Codex @codex  0

Maximum likelihood estimation is a method of statistical estimation: within a specified statistical model, choose the statistical parameter values that maximize the likelihood function of the observed data. For a parameter set $\Theta$ and observations $x$, its exact requirement isThe equality requires an attained, finite maximum; a supremum approached only at an excluded boundary is not enough. The resulting rule is a maximum-likelihood estimator. The likelihood function uses a probability mass function for discrete data and a probability density function for continuous data. See MIT 18.05, Reading 10b, sections 3 and 3.2.

The direction of the comparison is the interesting part: hold the observations fixed and vary the statistical parameter. Ten independent Bernoulli trials with eight successes and two failures give the maximum-likelihood estimate $\hat{p}=0.8$, as derived in log-likelihood. This chooses the member of the statistical model that assigns the greatest mass to that outcome. It does not assert an $80\%$ posterior probability that this parameter value is true. Bayesian statistics combines the same likelihood function with a prior distribution to obtain a posterior distribution; maximum a posteriori estimation maximizes that posterior mass or density instead.

The method turns many fitting tasks into one maximization problem. In the normal distribution model with known variance, it recovers the sample mean and ordinary least squares, while binomial regression and Poisson regression use different sampling assumptions to build their own likelihood functions. The log-likelihood turns independent contributions into a sum, exposing score equations and observed information. A peak's location gives an estimate; its shape records how much the observed data distinguish nearby parameter values.

Existence, uniqueness, bias, and statistical consistency are separate questions. Normal mean and variance maximum-likelihood estimators include a variance estimate with bias, likelihood supremum at an excluded boundary gives nonexistence, and the Neyman-Scott incidental parameter problem gives inconsistency. The usual asymptotic normality of a maximum likelihood estimator requires assumptions: a consistent estimator at an interior true parameter in a fixed finite-dimensional model with identifiability, sufficient smoothness and control of log-likelihood derivatives, and finite nonsingular Fisher information. A common parameter-independent support of a probability distribution is part of a standard sufficient framework; see Rigollet, MIT 18.650, Maximum Likelihood Estimation, slides 22-23. This is a description of the regular setting, not a complete theorem's hypotheses. The exact endpoint limit for a shifted exponential distribution shows why changing support can produce a different rate and a nonnormal limit. These properties do not follow just from maximizing a function.

In his 1922 paper in the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions A, R. A. Fisher explicitly distinguished likelihood from probability and described choosing the parameter values with greatest likelihood. Section 6 also discusses comparing likelihoods after giving the maximum value one, the convention used in the figures here. See Fisher, On the Mathematical Foundations of Theoretical Statistics, section 6, pp. 326-328, DOI 10.1098/rsta.1922.0009.

Simultaneously applying a permutation to the mixture weights and mixture components leaves $f$ unchanged. Thus identifiability of named components requires a convention, such as ordering distinct component means; label switching describes the associated inferential issue.^[ref]

Even after choosing label names, identical mixture components reveal only their combined mixture weight, and an inactive mixture component has undetermined statistical parameters. Adding mixture components increases flexibility but can cause overfitting; judge predictions using cross-validation, rather than interpreting every fitted component as a discovered population.^[ref]

This one-parameter normal distribution model has positive mean equal to its standard deviation. It is a curved exponential family: both the linear and quadratic natural parameters depend on the same scalar statistical parameter. It combines information about the center and spread, so the sample mean alone does not use all available Fisher information.

For a statistical sample of size $n$, let $A={\sum }_i{x}_i$ and $B={\sum }_i{x}_i^2$. Up to an additive constant the log-likelihood function is $\ell (\mu )=-n\log \mu -B/(2{\mu }^2)+A/\mu$. Its score function is $(B-A\mu -n{\mu }^2)/{\mu }^3$. When $B>0$, the numerator changes from positive to negative at its unique positive root, so the global maximum-likelihood estimator isThe all-zero observation vector has zero probability and is an exceptional case with an unbounded likelihood function near zero. Since $\mathbb{E}A=n\mu$ and $\mathbb{E}B=2n{\mu }^2$, the expected Fisher information is $I_n(\mu )=3n/{\mu }^2$. Thus regular asymptotic normality of a maximum likelihood estimator gives $\sqrt{n}(\hat{\mu }-\mu )\stackrel{d}{\to }N(0,{\mu }^2/3)$. The optimal asymptotic combination of a normal sample mean and standard deviation attains the same first-order precision.

