theta_1\leqslant m_n(\mathbf x),s_n(\mathbf x)\leqslant\theta_2}}{(\theta_2-\theta_1)^n}, $$ where $$ m_n(\mathbf x)=\min\{x_k\mid 1\leqslant k\leqslant n\}, \qquad s_n(\mathbf x)=\max\{x_k\mid 1\leqslant k\leqslant n\}. $$ For every fixed $\mathbf x$, $f(\mathbf x\mid\theta)$ is maximal when $\theta_2-\theta_1$ is as small as possible hence the MLE for $\theta=(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ based on $\mathbf x$ is $$ \widehat\theta(\mathbf x)=(m_n(\mathbf x),s_n(\mathbf x)). $$

  • $\begingroup$ would the max be the MLE for θ2. $\endgroup$ – cheeseman123 Nov 10 '12 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ See Edit. $ $ $ $ $\endgroup$ – Did Nov 10 '12 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ I think I got you. Just to confirm in my notation, would it be then valid write that the MLE for $\theta_1$ is $\widehat\theta_1 = \max\{x_k\mid 1\leqslant k\leqslant n\}. $ $\endgroup$ – cheeseman123 Nov 10 '12 at 18:38
  • $\begingroup$ In general, the MLE is an estimator of the full parameter of the distribution, here $\theta$. The notion of MLE for a sub-parameter such as $\theta_1$, is not well defined. What one can say though, is that the $\theta_1$ part of the MLE is the minimum (and certainly not the maximum) of the sample. An additional subtlety here is that for every fixed $\theta_2$, the same value of $\theta_1$ yields the maximum (restricted) likelihood. $\endgroup$ – Did Nov 10 '12 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sorry for prolonging this. I copy and pasted the wrong bit of what you typed, as I was checking how do you type it the way you do; I meant min instead of max. So, MLE for $ \theta_1 $ is $ \widehat\theta_1 = \min\{x_k\mid 1\leqslant k\leqslant n\} $ On the next point, I don't think, $ \theta_2 = \theta_1 $ $\endgroup$ – cheeseman123 Nov 10 '12 at 22:28

$$ L(\theta_1,\theta_2) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{(\theta_2-\theta_1)^n} & \text{for }\theta_2\ge\max\text{ and }\theta_1 \le\min \\[10pt] 0 & \text{for other values of }(\theta_1,\theta_2) \end{cases} $$ where $\max=\max\{X_1,\ldots,X_n\}$ and $\min=\min\{X_1,\ldots,X_n\}$.

Draw the picture in the $(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ plane.

  • $\begingroup$ the graph would be decreasing? actually, what is the variable? $\endgroup$ – cheeseman123 Nov 10 '12 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ would the max be the MLE for θ2 $\endgroup$ – cheeseman123 Nov 10 '12 at 17:58
  • $\begingroup$ "what is the variable?" There are two: $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$. $\max$ is the MLE for $\theta_2$ since $L$ is bigger when $\theta_2=\max$ than when $\theta_2>\max$. $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Nov 10 '12 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ Great, I thought so. But then wouldn't $\theta_2$ be smallest possible value which is = $\theta_1$ $\endgroup$ – cheeseman123 Nov 10 '12 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ If $\min<\max$, then the MLEs for $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are different. $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Nov 10 '12 at 18:37

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.