Let $X_1,...X_n$ be a random sample from the Pareto distribution with parameters $\alpha$ and $\theta$, where $\alpha$ is known.

Find the maximum likelihood estimator for $\theta$ and say if it is unbiased, if not find an unbiased estimator

My Approach:

$$f(x;\alpha, \theta) = \alpha \theta^\alpha x^{-(\alpha +1)},\quad x \ge \beta$$

$$L(\theta) = \alpha^n \theta^{\alpha n} \left(\prod_{i=1}^n x_i\right)^{-(\alpha+1)}$$

Taking log for $L(\alpha)$ gives

$$\ln L(\theta) = n \ln(\alpha) + \alpha n \ln(\theta) + \sum_{i=1}^n -(\alpha+1) \ln(x_i)$$

Then since $\ln L(\theta)$ is an increasing function if $\theta$ increases, and for a Pareto distribution we have that $\theta \le x$ we conclude that the maximum likelihood estimator is $\hat\theta=\min {x_i}$ (the first order statistic) Am I right?

Then to prove that it is and unbised statistic we have to prove that $E(\hat{\theta}) = \theta$. I donot know how to do it I just thought using the p.d.f of the firs order statistic and integrate from $\theta $ to infinite but I'm not sure about this. Any ideas?


You've got some notation errors and the work is a bit sloppy, but it is essentially the correct idea. You should have written $$f(x; \alpha, \theta) = \alpha \theta^\alpha x^{-(\alpha+1)}, \quad x \ge \color{red}{\theta},$$ and $$\ell(\theta) = \log \mathcal L(\theta) = n \log \alpha + \alpha n \log \theta - (\alpha + 1) \sum_{i=1}^n \log x_i.$$ In fact, I would have dispensed with this altogether and noted that when $\alpha$ is known, the likelihood is proportional to $$\mathcal L(\theta) \propto \theta^\alpha \mathbb 1(x_{(1)} \ge \theta),$$ hence for $\alpha > 0$, $\mathcal L$ is monotone increasing on the interval $\theta \in (0, x_{(1)}]$ and the MLE is $\hat\theta = x_{(1)}$. No need to take log-likelihoods.

$\hat \theta = x_{(1)}$ is necessarily biased because $\Pr[X_{(1)} > \theta] > 0$ but $\Pr[X_{(1)} < \theta] = 0$. That is to say, the sample minimum can never be less than $\theta$, whereas being greater than it is certainly possible; so taking the expected value of the sample minimum, you can never hope to be equal to $\theta$ on average.

Formally, though, you would need to compute $\operatorname{E}[X_{(1)}]$ by first computing the probability density of the first order statistic. This in turn can be found by considering $$\Pr[X_{(1)} > x] = \Pr[(X_1 > x) \cap (X_2 > x) \cap \ldots \cap (X_n > x)] = ?$$

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.