Maximum likelihood estimation linear model

This model assumes that any dosage effect has the same mechanism as that which causes the background incidence. Low-dose linearity follows directly from this additive assumption, provided that any fraction of the background effect is additive no matter how small. A best fit curve is fitted to the data obtained from a long-term rodent cancer bioassay using computer programs. The estimates of the parameters in the polynomial are called Maximum Likelihood Estimates (MLE), based upon the statistical procedure used for fitting the curve, and can be considered as best fit estimates. Provided the fit of the model is satisfactory, the estimates of these parameters are used to extrapolate to low-dose exposures. 

The nominal probability coefficient for radionuclides normally used in radiation protection is derived mainly from maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) of observed responses in the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors. A linear or linear-quadratic dose-response model, which is linear at low doses, is used universally to extrapolate the observed responses at high doses and dose rates to the low doses of concern in radiation protection. The probability coefficient at low doses also includes a small adjustment that takes into account an assumed decrease in the response per unit dose at low doses and dose rates compared with the observed responses at high doses and dose rates. 

Another optimization approach was followed by Wagner [68 ]. Wagner developed a methodology for performing simultaneous model parameter estimation and source characterization, in which he used an inverse model as a non-linear maximum likelihood estimation problem. The hydrogeologic and source parameters were estimated based on hydraulic head and contaminant concentration measurements. In essence, this method is minimizing the following ... 

Assuming a log-linear dispersion model as in equation (8), Nair and Pregibon (1988) showed that D M is the maximum likelihood estimator of dispersion effect, whereas D is the maximum likelihood estimator of j for a fully saturated dispersion model with effects for all possible factors. Nair and Pregibon concluded from this result that Df would be a better statistic to use for initial analyses aimed at identifying possible dispersion effects. 

A few court decisions, however, have been more skeptical of the linear model. Eor example, the U.S. EPA s use of the linear, no-threshold model in its risk assessment for drinking water chlorinated byproducts was rejected by the court because it was contrary to evidence suggesting a nonlinear model that had been accepted by both the U.S. EPA and its Science Advisory Board (CCC 2000). On the other hand, the U.S. OSHA s departure from the linear, no-threshold model in its formaldehyde risk assessment was likewise rejected by the court (lU 1989). The court held that the U.S. OSHAhad improperly used the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) rather than the upper confidence limit (UCL) to calculate risk, and the UCL but not the MLE model was consistent with a linear dose-response assumption. The court held that the U.S. OSHA had failed to justify its departure from its traditional linear, no-threshold dose-response assumption. 

In order to avoid the disadvantages, seen or inferred, of the simple addition of q values, various analysts have either calculated or assumed a distribution (for each tumor type) representing the likelihood for the plausible range of estimates of the linear term (q ) of the multistage model (qi), and then they used the Monte Carlo procedure to add the distributions rather than merely adding specific points on the distributions such as the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) or 95% confidence limit. A combined potency estimate (q for all sites) is then obtained as the 95% confidence limit on the summed distribution. This resembles the approach for multiple carcinogens by Kodell et al. (1995) noted above. 

MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION OF PARAMETERS IN A SIMPLE LINEAR MODEL... 

The established method for experimentally estimating the diffusion coefficient of a particle makes use of the linear dependence of its mean squared displacement (MSD) with respect to time (another method that involves a maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) that is optimal with respect to an information-theoretic limit has been proposed recently [3]). However, noise in the measurement of the displacements, due to optical and instmment constraints, complicates this estimation. Frequently though, the mean squared measurement noise (Xmeas(O) IS Well approximated to be additive [4] and satisfies (X t)) = 2Dt + ( meas(O)- Thus, a linear regression model is... 

The true system whose response we are observing is non-linear, however the model that we are fitting is linear. To what values will the maximum likelihood estimates of the coefficients for the assumed linear model converge "... 

Thus, for any laboratory model of a structure undergoing wide-band gaussian excitations on a shake table, the statistically equivalent linear model for a given vector of outputs can be obtained directly from data analysis. The question that still remains concerns the quality of the linearized model as compared to the true non- linear model of the structure. We would like to be able to say that because we have shown the statistical linearization coefficients to be the asymptotic maximum likelihood estimates of the coefficients of a linear model, then the linear model is in some sense a projection of the true non-linear model onto linear model space. 

In general, it may be messy to find the simultaneous solution of these equations algebraically. Nelder and Wedderburn (1972) showed that in the generalized linear model, these maximum likelihood estimators could also be found by iteratively reweighted least squares. Let the observation vector and parameter vector be... 