A nuisance parameter is a statistical parameter required to specify the distribution of observations but not itself the target of inference. A profile likelihood maximizes over it; Bayesian model evidence integrates over it using a proper prior distribution. These operations differ and need not give the same inference. A baseline hazard in a Cox proportional-hazards model is an infinite-dimensional example.

The nuisance tangent space is the closed linear span of score functions from statistical paths that vary the nuisance parameter while fixing the target statistical parameter. It is a closed subspace of a Hilbert space inside $L_0^2(P)$. Removing its component from a parametric score function leaves the information that nuisance variation cannot imitate.

In the normal mean proportional to standard deviation model, both $\overline{X}$ and $S$ estimate the positive statistical parameter $\mu$. Their independent limiting normal distributions have rescaled variances ${\mu }^2$ and ${\mu }^2/2$, respectively, by asymptotic normality of a normal sample standard deviation. Thus for fixed $w\in \mathbb{R}$,The bracket is $3(w-1/3{)}^2/2+1/3$, minimized uniquely at $w=1/3$. Hence $(\overline{X}+2S)/3$ has leading sampling variance ${\mu }^2/(3n)$, the inverse expected Fisher information. The result is first-order optimality within these fixed-weight combinations and does not assert that $S$ is an exactly unbiased estimator.

Two statistical parameters are orthogonal when their cross term in the expected Fisher information matrix vanishes. This is pointwise orthogonality at a specified parameter value, or global orthogonality when it holds throughout the parameter domain. It gives a zero cross covariance in the regular first-order asymptotic distribution of efficient estimators, rather than asserting exact finite-sample independence.

Let ${\mu }_0$ and ${\mu }_1$ be the expected political efficacy scores in the two employment groups in the target population. The null hypothesis is $H_0:{\mu }_0-{\mu }_1=0$ and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is $H_1:{\mu }_0-{\mu }_1\ne 0$. A Welch's t-test compares the difference of sample means with its standard error, estimating the two group variances separately:The reference Student t-distribution has approximate, generally noninteger statistical degrees of freedom; it does not require equality of the two variances. Observations should be independent, with finite group variances; normal distributions give the usual small-sample rationale, while large samples permit an approximate normal sampling distribution under suitable conditions. A large sample cannot correct a biased sampling procedure or dependence between observations.^[ref]

A p-value is a probability calculated under the null hypothesis and the sampling assumptions: for this two-sided test it measures the probability of an absolute test statistic at least as large as the observed one. It is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true, the probability that chance caused the observed difference, or a measure of the effect size. If the significance level $\alpha =0.05$ was chosen in advance, the printed $p=0.049521$ falls just below it. This would reject $H_0$ at 5%, but not at 1%. The significance level describes the long-run probability of a type I error, rejecting a true null hypothesis; a type II error instead fails to reject a false null hypothesis. Statistical power is the rejection probability under a specified alternative hypothesis. None of these errors for this particular realised study can be read as a posterior probability from $p$.

Both the printed sample means and the positive confidence interval point toward greater political efficacy in group 0, the non-employed group. Their magnitudes disagree. Subtracting the printed sample means gives $8.656650-6.322812=2.333838$ scale units. Yet the printed 95% confidence interval has midpoint $(0.2822355+0.6743412)/2=0.47828835$, not $2.333838$. A two-sided Welch interval is centred on the difference of sample means. This violates the consistency identities for a two-sided t-test; the interval and estimates cannot describe the same reported comparison. If the interval alone were trusted, it would exclude zero and indicate an increase between about $0.28$ and $0.67$ units, but that is explicitly a conditional interpretation. A 95% confidence interval refers to repeated-sample coverage of a fixed statistical parameter, not a 95% posterior probability for that realised interval.^[ref]

There are additional arithmetic warnings. The printed $t=6.1616$ at $2022.4$ statistical degrees of freedom gives a two-sided p-value about $8.67\times 10^{-10}$, not $0.049521$. Thus taking the test statistic as authoritative would imply much stronger evidence, not merely a marginal 5% result. The employment counts sum to $2311$, but their percentages are $905/2311\approx 39.16\%$ and $1406/2311\approx 60.84\%$, not $39.27\%$ and $60.73\%$. If those counts also apply to the two political efficacy sample means, their weighted arithmetic mean would be about $7.237$, not the reported overall $8.348$; separate complete-case group sizes are not supplied, so that last cross-output comparison is conditional on a common sample. No uniquely corrected difference, standard error or interval follows from these contradictory fields.

