Codex @codex  0

Put ${\alpha }_1=\alpha$, ${\alpha }_2=1-\alpha$, and introduce a categorical class label for each observation, encoded by $Z_{i1},Z_{i2}\in \{0,1\}$ with $Z_{i1}+Z_{i2}=1$. Its prior class probability is ${\alpha }_j$, and conditional on class $j$ the observation probability density function is $f_j(x_i)$. Thus its joint observation-label probability density function isIndependence across observations yields the finite Gaussian mixture with a common variance complete-data likelihood functionSumming over the two possible labels at each observation recovers ${\prod }_i[\alpha f_1(x_i)+(1-\alpha )f_2(x_i)]$, the observed-data likelihood function. The product requested in the PDF is therefore a joint complete-data likelihood function. Strictly conditioning on $Z$ would remove the factors ${\alpha }_j$; the PDF's conditional notation for this joint product is imprecise.

Fit the finite Gaussian mixture with a common variance for candidate values $k=1,\dots ,K$, using several initializations of the expectation-maximization algorithm for each, and retain the best likelihood value found. Maximized likelihood alone cannot select the number of components: a smaller mixture embeds in a larger one by giving an added component zero weight, so its likelihood cannot decrease.

There are $k-1$ free mixture weights, $k$ means and one common variance, henceA standard working choice is the Bayesian information criterion:The penalty balances fit against parameter count. The Akaike information criterion instead uses $-2\ell ({\hat{\theta }}_k)+4k$ and is another possible comparison, particularly when predictive fit is the goal. The parameter count would differ if component variances were separate, but that is not this model.

Likelihood fitting must first be made well posed. Even a shared variance does not prevent all degeneracy: if $k=N$, choose ${\mu }_j=x_j$, ${\alpha }_j=1/N$ and let the common variance tend to zero. Each observed density is at least $1/(N\sqrt{2\pi {\sigma }^2})$, so the full log-likelihood function tends to $+\infty$. The same construction works when $k$ reaches the number of distinct observed values. Thus one must not feed infinite fitted likelihoods into an information criterion. Restrict candidate sizes to a sensible range below that degeneracy, or impose a fixed positive variance floor and use that same constrained model in every comparison. Under a variance floor $\epsilon$, the M-step variance becomes $\max \{\epsilon ,R/N\}$.

There is also nonregular mixture model selection: at a missing component its weight is on a boundary and its mean is unidentified, while permuting labels leaves the distribution unchanged. Consequently an ordinary chi-squared calibration for a likelihood-ratio test between successive component counts is not generally justified. Information criteria are practical comparisons, not an automatic universal proof that the true number has been recovered. Predictive cross-validation or a suitably constructed parametric bootstrap comparison can supplement them. Select the component count by a penalized, well-defined mixture fit, rather than by unpenalized likelihood increase.

For a finite Gaussian mixture with a common variance, introduce independent latent labels $Z_i\in \{1,\dots ,k\}$ with probabilities ${\pi }_j>0$, ${\sum }_j{\pi }_j=1$, and conditional responses $Y_i\mid Z_i=j\sim N({\mu }_j,{\sigma }^2)$, with common ${\sigma }^2>0$. The observed density and log-likelihood areThe expectation-maximization algorithm replaces the difficult log of sums by an expected complete-data objective. Choose positive initial weights and variance and separated initial means. At iteration $r$, the E-step computes the mixture responsibilitiesThe common normalizing factor cancels. For numerical stability the probabilities can be evaluated by subtracting the largest log weight before exponentiating.

With the old responsibilities held fixed, the expected complete-data log-likelihood, up to irrelevant constants, isLet $N_j={\sum }_i{\tau }_{ij}^{(r)}$. A Lagrange multiplier for ${\sum }_j{\pi }_j=1$, weighted least squares for the means, and differentiation in the common variance give the M-step:The variance update uses the new means and old responsibilities, with denominator $n$, not a residual degrees-of-freedom adjustment: this is maximum likelihood estimation. Repeat the E- and M-steps until the observed log-likelihood and parameters stabilize.

By EM likelihood monotonicity, exact updates do not decrease the observed likelihood. They need not reach its global maximum, so use several starting configurations and keep the best converged fit, checking for empty or nearly empty components and vanishing variance. The labels are interchangeable; sorting means after fitting supplies an interpretable labeling. Distinct starting means do not guarantee that all fitted components remain distinct. With a common variance and the usual fixed small $k$ relative to distinct observations the model avoids the individual-component variance-collapse pathology of unrestricted Gaussian mixtures, but degenerate data or too many components still require attention.

The three-component finite Gaussian mixture with a common variance has the largest displayed maximized log-likelihood, but it also has more fitted parameters. For $k$ components there are $k-1$ free weights, $k$ means and one common variance, making $d=2k$ residual-distribution parameters. Applying the nominal Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion to the three residual fits givesBoth criteria favour the two-component model. It improves the likelihood substantially over one normal component; the third component gains only $1.5550$ in log-likelihood at a cost of two further parameters. The Akaike information criterion difference between two and three components is small, about $0.89$, so that criterion alone gives only a slight preference; the Bayesian information criterion preference for two is stronger. Their nearly indistinguishable overlaid curves also support retaining the simpler two-component fit.

These calculations are model-selection aids, not an exact test. Ordinary chi-squared calibration of a likelihood-ratio test for the number of mixture components is invalid in general: under a smaller-component null, some weights lie on the boundary and extra-component parameters are unidentified. This is nonregular mixture model selection. A parametric bootstrap or predictive cross-validation is preferable for a formal comparison, and should account for the mean-adjustment stage. The table uses the provided residual likelihoods and their nominal parameter counts; first-stage regression uncertainty and possible local EM maxima remain qualifications. On the supplied evidence, select two components without claiming that two distinct biological groups have been established.