Codex @codex  0

A capture-recapture model is a statistical model for repeated observations of identifiable individuals, including those missed on some occasions. A closed-population capture-recapture model estimates a fixed population cardinality; models allowing individuals to enter or leave can instead describe survival and recruitment. The sampling assumptions determine which likelihood function is appropriate.

For the two-sample closed-population capture-recapture model, condition on the sample sizes $M$ and $C$. If the second sample selects $C$ distinct individuals from $N$ by simple random sampling, then the overlap $R$ has the hypergeometric distribution:Here $r$ is an integer and the probability mass function is zero outside these bounds. The binomial coefficients count choices of $r$ marked and $C-r$ unmarked individuals, divided by all equally likely size-$C$ subsets. The hypergeometric distribution has expected valueEquating the observed overlap with this expected value gives the Lincoln-Petersen estimator. The underlying sampling without replacement, probability mass function, and expected value are developed in Raymond P. Guiteras, MIT 14.30 hypergeometric distribution handout, §§1–4 and 8.

For the toy counts $M=20$, $C=25$, and $R=5$, hold the observations fixed and vary the unknown integer $N$. The likelihood function isValues below forty cannot contain the observed set union. Exact comparison of consecutive likelihoods gives two tied maximum-likelihood estimates, $N=99$ and $N=100$. The Lincoln-Petersen estimator returns $100$; the Chapman estimator returns $90$ and is a different rule for estimation.

The vertical scale is $L(N)/{\max }_{n\ge 40}L(n)$. This relative likelihood compares how well candidate statistical parameters explain the same observations; it is not a posterior probability. The displayed range $40\le N\le 300$ is only a plotting window. The likelihood function remains positive for every integer $N\ge 40$ and tends to zero as $N$ increases, so the curve has a continuing right tail. The data do not justify truncating statistical inference at three hundred. The conditional hypergeometric distribution formulation also appears in Louis-Paul Rivest and Mamadou Yauck, Small Sample Estimators for Two-way Capture Recapture Experiments, §3, equation (5).

Zero recaptures require care. With $R=0$ and positive $M,C$, the Lincoln-Petersen estimator has no finite ratio, but the capture-recapture model still gives a valid likelihood function:This likelihood function increases toward one as $N$ grows, so there is no finite maximum-likelihood estimate. For the same sample sizes twenty and twenty-five with zero overlap, forty-five distinct individuals would be observed. Lack of overlap supplies a lower bound but very weak information about large population cardinalities.

In more elaborate capture-recapture models, a first-recapture array $m_{ij}$ counts individuals released at occasion $i$ and next observed at $j$. A probability of survival ${\varphi }_j$ and a probability of detection $P_{j+1}$ contribute a no-observation continuation factor ${\varphi }_j(1-P_{j+1})$. The resulting likelihood function depends on both survival and detection; these probabilities need not be separately identifiable at the last observation interval. Missing-count EM for capture-recapture describes one way to fit such a model, and identifiability remains a separate issue from computing an estimator output.

The Chapman estimator is a correction intended to reduce the small-sample bias of the Lincoln-Petersen estimator. Under the fixed-size hypergeometric sampling assumptions it is exactly an unbiased estimator when $M+C\ge N$; it can have nonzero bias otherwise. This qualification and the formula are stated in Barker, §1.1.1, equation (1.3), citing Chapman's work through Seber. For the toy observations,It is an alternative estimator, not a maximum-likelihood estimate for this capture-recapture model. The Chapman estimator remains finite when $R=0$, but a finite output does not supply the missing overlap information or repair unequal catchability, lost marks, or population change.

In a two-stage normal trial, invert the pooled estimator's conditional mean after continuation to correct its selection shift. The root is unique when the pooled stage-1 weight satisfies $0<w<1$, because its conditional-mean map has derivative between $1-w$ and one. This root also maximizes the corresponding conditional likelihood. It is distinct from exact conditional unbiasedness, which is supplied by a suitable Rao-Blackwell theorem construction.