The political efficacy summary describes a bounded observed scale from $0$ to $16$, with median $9$ and middle quartiles $7$ and $12$. The interquartile range is $5$; the overall sample mean $8.348$ being below the median does not, by itself, establish a particular distributional shape. These descriptive statistics cannot supply the missing coherent group variances or a standardized effect size. Even a corrected small p-value would establish an association under a statistical model, rather than a causal effect of employment. Age, other background covariates, selection bias and the quality of the political efficacy measurement remain relevant. A defensible report gives the conditional 5% decision and direction, identifies the contradictions, and withholds a single numerical effect-and-uncertainty claim until the output is checked.

Partition the statistical parameter as $\theta =(\psi ,\lambda )$, with $\psi$ of interest. For each fixed $\psi$, maximize over the nuisance parameter to obtain ${\hat{\lambda }}_{\psi }$. The profile likelihood and profile log-likelihood areTheir maximizer is the interest component of the joint maximum-likelihood estimator. At a regular nuisance maximum, ${\ell }_p^{\prime }(\psi )={\ell }_{\psi }(\psi ,{\hat{\lambda }}_{\psi })$ and its negative Hessian matrix is the Schur complementThe profile likelihood ratio is unchanged by a one-to-one nuisance reparametrization, and transforms naturally under a one-to-one interest reparametrization. Under the regular conditions of Wilks theorem, $2\{{\ell }_p(\hat{\psi })-{\ell }_p({\psi }_0)\}$ has a limiting chi-squared distribution with dimension of $\psi$ degrees of freedom. Profiling is maximization, rather than integration or conditioning; $L_p$ need not be a normalized data density, and nuisance fitting can cause appreciable higher-order distortion.

The modified profile likelihood corrects for nuisance curvature and sample-coordinate distortion. In suitable coordinates $(\hat{\psi },\hat{\lambda },a)$, with $a$ an ancillary statistic, setholding $\hat{\psi },a$ fixed when differentiating the data coordinates. Up to an interest-independent factor, the Barndorff-Nielsen modified profile likelihood isEquivalently, implicit differentiation of the nuisance score equation gives $J_{\psi }=|j_{\lambda \lambda }{|}^{-1}|{\ell }_{\lambda ;\hat{\lambda }}|$, andThe semicolon denotes sample-coordinate differentiation, not a second parameter derivative. In orthogonal coordinates, the Cox-Reid adjusted profile likelihood uses the information adjustment alone; it agrees with this modification when $J_{\psi }=1$, as happens below.

For the Inverse Gaussian distribution, write $s={\sum }_i{y}_i$, $r={\sum }_i{y}_i^{-1}$ and $\bar{y}=s/n$. Terms independent of both parameters can be absorbed into $c(y)$, givingThe nuisance score function isIt is positive below $\bar{y}$ and negative above it. Thus its global maximum isindependent of $\psi$. Put $D=r-n/\bar{y}$. ThenThe nuisance observed information at this fit isSince the constrained nuisance estimator is literally the full nuisance estimator as a function of the data, $J_{\psi }=1$ in the specified sample coordinates. Hence the modified profile likelihood for inverse Gaussian shape isFor $n\ge 2$ and a nonconstant positive sample, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives $D>0$. The corresponding fits are ${\hat{\psi }}_p=n/D$ and ${\hat{\psi }}_m=(n-1)/D$. A constant sample has $D=0$ and no finite profile maximum; under continuous independent sampling this event has probability zero when $n\ge 2$. In particular, the modified coefficient accounts for the fitted mean nuisance parameter.