Maximum likelihood estimation in the Poisson regression model. Since the Poisson regression model is a generalized linear model, the maximum likelihood... 

The Poisson regression model is an example of the generalized linear model. The maximum likelihood estimates of the coefficients of the predictors can be found by iteratively reweighted least squares. This also finds the covariance matrix of the normal distribution that matches the curvature of the likelihood... 

When we have eensored survival times data, and we relate the linear predictor to the hazard function we have the proportional hazards model. The function BayesCPH draws a random sample from the posterior distribution for the proportional hazards model. First, the function finds an approximate normal likelihood function for the proportional hazards model. The (multivariate) normal likelihood matches the mean to the maximum likelihood estimator found using iteratively reweighted least squares. Details of this are found in Myers et al. (2002) and Jennrich (1995). The covariance matrix is found that matches the curvature of the likelihood function at its maximum. The approximate normal posterior by applying the usual normal updating formulas with a normal conjugate prior. If we used this as the candidate distribution, it may be that the tails of true posterior are heavier than the candidate distribution. This would mean that the accepted values would not be a sample from the true posterior because the tails would not be adequately represented. Assuming that y is the Poisson censored response vector, time is time, and x is a vector of covariates then... 

Note that a scalar behaves as a symmetric matrix.) Because of finite sampling, and P cannot be evaluated exactly. Instead, we will search for unbiased estimates a and P of a and P together with unbiased estimates y( and xtj of yt and xu that satisfy the linear model given by equation (5.4.37) and minimize the maximum-likelihood expression in xt and y,. Introducing m Lagrange multipliers A , one for each linear... 

Note that there is a strong similarity to LDA (Section 5.2.1), because it can be shown that also for LDA the log-ratio of the posterior probabilities is modeled by a linear function of the x-variables. However, for LR, we make no assumption for the data distribution, and the parameters are estimated differently. The estimation of the coefficients b0, b, ..., bm is done by the maximum likelihood method which leads to an iteratively reweighted least squares (IRLS) algorithm (Hastie et al. 2001). 

In the panel data models estimated in Example 21.5.1, neither the logit nor the probit model provides a framework for applying a Hausman test to determine whether fixed or random effects is preferred. Explain. (Hint Unlike our application in the linear model, the incidental parameters problem persists here.) Look at the two cases. Neither case has an estimator which is consistent in both cases. In both cases, the unconditional fixed effects effects estimator is inconsistent, so the rest of the analysis falls apart. This is the incidental parameters problem at work. Note that the fixed effects estimator is inconsistent because in both models, the estimator of the constant terms is a function of 1/T. Certainly in both cases, if the fixed effects model is appropriate, then the random effects estimator is inconsistent, whereas if the random effects model is appropriate, the maximum likelihood random effects estimator is both consistent and efficient. Thus, in this instance, the random effects satisfies the requirements of the test. In fact, there does exist a consistent estimator for the logit model with fixed effects - see the text. However, this estimator must be based on a restricted sample observations with the sum of the ys equal to zero or T muust be discarded, so the mechanics of the Hausman test are problematic. This does not fall into the template of computations for the Hausman test. 

Linear mixed effects (LME) models express the response variable as a linear function of both the fixed effects and the random effects, with an additive within-unit error, see Laird and Wase (1) or Searle et al. (2) for a good review of methodology. The frequentist approach to LME models is generally Ukelihood-based, with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) being the preferred method of estimation (3). 

The results of the nonlinear localization (confidence volumes and maximum likelihood source coordinates, indicated by gray scales and white stars) are compared to the point source solution (white circles). The 68% error ellipsoid estimated by the standard linearized localization method is plotted. In both cases, a constant propagation velocity was assumed. For the well observed event El no differences between both solutions are evident. The event E2 occurred at the edge of the sensor network and therefore has a greater localization error. There are slight deviations between the error ellipsoid and the shape of Ihe PDF, because the nonlinear relationship between source coordinates and travel times is taken into account. For this reason, the PDF can have a more irregular shape in the case of a 3-D velocity model. 

The models built in the previous steps can be parameterized based on physiogenomic data. The maximum likelihood method is used, which is a weU-established method for obtaining optimal estimates of parameters. S-plus provides very good support for algorithms that provide these estimates for the initial linear regression models, as well as other generalized linear models that we may use when the error in distribution is not normal. 

---