Live data from Hacker News

Maximum likelihood estimation and loss functions

rish-01.github.io

31–33 of 33 posts

Re: Maximum likelihood estimation and loss functions

#31
post #19

My favorite MLE example: Suppose you walk into a bank and ask them to give you a quarter. You flip the quarter twice and get two heads. Given this experiment, what do you estimate to be the probability p of getting a heads when you flip this coin? Using MLE, you would get p = 1. In other words, this coin will always give you a heads when you flip it! (According to MLE.)

Are you just demonstrating overfitting when estimating using too little data? Or is there something deeper going on in your example? What does the bank have to do with anything?

The bank is context that gives us a prior probability. However, MLE does not consider a prior. So MLE can give results that are not very helpful in the real world. All it does is answer: What parameter value (in case the probability) of a head, makes the observed outcome most likely? But it considers all parameter values equally likely. In reality, we know that it is highly likely that a random coin from a bank is a fair coin. Thus, if we flip two heads, we are almost certain that it's still a fair coin. If, on the other hand, we flipped 10 heads in a row, we might start to wonder if somehow the bank gave you a trick coin. MAP is an alternative to MLE, arguably better in many situations: [https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~aarti/Class/10701_Spring23/Lecs/Lect....

Re: Maximum likelihood estimation and loss functions

#32
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This notation doesn't require graduate-level statistics knowledge, it's more like stuff that would be covered in a first mathematical course on probability and statistics. Perhaps a first course at grad level, but my engineering bachelors covered MLEs but we didn’t learn/use any of those formal language things. I think the core mathematics (and likely other pure science) cohorts were the only people who learnt it.

I slowly transfered out of Trad. Engineering (Civil/Mech/Electrical/Electronic) pretty much because Engineering Math, Chem, and Physics units were almost all "learn these results and how to apply them" and little to no "these are the underpinings of these results". It took six months for Math 100 (Maths for wanna be mathematicians) to "catch up" with the applications being spat out in Math 101 (Maths for people that…

Some balls bases' have arity, bounded more or less / But when they've finite measure, they're the balls that I like best

Re: Maximum likelihood estimation and loss functions

#33

If you have a parametrized functions that imperfectly models a real phenomenon, of course there are errors. Why assume they are random? A better assumption is that your model is just poor. Assuming deterministic modeling errors are due to randomness has always struck me as bizarre.

In the context of MLE, random has a formal definition. What you describe as poor would be included in the mathematics as a factor outside the deterministic parameters that are modeled. E.g. Y = a Factor1 + b Factor2 + ... + constant + 'poor model correction factor'. To solve the equation, we have to make assumptions of the poor correction factor. These assumptions about the error generally have some 'mathematically n…

This doesn't make sense to me. Any time you want a reduced order model, you will get error. For example:

- Say I have data which is perfectly sinusoidal, with an dc bias. I can fit a line a to this data, which will approximate the bias (or be exactly the bias if the data is over an integer number of cycles).

- I want to fit a plane to a curved surface

- I want to fit a low order transfer function to a high order system.

- I want to model a system with friction as a system with no friction.

Fitting parameters in all of these situations will result in a non-zero residual. But assuming that is due to randomness is not useful.

Post reply on HN