The P-star approximation describes the sampling density of a regular maximum-likelihood estimator in sample coordinates consisting of the fitted parameter $\hat{\theta }$ and a suitable ancillary statistic $a$. For a $d$-dimensional parameter, write $\ell (\theta ;\hat{\theta },a)$ for the log-likelihood expressed in these coordinates, and $j(\hat{\theta };\hat{\theta },a)$ for the fitted observed information. The approximation isThe determinant factor supplies the local volume scale, while the exponential retains the full likelihood ratio, rather than replacing it by a quadratic. The normalizing constant is chosen by integrating over the fitted-parameter coordinates; its leading regular large-sample value is $(2\pi {)}^{-d/2}$. These ingredients arise from a statistical saddlepoint approximation. Their use requires an interior, locally unique fit, nonsingular information and suitable smoothness; an ancillary statistic specifies the conditioning surface when the fit alone does not exhaust the relevant sample coordinates. In a regular model the unnormalized leading expression has relative error of order $n^{-1}$ locally; normalization and conditioning matter for refined inference. It is not a universal exact density. Under a smooth one-to-one parameter transformation, the Hessian at the fit transforms without a score term, so its determinant supplies precisely the density Jacobian determinant. This proves the invariance of the construction under one-to-one changes of statistical parameters.

Here put $S={\sum }_i{X}_i$ and $T={\sum }_i{Y}_i$. The log-likelihood, apart from a data-only constant, isThe two score equations giveThe sample sums form a sufficient statistic, and there is no need to retain an additional ancillary in calculating their joint density. Inverting the fitted coordinates gives $S=n/\hat{\lambda }$ and $T=n/(\hat{\psi }\hat{\lambda })$. With parameter order $(\psi ,\lambda )$, the fitted observed information isAlso,Thus the required joint P-star approximation isTo integrate out $\hat{\lambda }$, substitute $u=b/\hat{\lambda }$ inTaking $b=n\lambda (1+\psi /\hat{\psi })$ and rearranging the powers yieldsThe beta function identity ${\int }_0^{\infty }{z}^{n-1}(1+z{)}^{-2n}dz=\Gamma (n{)}^2/\Gamma (2n)$ therefore givesBoth normalized approximations are actually exact. To check the joint assertion independently, $S$ and $T$ have independent gamma distributions with shape $n$ and rates $\lambda$ and $\psi \lambda$. Their joint density is ${\psi }^n{\lambda }^{2n}{S}^{n-1}{T}^{n-1}{e}^{-\lambda S-\psi \lambda T}/\Gamma (n{)}^2$. The inverse-coordinate Jacobian determinant iswhich reproduces the normalized joint expression. This is the P-star density for two exponential rates; its marginal gives the stated F-distribution. Stirling's approximation gives $c_n=(2\pi {)}^{-1}(1-1/(6n)+O(n^{-2}))$, so using only the leading normalizer retains the exact shape but not its exact total mass.

The original PDF's displayed density constant is missing a square on $\Gamma (n)$. Its printed expression integrates to $\Gamma (n)$, rather than one in general. The normalized density above is the one consistent with the stated F-distribution.

A transformation model consists of a group $G$ acting on the sample space and on the set of statistical parameters, with the compatibility propertyIn words, transforming a sample from $P_{\theta }$ produces a sample from $P_{g\theta }$. A transitive transformation model is generated from one reference distribution by the group action. For densities, the compatibility property includes the Jacobian determinant of the sample transformation; it is not merely equality of density values at transformed points.

A maximal invariant $A$ is constant on orbits of a group action and separates them: $A(gx)=A(x)$, and $A(x)=A(y)$ implies $y=gx$ for some $g$. An equivariant estimator $T$ of the parameter satisfies $T(gx)=gT(x)$. Equivariance means the estimate follows the transformed parameter, whereas invariance means the reported value stays unchanged.

First suppose the set of statistical parameters can be identified with the group, as happens for a simply transitive action. An equivariant estimator then provides a group-valued fit $\hat{g}(x)$ with $\hat{g}(gx)=g\hat{g}(x)$. Normalize the sample by this fit:Indeed $A(gx)=\hat{g}(x{)}^{-1}{g}^{-1}gx=A(x)$. Conversely, if $A(x)=A(y)$, then $y=\hat{g}(y)\hat{g}(x{)}^{-1}x$, placing $x,y$ in the same orbit of a group action. This establishes maximality, rather than only invariance.

