I have a log likelihood that looks like the following.
$$ \log(p(Z|\Theta)) = -\sum_{p = 1}^{N} \left[ L \log\left(\pi\left(A F(p, \Theta) + \sigma^2\right) \right) + \frac{\sum_{l = 1}^{L} Z_l(p) }{A F(p, \Theta) + \sigma^2} \right] $$
It comes from an exponential distribution. The observations are $Z_l(p)$, and $A F(p, \Theta) + \sigma^2$ is the model of the expectation of Z(p).
However, the scale factor $A$ and additive factor $\sigma^2$ are estimated empirically or from prior knowledge before computing this likelihood.
Some real world measurements $Z$ do give me positive log-likelihood values. $Z_l$ is a discrete measurement with $1\times N$ dimension, and I have $L$ of them.
I want to have a quantitative measure of how good my data fits the measurements. That is why I thought of looking at the likelihood of all the different real world measurements. So, a measurement giving a log-likelihood value close to $0$ (but negative) is more fitted to my model than a measurement that gives a log-likelihood value far from $0$ (but negative).
However, now that I also have positive values for log-likelihood, I am confused how to say if the measurements fit my model.
Sometimes, by visual inspection, I find that a log likelihood of $-2000$ reconstruct my data better than a log-likelihood of 50 for example. To emphasize again, this is from a visual inspection.
Any input is appreciated.
My suspect: I think $A$ and $\sigma^2$ are the reason for which probably it is more than $0$. Am I right? If yes, how can I say something about my estimation (not just with visual inspection, but also from likelihood).