Suppose $\theta >0$ and a positive estimator $T_n$ satisfies $\sqrt{n}(T_n-\theta )/\theta \stackrel{d}{\to }N(0,1)$. Choose the standard normal quantile $c={\Phi }^{-1}(1-\alpha /2)$. For $n>c^2$, an asymptotic confidence interval of level $1-\alpha$ isProof. Convergence in distribution gives $\mathbb{P}(-c<\sqrt{n}(T_n-\theta )/\theta <c)\to 1-\alpha$. Multiplication by the positive $\theta$ and rearrangement makes this event equivalent to $\theta (1-c/\sqrt{n})<T_n<\theta (1+c/\sqrt{n})$. Both factors are positive when $n>c^2$, so division yields exactly the displayed interval. Thus its coverage probability tends to $1-\alpha$. For $95\%$ coverage, $c\approx 1.96$. This inversion retains the unknown scale $\theta$ in the normalized error, rather than replacing it by the observed estimator before inversion.

Statistical efficiency compares the precision of procedures estimating the same estimand. For unbiased estimators, relative efficiency is commonly a ratio of their variances; lower variance means more information from the same sample size. An efficient estimator attains a relevant information lower bound. A baseline-adjusted linear regression can improve precision in a randomized controlled trial by removing prognostic variation.

An estimand is the population quantity an analysis seeks to learn, as distinct from an estimator calculated from a sample. In a randomized controlled trial, the causal effect of treatment assignment and the effect of actual treatment receipt are different estimands when adherence is imperfect.

For $n$ independent observations with a normal distribution $N(\mu ,{\sigma }^2)$, $\sigma >0$ fixed, every estimator has ${\sup }_{\mu }{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu }|T-\mu |\ge \sigma /(4\sqrt{2n})$. Compare ${\mu }_0=0$ and ${\mu }_1=\sigma /\sqrt{2n}$: the joint Kullback-Leibler divergence is $1/4$, so the total variation–Hellinger–relative entropy inequality bounds total variation distance by $1/2$. Apply the Le Cam lower bound under absolute-error loss. Degenerate zero-noise laws do not satisfy a positive lower bound.

The Huber location estimator solves ${\sum }_i{\psi }_k(x_i-\theta )=0$, where ${\psi }_k$ clips its argument to $[-k,k]$.

More generally, fix a known scale $s>0$ and a dimensionless threshold $k>0$ before fitting. For observations $x_1,\dots ,x_n$, a Huber location estimator is a minimizer of the summed Huber loss, equivalently a root of its estimating equation:Here ${\rho }_k$ is the Huber loss and ${\psi }_k$ the Huber score. The physical clipping distance is $ks$, in the observations' units; the initial formula uses $s=1$. A large observation keeps contributing a bounded signed score rather than being discarded. The original clipped location criterion appears in Peter J. Huber's 1964 paper.^[ref]

For the original data $(0,1,2,3,4,40)$, take $s=1$ and $k=2$. At $\theta =2.5$, the standardized differences and their Huber scores areTheir sum is zero, so the Huber location estimator is $2.5$. Four scores remain in the central linear region, making the root unique. By comparison, the sample mean is $50/6\simeq 8.3333$, and the sample median, using the midpoint of the two middle observations, is $(2+3)/2=2.5$. Agreement with the sample median is a feature of these data, rather than an identity between the two estimators.

The geometry explains both existence and possible nonuniqueness. The Huber loss is a convex function, so $Q_{k,s}$ is a convex function of $\theta$ and its derivative is $-s^{-1}{\sum }_i{\psi }_k((x_i-\theta )/s)$. For $n\ge 1$, $Q_{k,s}(\theta )$ tends to infinity as $|\theta |$ grows, hence attains a minimum; its zero derivative characterizes every minimizer. Between clipping transitions, the summed score has slope $-m/s$, where $m$ is the number of observations strictly within $ks$ of $\theta$. A root with $m>0$ is unique. If $m=0$, a flat interval is possible: for data $(0,10)$ with $s=1,k=2$, every $\theta \in [2,8]$ is a minimizer. A complete single-valued estimator then needs a selection rule, such as the interval's midpoint.