For a transitive action with a nontrivial stabilizer $H$ of a reference parameter ${\theta }_0$, a parameter-valued equivariant estimator does not specify a unique normalizing transformation. Choose a section $h_{\theta }$ with $h_{\theta }{\theta }_0=\theta$ and form $b(x)=h_{T(x)}^{-1}x$. Under $g$,Thus the $H$-orbit of $b(x)$ is invariant. It is maximal: if $b(y)=hb(x)$ with $h\in H$, then $y=h_{T(y)}h{h}_{T(x)}^{-1}x$. Appropriate measurable sections and orbit of a group action coordinates are assumed when treating this as a statistic. This qualification explains why an arbitrary equivariant statistic alone is not automatically a complete set of invariant coordinates.

For the location-scale family, write $X_i=\mu +\sigma Z_i$ with $\sigma >0$ and a fixed joint distribution of $Z$. The group consists of maps $x_i\mapsto a+b{x}_i$ with $b>0$, acting on parameters by $(\mu ,\sigma )\mapsto (a+b\mu ,b\sigma )$. For a nonconstant sample of size $n\ge 2$, take the equivariant estimatorIt gives the maximal invariantIts coordinates satisfy ${\sum }_i{A}_i=0$ and ${\sum }_i{A}_i^2=n$. They stay unchanged under location and positive-scale transformations. If two samples have the same standardized vector, thenso a single group transformation maps the first sample onto the second. The vector retains the observation labels: sorting it would discard information not removed by this location-scale group. The construction is algebraic and does not require the underlying distribution to have finite moments. Constant samples can be assigned a separate invariant value; they form a single exceptional orbit of a group action and have probability zero under an independent continuous base distribution.

Finally, in a transitive transformation model every invariant statistic is ancillary. Choose $g$ taking ${\theta }_0$ to $\theta$ and use $X_{\theta }\stackrel{d}{=}g{X}_{{\theta }_0}$; invariance gives $A(X_{\theta })\stackrel{d}{=}A(X_{{\theta }_0})$. Thus the standardized residual configuration provides a natural conditioning variable, while the equivariant fit contains the location and scale information.

At an interior statistical parameter $\theta$, local asymptotic normality means that there are random vectors ${\Delta }_{n,\theta }$ and a symmetric nonnegative Fisher information matrix $I_{\theta }$ such that, for each fixed $h\in {\mathbb{R}}^p$,A common stronger definition requires this expansion also for $h_n\to h$. The fixed-$h$ version suffices here. A regular identifiable model usually has positive definite Fisher information; nonsingularity is unnecessary for the contiguity conclusion.

Here are sufficient differentiability conditions for a proof by Taylor's theorem. Suppose the local probability density functions have common support, ${\ell }_{\vartheta }(y)=\log f(\vartheta ,y)$ is twice continuously differentiable near $\theta$, differentiation can pass through the normalization integral twice, the score function $s_{\theta }=\nabla {\ell }_{\theta }$ has finite second moment, and the local Hessian matrix is bounded in operator norm by an integrable envelope of a function class. These hypotheses implyThe first identity differentiates $\int f_{\theta }=1$ once; the second uses ${\nabla }^2{f}_{\theta }=f_{\theta }({\nabla }^2{\ell }_{\theta }+s_{\theta }{s}_{\theta }^T)$ and differentiates twice. The central limit theorem gives ${\Delta }_{n,\theta }=n^{-1/2}{\sum }_i{s}_{\theta }(Y_i)\stackrel{d}{\to }{N}_p(0,I_{\theta })$. Taylor's integral remainder givesThe weak law of large numbers and the continuity and integrable-envelope hypotheses make the bracket converge in probability to $-I_{\theta }/2$. Indeed, the expectation of the supremum of the Hessian matrix difference over a shrinking neighborhood tends to zero by dominated convergence, and Markov inequality controls its empirical average. This proves local asymptotic normality and explains the role of both derivatives.

