• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

Q&A Bank part 3 Question 3.11

S

Simon C

Member
Hello all

The answer to this question outlines using a binomial distribution to estimate the proportion of drives working after 47 days. It then goes on to equate this estimate to the exponential distribution.

The solution quotes:

“Expressed in terms of the exponential parameter λ, p is:”

My question is how are these two equal? i.e. p=exp(-200λ).

In particular I am not clear why we start integrating at 200 rather than 0.

Thanks
Simon
 
The answer to this question outlines using a binomial distribution to estimate the proportion of drives working after 47 days. It then goes on to equate this estimate to the exponential distribution.

The solution quotes:

“Expressed in terms of the exponential parameter λ, p is:”

My question is how are these two equal? i.e. p=exp(-200λ).

In particular I am not clear why we start integrating at 200 rather than 0.

This kind of question is actually quite common.

Essentially the likelihood is the probability of us observing our data set of 3 less than 200 days and 47 greater than 200 days which is:

L = constant × [P(X<200)]³ × [P(X>200)]^47

The constant is for the different combinations - which 3 results from the 50 were less than 200 days.

Now we could set p = P(X>200) and then estimate this, but frankly I'd just skip this out as it's an unnecessary complication.

To obtain probabilities for an exponential distribution we can either integrate or use the distribution function (given on page 11 of the Tables).

P(X>200) = integral from 200 upwards of f(x)

or

P(X>200) = 1 - P(X<200) = 1 - F(200)

An exam question similar to this is S02 Q12
 
Thanks John.

I followed where you were saying:
L = constant × [P(X<200)]³ × [P(X>200)]^47

However I'm still not clear on how you have gone from this to evaluating just P(X>200). Where has [P(X<200)]³ gone?

Thanks
Simon
 
Thanks John.

I followed where you were saying:
L = constant × [P(X<200)]³ × [P(X>200)]^47

However I'm still not clear on how you have gone from this to evaluating just P(X>200). Where has [P(X<200)]³ gone?

OK - let's ignore the solution for a second and carry on just considering the exponential distribution.

Using l for lambda, we have:

L = constant × [P(X<200)]³ × [P(X>200)]^47
= constant × [1 - exp(-200l)]³ × [exp(-200l)]^47
= constant × [1 - exp(-200l)]³ × [exp(-9400l)]

ln L = constant + 3ln(1 - exp(-200l)) - 9400l

So d/dl ln L is:

600exp(-200l) - 9400
1 - exp(-200l)

Setting this equal to zero gives:

600exp(-200l) = 9400
1 - exp(-200l)

600exp(-200l) = 9400[1 - exp(-200l)]

Fiddling gives:

10000exp(-200l) = 9400

exp(-200l) = 0.94

-200l = ln 0.94

l = 0.000309

Hence the mean is 1/l = 3232 as before.

What the solution did was obtain the MLE for p (p hat = 0.94), then compare the two likelihoods and say "ah - but p is exp(-200l) - ie l = -(ln p)/200 so by using the invariance property of estimators l hat = -(ln p hat)/200"

Either method will give the marks use the one you feel happier with.

Hope this sorts it better!
 
Back
Top