Premium
Numerical Maximisation of Likelihood: A Neglected Alternative to EM?
Author(s) -
MacDonald Iain L.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
international statistical review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.051
H-Index - 54
eISSN - 1751-5823
pISSN - 0306-7734
DOI - 10.1111/insr.12041
Subject(s) - maximum likelihood , mathematics , numerical analysis , simple (philosophy) , range (aeronautics) , expectation–maximization algorithm , likelihood function , statistics , algorithm , mathematical optimization , computer science , mathematical analysis , philosophy , materials science , epistemology , composite material
There is by now a long tradition of using the EM algorithm to find maximum‐likelihood estimates (MLEs) when the data are incomplete in any of a wide range of ways, even when the observed‐data likelihood can easily be evaluated and numerical maximisation of that likelihood is available as a conceptually simple route to the MLEs. It is rare in the literature to see numerical maximisation employed if EM is possible. But with excellent general‐purpose numerical optimisers now available free, there is no longer any reason, as a matter of course, to avoid direct numerical maximisation of likelihood. In this tutorial, I present seven examples of models in which numerical maximisation of likelihood appears to have some advantages over the use of EM as a route to MLEs. The mathematical and coding effort is minimal, as there is no need to derive and code the E and M steps, only a likelihood evaluator. In all the examples, the unconstrained optimiser nlm available in R is used, and transformations are used to impose constraints on parameters. I suggest therefore that the following question be asked of proposed new applications of EM: Can the MLEs be found more simply and directly by using a general‐purpose numerical optimiser?