The distribution of \(X\) has \(k\) unknown real-valued parameters, or equivalently, a parameter vector \(\bs \). Suppose that we have a basic random experiment with an observable, real-valued random variable \(X\). It seems reasonable that this method would provide good estimates, since the empirical. After a normal distribution has been chosen, one would have to estimate its parameters. The resulting values are called method of moments estimators. The Method of Moments Basic Theory The Method think of a tting a normal distribution, with some parameters ยต and 2. Does anybody know of general conditions? Or even a counter example would help me refine my intuition.2. equation (equivalent to identication when only () is imposed), a method-of-moments estimator is dened as a solution (or near-solution) of a sample analogue to (), replacing the population expectation by a sample average. ![]() I've so far been unable to show any sort of result in general. I thought perhaps this was a quirk of the exponential family, but for a Laplace with known mean the sufficient statistic is $\frac \sum |X_i| $ and the MLE and the MoM estimator for the variance are not equal. If we look at a Uniform$(0,\theta)$, the sufficient statistic for $\theta$ is $\max(X_1,\cdots,X_N)$ and the MoM and MLE estimators are different. We first generate some data from an exponential distribution, rate <- 5 S <- rexp(100, rate rate) The MLE (and method of moments) estimator of the rate parameter is, rateest <- 1 / mean(S) rateest 1 4.936045. Normal (unknown mean and variance), exponential, and Poisson all have sufficient statistics equal to their moments and have MLEs and MoM estimators the same (not strictly true for things like Poisson where there are multiple MoM estimators). Problem 9.50 (2 points) In exercise (9.32), (Y1,dotsc,Yn) denotes a random sample from a Rayleigh distribution with parameter (theta).Each (Yi) has. My question is can I find the method of moment estimator of first, and then take the power of 2 to be. Say I have a IID sample X1,X2.,Xn X 1, X 2., X n from an exponential distribution Exp( E x p ( ), say I want to find the method of moment estimator of 2 2. I've checked this result with a few distributions. I have a question about method of moment estimator. Since MoM estimators only use information contained in the moments, it seems like the two methods should produce the same estimates when the sufficient statistics for the parameter we are attempting to estimate are exactly the moments of the data. There N 2000, the number of sh in the population, is unknown. ![]() Let look at the example of mark and capture from the previous topic. Maximum likelihood is preferably when we are confident in the data generating process because, unlike the method of moments, it makes use of the knowledge of the entire distribution. This give the maximum likelihood estimator N tk r : Thus, the maximum likelihood estimator is, in this case, obtained from the method of moments estimator by round-ing down to the next integer. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators. My intuition comes from the advantages of each estimator. ![]() I was asked this question the other day and had never considered it before.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |