Paper detail

Minimum divergence estimators, Maximum Likelihood and the generalized bootstrap

This paper is an attempt to set a justification for making use of some dicrepancy indexes, starting from the classical Maximum Likelihood definition, and adapting the corresponding basic principle of inference to situations where minimization of those indexes between a model and some extension of the empirical measure of the data appears as its natural extension. This leads to the so called generalized bootstrap setting for which minimum divergence inference seems to replace Maximum Likelihood one. 1 Motivation and context Divergences between probability measures are widely used in Statistics and Data Science in order to perform inference under models of various kinds, paramet-ric or semi parametric, or even in non parametric settings. The corresponding methods extend the likelihood paradigm and insert inference in some minimum "distance" framing, which provides a convenient description for the properties of the resulting estimators and tests, under the model or under misspecifica-tion. Furthermore they pave the way to a large number of competitive methods , which allows for trade-off between efficiency and robustness, among others. Many families of such divergences have been proposed, some of them stemming from classical statistics (such as the Chi-square), while others have their origin in other fields such as Information theory. Some measures of discrepancy involve regularity of the corresponding probability measures while others seem to be restricted to measures on finite or countable spaces, at least when using them as inferential tools, henceforth in situations when the elements of a model have to be confronted with a dataset. The choice of a specific discrepancy measure in specific context is somehow arbitrary in many cases, although the resulting conclusion of the inference might differ accordingly, above all under misspecification; however the need for such approaches is clear when aiming at robustness.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.