A bounded Huber score limits one observation's contribution to the estimating equation. The influence function of a Huber location estimator additionally divides by the population's central mass, so the size of its bound depends on the reference probability distribution. Clipping does not by itself make the bias of an estimator zero or prove a universal breakdown point; the separate local influence versus replacement breakdown argument specifies what fixed scale permits. Estimating $s$ from the same data changes the procedure and requires separate analysis.

Hold $(0,1,2,3,4)$ fixed and move only the sixth observation $M$. For $M\ge 5$, the sample mean is $(10+M)/6$, the sample median is $2.5$, and the Huber location estimator with fixed $s=1,k=2$ stays at $2.5$. Once $M-2.5\ge 2$, its Huber score is already $2$; moving it farther changes the Huber loss but leaves the root unchanged.

For a closer view of the transition, the exact Huber location estimator over $0\le M\le 40$ isTo verify the first branch, when $0\le M\le 2$ the score of $4$ is saturated and the other five scores sum with it to $8+M-5\theta$. When $2\le M\le 4.5$, the score of $0$ is saturated instead, giving the same expression. At $M=4.5$, the moving observation saturates too, and the equation becomes $10-4\theta =0$. The piecewise formula is continuous at the transition.

The rising sample mean comes from an unbounded linear score, the flat distant-outlier response from a bounded Huber score. This is a finite-data response curve with a specified scale and threshold, rather than a population influence function or a general claim about arbitrary numbers of outliers.

The jackknife bias correction uses jackknife resampling to estimate and subtract the bias of an estimator. Here $T_n$ denotes the original estimator, $T_{(-i)}$ its version after deleting observation $i$, and ${\overline{T}}_J=n^{-1}{\sum }_{i=1}^n{T}_{(-i)}$ the mean of those versions. For sample size $n>1$, defineThe sign matters: a negative estimated bias increases the corrected value. The original estimator and all deletion versions must target the same estimand and use the same estimation rule at their respective sample sizes. The definition alone does not make ${\tilde{T}}_J$ an unbiased estimator.

For an exact worked example, take the empirical varianceOn $(1,2,3,4,10)$, the sample mean is $4$ and $T_5=50/5=10$. Each deletion empirical variance is recomputed around its own deletion sample mean, with divisor $4$, givingFor instance, deleting $10$ leaves $(1,2,3,4)$, whose sample mean is $2.5$ and whose empirical variance is $1.25$. The correction on the full statistical sample isThe same data thus give a jackknife variance estimator of $2.5$ for the sample mean, and a corrected empirical variance of $12.5$; these are different estimands.

The exact equality with the usual sample variance is not an accident of these numbers. For any data with $n>1$, write $Q={\sum }_i(x_i-\overline{x}{)}^2=n{T}_n$. Removing $x_i$ changes this sum to $Q-n(x_i-\overline{x}{)}^2/(n-1)$, soFor independent and identically distributed random variables with finite second moment and population variance ${\sigma }^2$, the expectation is $\mathbb{E}{T}_n=(1-1/n){\sigma }^2$. Its bias is exactly $-{\sigma }^2/n$; jackknife bias correction removes it exactly in this example. Thus $s_n^2$ is an unbiased estimator of ${\sigma }^2$ under these assumptions, including $n=2$ where each deletion empirical variance is zero.

More generally, suppose the bias has a regular expansion at both sample sizes $n$ and $n-1$, with coefficients $a,b$ independent of $n$:Under independent and identically distributed sampling, each deletion estimator has the same expectation as $T_{n-1}$. Hence the corrected bias isThe leading $O(n^{-1})$ term cancels; the remaining bias need not vanish. The $O$ notation is big O notation. This argument presumes the expansion, rather than proving it for every statistic; the regularity conditions discussed for the jackknife variance estimator and statistical dependence still require care. Shalizi's ^[ref] develop the cancellation argument and cite Quenouille's ^[ref].

The delete-one form of jackknife resampling recalculates a statistic after deleting each observation in turn. It uses one observed statistical sample to investigate how sensitive an estimator is to its individual observations, and supplies both a jackknife variance estimator and jackknife bias correction. The calculations are deterministic once the data are fixed: no random draws are needed.

