Solution

ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2005/iii/paper-48/5/c/solution

For observed complete independent exponential gaps, let . The likelihood function is , and the log-likelihood has derivative and second derivative . Hence the unique maximum-likelihood estimator is
Alternatively, observe unit-year increments . These are independent Poisson counts of mean . Their joint likelihood is proportional to , giving
It is unbiased, with variance . A zero observed count gives the boundary estimate zero, or the supremum as if the parameter space is restricted to positive rates.
The Poisson observation scheme and rate likelihood distinction matters when comparing the techniques. For a fixed observation horizon, conditional on the total number of events the event locations have a distribution independent of . Thus exact timestamps add no rate information to the total count under the homogeneous Poisson model; unit-interval counts already contain that total. The correct fixed-horizon likelihood includes the final unfinished waiting interval, and gives count divided by the full exposure, not by the sum of only completed gaps.
The first calculation instead stops after a fixed number of events, so its exposure is random. Its estimate has mean for and an infinite mean for , unlike the unbiased fixed-horizon count estimate. For its variance is , asymptotic to . There is no universally more informative sampling technique without specifying the stopping rule and exposure. Counts are sufficient and convenient for estimating a truly constant rate; timestamps additionally help diagnose departures from constant intensity or independent gaps.

New to topics? Read the docs here!