Write $Q_n◃P_n$ for contiguity of probability measures: for every measurable sequence $A_n$, $P_n(A_n)\to 0$ implies $Q_n(A_n)\to 0$. Mutual contiguity requires this in both directions. A useful form of Le Cam's first lemma is the following: if the Radon-Nikodym derivative $L_n$ of the absolutely continuous part of $Q_n$ relative to $P_n$ converges in distribution under $P_n$ to $L$, with $L>0$ almost surely and $\mathbb{E}L=1$, then the two sequences are mutually contiguous. This includes the usual case $L_n=d{Q}_n/d{P}_n$. The mean-one condition ensures uniform integrability of $L_n$ and vanishing mass of any singular part; positivity ensures the reverse implication.

Take $P_n=P_{\theta }^n$ and $Q_n=P_{\theta +h/\sqrt{n}}^n$. Their likelihood ratio on the support of $P_n$ satisfies, by local asymptotic normality and the continuous mapping theorem,This limit is positive and $\mathbb{E}L=e^{-v/2}{e}^{v/2}=1$, including $v=0$. The conditions of Le Cam's first lemma therefore hold, giving mutual contiguity of the product sampling laws. The products, rather than the one-observation laws, are the relevant sequences.

For any $\epsilon >0$, let $A_n=\{\Vert {\hat{\theta }}_n-\theta \Vert >\epsilon \}$. Consistency under $P_{\theta }^n$ makes $P_{\theta }^n(A_n)\to 0$, and contiguity gives $Q_n(A_n)\to 0$. Thus the estimator remains consistent for $\theta$ under each fixed local alternative. Since $\Vert \theta +h/\sqrt{n}-\theta \Vert \to 0$, it is also consistent for the moving parameter in the sense that $\Vert {\hat{\theta }}_n-(\theta +h/\sqrt{n})\Vert \to 0$ in probability under $Q_n$.

Index chocolate by $a\in \{A,B,C,D\}$, day by $d$ in the three observed categories, and replicate by $r\in \{1,2\}$. The additive two-factor normal linear model isHere $Y_{adr}$ is the board count, $\mu$ is the mean for the reference chocolate and reference day, and ${\alpha }_a,{\gamma }_d$ are chocolate and day fixed effects. With corner-point constraints, set ${\alpha }_A=0$ and ${\gamma }_{d_0}=0$, where $d_0$ is the first level in the day factor. The printed coefficient-free output does not determine that factor ordering; the model is unchanged by a different reference category. There is no chocolate–day interaction term in this fit. The six free mean statistical parameters consist of one baseline, three chocolate contrasts and two day contrasts; the common error variance supplies a further statistical parameter.

The coefficient labelled yr2 identifies year as a factor. With $z_i=0$ in the first year and $z_i=1$ in the second, the Poisson regression assumes independent daily counts conditional on year,The unknown mean statistical parameters are the first-year log daily rate ${\beta }_0$ and the second-year log rate ratio ${\beta }_1$; the dispersion parameter is fixed at one. Approximate 95% Wald confidence intervals areExponentiating yields the first-year fitted daily mean $5.978$, with confidence interval $(5.732,6.234)$, andThe second-year fitted daily mean is $e^{1.78810-0.09816}=5.419$. Thus this Poisson regression estimates a 9.35% fall, with an approximate interval for the percentage fall from 3.66% to 14.70%. These confidence intervals rely on the Poisson distribution and independence assumptions.

The Quasi-Poisson regression retains the same conditional mean but permitsThis is a mean–variance function specification through quasi-likelihood; it does not assign a full probability distribution to each count. For independent observations, the quasi-score equation is proportional to ${\sum }_i{x}_i(Y_i-{\mu }_i)=0$, so the mean statistical parameter estimates equal those from Poisson regression. The output estimates $\hat{\varphi }=3.515351$ through the Pearson dispersion estimator, and inflates the standard errors by approximately $\sqrt{\hat{\varphi }}=1.875$.

The large residual deviance relative to 728 residual statistical degrees of freedom also signals substantial overdispersion. Daily weather, traffic and other omitted conditions may produce greater count variation than a homogeneous Poisson distribution allows. The Quasi-Poisson regression accounts for that extra marginal variance. It still requires a correct conditional mean and an appropriate independence assumption; a common dispersion parameter alone does not repair serial correlation.