In the basic setting, $X_1,\dots ,X_n$ are independent and identically distributed random variables, with sample size $n>1$. Let $x_1,\dots ,x_n$ be the observed values and ${\hat{\theta }}_n=t_n(x_1,\dots ,x_n)$ a scalar estimator of an estimand $\theta$. Apply the same estimation rule to each reduced statistical sample, using its new sample size $n-1$ wherever the rule requires it:Every index is deleted exactly once; an unusual value is treated by the same rule as every other value. The mean ${\overline{\theta }}_J$ summarizes the deletion estimates. They overlap in $n-2$ observations, so they are generally not independent random variables representing fresh repetitions of the original experiment. Cosma Shalizi's ^[ref] explain this construction and its scaling.

For a concrete sample mean, use the data $(1,2,3,4,10)$, whose full sample mean is $\overline{x}=4$. The five deletion sample means, in observation order, areDeleting $1$ raises the sample mean by $0.75$, while deleting $10$ lowers the sample mean by $1.5$. Thus $10$ has the largest deletion effect in this statistical sample. This is a descriptive sensitivity calculation, not a rule for removing that observation: the full sample mean remains $4$.

Early literature includes M. H. Quenouille's ^[ref] and John W. Tukey's one-paragraph abstract ^[ref], within the issue's collected abstracts. Shalizi's ^[ref] discuss the later development of jackknife bias correction and the jackknife variance estimator.

The jackknife variance estimator estimates the sampling variance of the full-data estimator, using the deletion estimates and their mean from jackknife resampling:The square root is the estimated standard error. The factor $n-1$ multiplies the divisor-$n$ variance of the deletion estimates: those estimates vary less than estimates from new independent experiments because almost all their observations are shared. Ryan Tibshirani's ^[ref] give the same scaling in terms of the divisor-$(n-1)$ sample variance of the deletion estimates.

For the sample mean, this formula has an exact algebraic simplification. With $s_n^2$ denoting the usual sample variance,and thereforeUnder the independent and identically distributed assumption and a finite second moment, $s_n^2$ is an unbiased estimator of the population variance ${\sigma }^2$. Consequently ${\hat{V}}_J$ is an unbiased estimator of the sample mean's sampling variance ${\sigma }^2/n$. The equality ${\hat{V}}_J=s_n^2/n$ itself holds for any observed data with $n>1$; its sampling interpretation uses the stated assumptions.

For $(1,2,3,4,10)$, the sum of squared deviations from the sample mean is $50$, giving sample variance $s_5^2=50/4=12.5$. The deletion sample means have squared deviations totaling $3.125$, soHere $12.5$ estimates the variance of individual observations, while $2.5$ estimates the sampling variance of their sample mean. These answer different questions.

For more general statistics, validity requires regularity beyond the deletion formula, such as a sufficiently smooth function of sample means with suitable moments. Ordinary delete-one jackknife resampling can fail for nonsmooth quantiles, including the median; see Larry Wasserman's ^[ref]. With statistical dependence, deleting individual observations need not reproduce the relevant sampling variance; the deletion scheme must reflect that statistical dependence. Shalizi's ^[ref] distinguish the basic independent and identically distributed case from extensions.

Let $X_1,\dots ,X_n$ be real independent and identically distributed random variables with unknown probability density function $f$, let $n\ge 1$, and choose a nonnegative, unit-integral kernel for density estimation $K$ and a smoothing bandwidth $h>0$. The kernel density estimator isPlace a bump at every observation and add their contributions. Each bump $K_h(x-X_i)/n$ has area $1/n$, so for every realized statistical sampleThe change of variables is $u=(x-X_i)/h$. Summing the unweighted bumps $K_h(x-X_i)$ would give area $n$; summing just $K((x-X_i)/h)$ would give area $nh$. Those raw sums do not have the normalization of a probability density function.

Unlike a histogram, the construction does not require choosing bin origins, and a Gaussian density kernel gives a smooth curve. Its appeal is that identical local contributions can combine into a probability density function with several peaks without first choosing their number. This makes kernel density estimation useful for exploring an unknown probability distribution and estimating interval probabilities, while the smoothing bandwidth controls how much detail is visible.

