I'm trying to review MLE (maximum likelihood estimation).

What does it mean when one model fit the data better than does a comptitor model?


You need a criteria for saying whats better (i.e. a risk function). You say estimator A is better than estimator B with respect to a given risk function if the risk of estimator A is better than estimator B.

In the case of estimation, the risk is often the mean square error, i.e. if $\hat{X}$ is your estimator and $X$ is the thing you're trying to estimate, $R(\hat{X}) = E[\lVert X - \hat{X} \rVert_2^2]$ where $\lVert \cdot \rVert_2$ is the 2-norm. Then, you say estimator A is better than estimator B if it has lower mean square error.

When working in the mean square error framework for deterministic parameters, you have the notion of efficient estimators, i.e. ones which meet the Cramer-Rao lower bound, which are the best you can do in some sense (as described on the wiki article).

  • $\begingroup$ I think you said the Least square methods. Then what does different between MLE and LSM? $\endgroup$
    – gmotree
    May 26 '15 at 7:58
  • $\begingroup$ A MMSE method tries to find $\hat{X}$ such that $E[||X-\hat{X}||_2^2]$ is minimized. The MLE finds $\arg \max_{\theta} p(x;\theta)$. The reason why I mentioned mean square error is that its a common risk function, and you can use it to compare estimators. The MLE also usually has some nice (at least asymptotic) properties with respect to mean square error. $\endgroup$
    – Batman
    May 26 '15 at 11:36

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.