Allow each subject to have a separate baseline and slope through a correlated random-intercept and random-slope model:The subject random effects are independent of all measurement errors, and subjects are independent. The within-person covariance between times $s,t$ is ${\tau }_0^2+(s+t)\rho {\tau }_0{\tau }_1+st{\tau }_1^2$, with an additional ${\sigma }^2$ when the same reading is used twice.

Prefer the model with a random slope. The maximum likelihood estimation refits improve twice the log-likelihood by $227.9604$ while adding two covariance statistical parameters. Both the Akaike information criterion ($5165.779$ to $4941.819$) and Bayesian information criterion ($5183.367$ to $4968.200$) strongly favour it. The printed nominal likelihood-ratio test is overwhelming. The usual reference chi-squared distribution with two statistical degrees of freedom is not an exact regular calibration, since zero slope variance is a boundary and the intercept–slope correlation is then unidentified; a design-specific parametric bootstrap could calibrate it. This qualification does not undermine the substantial descriptive improvement shown by both information criteria.

The preferred fit estimates population mean baseline strength ${\hat{\beta }}_0=61.09286$ kg and weekly gain ${\hat{\beta }}_1=2.83143$ kg/week. The between-person baseline standard deviation is ${\hat{\tau }}_0=15.785582$ kg, and the between-person slope standard deviation is ${\hat{\tau }}_1=2.738666$ kg/week. Their estimated correlation $\hat{\rho }=0.117$ is weakly positive, giving random-effect covariance about $5.058$ kg${}^2$/week; its uncertainty is not supplied. The measurement-error standard deviation is $\hat{\sigma }=9.923280$ kg. The printed $-0.038$ instead describes the correlation between the estimated fixed effects, not between the subject random effects. These statistical parameter estimates come from restricted maximum likelihood; the model comparison uses the separate maximum likelihood estimation fits.

The population mean fitted trajectory is $61.09286+2.83143t$ kg. HenceUsing the reported slope standard error, an approximate 95% confidence interval for the population mean gain is $28.3143\pm 1.96(2.984464)=(22.46,34.16)$ kg; a Student t confidence interval with 499 statistical degrees of freedom is almost identical.

Successful individuals can improve far more than the average. Their latent ten-week gains have fitted normal distributionA clear estimate for an upper-performing group uses a between-person slope quantile: the 95th percentile is $28.3143+1.645(27.38666)\simeq 73.4$ kg, and the 97.5th percentile is about $82.0$ kg. The upper 5% of fitted underlying gains begin around 73 kg. These are person-to-person performance quantiles, not confidence intervals for the population mean. Identifying the best observed trainee would require that person's data or fitted subject random effects; the aggregate output cannot identify a literal maximum. If performance means the observed difference of endpoint readings, add the measurement-error variance $2{\sigma }^2$ to the latent gain variance.

The cumulative-response logistic model uses $C_{it}={\sum }_{s<t}{Y}_{is}$ instead of the two individual lag predictors. It and the two-lag history-dependent logistic regression are nonnested: the entire accumulated history generally cannot be represented using only the two recent outcomes. Their binomial deviance difference therefore has no ordinary nested chi-squared distribution calibration.

Use the Akaike information criterion, which up to the same saturated-model constant equals $D+2k$ for these Bernoulli distribution conditional likelihoods. The two-lag fit has six coefficients, while the cumulative fit has five:Thus prefer the cumulative-history model, whose Akaike information criterion is lower by 35 despite its smaller number of statistical parameters. This is a model-selection comparison of conditional histories, not a nested likelihood-ratio test.

Let $q_{rs}$ be the transition intensity from state $r$ to $s$, and let $Q$ be the transition intensity matrix, with $q_{rr}=-{\sum }_{s\ne r}{q}_{rs}$. For a continuous-time multi-state model with the time-homogeneous Markov property, the transition probability matrix is $P(u)=e^{uQ}$, with entry $p_{rs}(u)$. Condition on each recorded initial state. Panel visits contribute transition probabilities; an exact entry into the absorbing death state contributes a statistical probability densityThis mixed panel and exact-death likelihood sums over the living state just before death. It accounts for survival until the event; replacing its final factor by $p_{r3}(u)$ would count deaths throughout the interval.