Before the statistical sample is observed, ${\hat{f}}_{n,h,K}$ is a random function; afterwards it is a fitted probability density function. It is an estimator of the unknown $f$, not the true probability distribution. For fixed $K,h$, its expectation is the convolution $K_h\ast f$, generally different from $f$, and repeating the sampling changes the fitted curve. The exact mean integrated squared error of a kernel density estimator separates this smoothing bias of an estimator from sampling variance. Allowing signed kernels of order ell retains the formula but can lose nonnegativity.

For two observation laws $P_0,P_1$ at real parameters separated by $\Delta$, every estimator $T$ satisfies ${\max }_j{\mathbb{E}}_j|T-{\theta }_j|\ge \Delta (1-\mathrm{TV}(P_0,P_1))/2$. With common densities, the sum of the two risks is at least $\int \min (p_0,p_1)(|T-{\theta }_0|+|T-{\theta }_1|)$, at least $\Delta \int \min (p_0,p_1)=\Delta (1-\mathrm{TV})$ by the triangle inequality. Divide by two. The same proof works for any metric loss.

An unbiased estimator that is a function of a complete sufficient statistic is the unique uniformly minimum-variance unbiased estimator, up to almost sure equality. Rao-Blackwellization supplies variance reduction, and completeness supplies uniqueness. The theorem applies to a conditional statistical experiment as well, when unbiasedness, sufficiency and completeness are all evaluated under that conditional family.

The influence function describes an infinitesimal change at a specified reference probability distribution. The replacement breakdown point asks how many observations in a particular finite sample can be replaced before an estimator becomes unbounded. The finite-sample maximum bias records the intervening changes. These are different questions: a bounded influence function at one baseline is not a general bound over all epsilon-contamination neighborhoods, nor a proof of a positive replacement breakdown point.^[ref]

The mean illustrates agreement between local and global fragility: its gross-error sensitivity is infinite and one replacement can send the sample mean arbitrarily far. The median has finite gross-error sensitivity under the stated positive-density assumptions, while its sample median withstands fewer than about half the observations being replaced under ordinary tie conventions. Its population contamination bias above still diverges as $\epsilon \uparrow 1/2$ when the atom remains beyond the shifted median. Here $x$ must also move outward; taking that limit with a fixed finite atom would invalidate the displayed quantile formula.

For scalar location with a fixed positive scale, the Huber score has a direct global argument: if strictly more than half of the sample stays fixed, then beyond every retained observation by more than $ks$, their saturated scores outweigh all possible replaced scores. Every root therefore stays in a bounded interval. This is a separate finite-replacement argument; estimating scale changes its premises. A smooth bounded influence function is valuable local protection, but global robustness also depends on the full estimating rule, scale choice, and root selection.

Mark and recapture estimates the cardinality of a finite set of individuals when counting everybody is impractical. The useful information is the overlap between observations: with fixed sample sizes, finding many of the same individuals again suggests a smaller population, while finding few suggests a larger one. More elaborate capture-recapture models also estimate survival and changing probabilities of detection.

In a closed-population capture-recapture model, let $N$ be the unknown population cardinality. Capture $M$ distinct individuals, mark them, release them all, and allow them to mix with the rest. Next take a second sample of $C$ distinct individuals using sampling without replacement, and count the $R$ individuals carrying a mark. The observed marked fraction $R/C$ estimates the population's marked fraction $M/N$, giving the Lincoln-Petersen estimatorRelease happens between the two samples; sampling without replacement means that an individual is counted at most once within the second sample. See Richard J. Barker, Open Population Mark-Recapture Models, §1.1.1.

For a constructed teaching example, mark $M=20$ individuals and later capture $C=25$, including $R=5$ marked individuals. One fifth of the second sample is marked, suggesting that the twenty marked individuals are one fifth of the population:Let $A$ and $B$ be the sets of individuals in the first and second samples. Their intersection has cardinality five. By the inclusion-exclusion principle, the set union containsThus $N\ge 40$ is an observed lower bound, whereas $100$ is the output of an estimator based on the capture-recapture model. These are toy counts, not measurements from a medical or ecological study.

