How is it possible for both the likelihood and log-likelihood to be asymptotically normal?












2












$begingroup$


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...?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    4 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


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...?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    4 hours ago














2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


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...?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









kjetil b halvorsen

30.6k983220




30.6k983220










asked 5 hours ago









user49404user49404

1036




1036








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    4 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    4 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
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
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
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
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

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."






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – user49404
    2 hours ago











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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









4












$begingroup$

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."






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – user49404
    2 hours ago
















4












$begingroup$

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."






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – user49404
    2 hours ago














4












4








4





$begingroup$

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."






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



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."







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









Artem MavrinArtem Mavrin

776710




776710












  • $begingroup$
    This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – user49404
    2 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
    $endgroup$
    – user49404
    2 hours ago
















$begingroup$
This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– user49404
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
This was super helpful, thanks for the reply. I missed the obvious delta method connection. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– user49404
2 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Ponta tanko

Tantalo (mitologio)

Erzsébet Schaár