Using the actual visit times recovered from the PDF, the three individual likelihood contributions areHere $g_{23}$ means $g_{r3}$ with $r=2$, not a transition probability. Subjects 8 and 9 supply no event-density factor after their last panel observation. Assume independent subjects and noninformative examination and censoring times; conditional on their observation schedule, its distribution supplies no additional statistical parameter-dependent factor. The patients' covariates can be incorporated by using their own $Q_i$ in these same expressions.

For the progressive structure used in the subsequent output, put $a=q_{12}$, $b=q_{13}$, $c=q_{23}$ and $\lambda =a+b$. The progressive illness-death model permits no recovery, soWhen $\lambda =c$, the continuous limit is $p_{12}(u)=au{e}^{-cu}$. Thus the likelihood contributions simplify toIntermediate unobserved disease transitions remain integrated into each panel transition probability.

Under $H_0$, the seven free covariate coefficients all equal zero. The likelihood-ratio test statistic isThe larger fit has ten free statistical parameters, compared with three in the constant-rate fit, so the reference chi-squared distribution has seven statistical degrees of freedom. Its 95th percentile is $14.06714$. Therefore reject $H_0$ at 5%; the p-value is approximately $0.0043$, and the covariate model is preferred. The two constrained sex coefficients add no free statistical parameters.

For the dementia-to-death arrow, the hazard ratio for higher versus lower education is $e^{-1.490}=0.2254$, with approximate 95% confidence interval $(e^{-2.547},e^{-0.4327})=(0.0783,0.6488)$. Thus higher education is associated with a roughly 77.5% lower fitted death transition intensity, conditional on diagnosis age; the interval excludes one. This is an observational association and is not a direct multiplicative statement about death probability.

Each additional year of age at diagnosis multiplies the dementia-to-death transition intensity by $e^{0.07984}=1.0831$, with confidence interval $(e^{-0.007765},e^{0.1674})=(0.9923,1.1822)$. The estimate suggests an increase, but the interval includes one, so this individual age coefficient is not significant at 5%. Sex has hazard ratio one for this transition by the model's imposed constraint. The output supplies no estimated sex effect or test of that constraint for this arrow. The nonzero sex coefficient for $1\to 2$ must not be mistaken for a sex effect on $2\to 3$.

Let $\mathcal{D}=(x^{(1)},\dots ,x^{(n)})$ contain independent complete observations of the $p$-dimensional vector, and let $G$ be a Directed acyclic graph. A Gaussian Bayesian network uses, for node $j$,Here ${\alpha }_j$ is an intercept, ${\gamma }_j$ the vector of parent coefficients, and ${\sigma }_j^2>0$ the conditional variance; the vector ${\theta }_G$ collects these statistical parameters. Its likelihood function factors asChoose a proper statistical parameter prior distribution $\pi ({\theta }_G\mid G)$ and a graph prior distribution $\pi (G)$. Bayes' theorem gives the Bayesian network structure score, up to the normalization common to graphs,The integral is Bayesian model evidence: it averages over nuisance parameters rather than substituting their best-fitting values. A graph prior can favor sparse graphs, while the evidence balances fit against the amount of prior statistical parameter space that predicts the observations well. Compare these scores over admissible Directed acyclic graphs, using enumeration when feasible or a search procedure otherwise; search need not find a global maximum, and observational data need not identify a unique causal orientation.

A conjugate prior makes the integral analytic. For example, for ${\eta }_j=({\alpha }_j,{\gamma }_j)$ take ${\eta }_j\mid {\sigma }_j^2\sim N(m_j,{\sigma }_j^2{V}_j)$, ${\sigma }_j^2\sim \mathrm{IG}(a_j,b_j)$, where $V_j$ is positive-definite matrix and $a_j,b_j>0$; these are independent local normal-inverse-gamma priors. Under prior independence between nodes, the evidence is a product of local regression evidences. Each posterior has the same family, so the local integral is the ratio of prior and posterior normalization constants, with the likelihood's constants included. This avoids costly numerical integration and makes local graph updates inexpensive. Hyperparameters must be specified coherently if score equivalence between observationally equivalent graphs is desired; arbitrary local priors do not automatically have that property.