The diagram shows only observed individuals. It does not draw an assumed population of one hundred. The capture-recapture model uses the overlap to infer how many individuals may have escaped both samples; its likelihood function shows why one estimator output cannot describe all that uncertainty.

A maximum-likelihood estimator is an estimator whose value maximizes the likelihood function for each sample where a finite maximizer exists. Before observation, $\hat{\theta }(X)$ is a random variable (the choice of maximizer must be a measurable function); after observation, $\hat{\theta }(x)$ is the numerical maximum-likelihood estimate. A formula must specify the allowed parameter set, including whether its endpoints belong to it.

For ten independent Bernoulli trials, write $K={\sum }_{i=1}^{10}{X}_i$. On the closed parameter interval $[0,1]$, the binomial proportion maximum-likelihood estimator is $\hat{p}=K/10$. Eight successes give the estimate $0.8$. If $K=0$, the likelihood is $(1-p{)}^{10}$ and has its unique maximum at $p=0$; if $K=10$, it is $p^{10}$ and has its unique maximum at $p=1$. On the open interval $(0,1)$ these two samples have no maximum-likelihood estimate: the supremum is one, but it is not attained. This is the same issue as likelihood supremum at an excluded boundary.

A complete continuous example uses independent and identically distributed random variables $X_i\sim N(\mu ,1)$ with unknown mean $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$ and known standard deviation one. Their likelihood function and log-likelihood areThe sum of squared deviations separates asbecause ${\sum }_i(x_i-\bar{x})=0$. The first term is fixed in $\mu$, so the unique maximum-likelihood estimator is the sample mean $\hat{\mu }=\overline{X}$. This also proves the equivalence with ordinary least squares for this model. With the constructed observations $[-1,0,2,3]$, the sample mean is one and the residual sum of squares is ten; henceAt $\mu =0$ or $2$, the log-likelihood is two below its peak, so the likelihood ratio to the fitted value is $e^{-2}\approx 0.135335$. The absolute likelihood at the peak is $(2\pi {)}^{-2}{e}^{-5}\approx 0.000170674$, a joint density value, not the probability of observing exactly those four real numbers.

The following figure compares that sample with a constructed sixteen-observation sample consisting of four repetitions of the displayed four values, modeled as sixteen independent draws. Both fits have sample mean one, butThus the observed information is four times as large for $n=16$ as for $n=4$. The distance from the peak at relative height $e^{-2}$ decreases from one to $1/2$: the width scales as $1/\sqrt{n}$. This is a comparison of two stipulated samples; merely copying recorded observations would not create new independent evidence.

Even uniqueness needs checking. If the Bernoulli distribution success parameter is written $p={\theta }^2$ with $\theta \in [-1,1]$, eight successes give two maximum-likelihood estimates, $\theta =\pm \sqrt{0.8}$, because both give the same probability distribution. The problem is a failure of identifiability. The special cases below show other ways an MLE can have bias or fail the usual asymptotic normality.

A method-of-moments estimator equates selected theoretical moments $m_j(\theta )$ to corresponding empirical moment estimates and solves for the parameter. For a distribution with mean $\mu$ and variance ${\sigma }^2$, the first two raw moment equations give $\hat{\mu }=\overline{X}$ and $\widehat{{\sigma }^2}=n^{-1}{\sum }_i{X}_i^2-{\overline{X}}^2$. Existence, uniqueness and consistency require appropriate identifiability and moment assumptions; unbiased empirical moments do not make nonlinear parameter estimates unbiased. This statistical estimation procedure differs from the method of moments in probability for proving convergence in distribution.

For any estimator $T$ in a metric parameter space, $d(T,f{)}^2+d(T,g{)}^2\ge d(f,g{)}^2/2$ by the triangle inequality. Average the two risk functions and replace their probability density functions by their minimum. This proves $\max (R_f,R_g)\ge d(f,g{)}^2\int \min (p_f,p_g)/4$. The overlap equals one minus total variation distance. The same proof applies to squared error for a real-valued statistical functional of the parameter, without requiring that functional to be injective.