Assume the lifetime (in months) of batteries is modeled as an exponential random variable with parameter
𝜆
. The probability density function of the random variable is
𝑝
𝜆
(
𝑥
)
=
𝜆
𝑒
−
𝜆
𝑥
,
with
𝑥
∈
[
0
,
∞
)
.
We have collected an i.i.d. sample of 5 batteries whose lifetimes in months are 4, 8, 6, 10, 7, respectively. The standardized log-likelihood of a sample with
𝑛
i.i.d. observations is
1
𝑛
log
𝐿
(
𝑥
,
𝜆
)
=
1
𝑛
∑
𝑖
=
1
𝑛
(
log
(
𝜆
)
−
𝜆
𝑥
𝑖
)
.
To compute the standard errors of the MLE estimate of
𝜆
we need to compute the value of
𝐵
̂
0
for this model. Given this information:

Question

Assume the lifetime (in months) of batteries is modeled as an exponential random variable with parameter 
𝜆
. The probability density function of the random variable is
𝑝
𝜆
(
𝑥
)
=
𝜆
𝑒
−
𝜆
𝑥
,
with 
𝑥
∈
[
0
,
∞
)
.
 We have collected an i.i.d. sample of 5 batteries whose lifetimes in months are 4, 8, 6, 10, 7, respectively. The standardized log-likelihood of a sample with 
𝑛
 i.i.d. observations is
1
𝑛
log
𝐿
(
𝑥
,
𝜆
)
=
1
𝑛
∑
𝑖
=
1
𝑛
(
log
(
𝜆
)
−
𝜆
𝑥
𝑖
)
.
To compute the standard errors of the MLE estimate of 
𝜆
 we need to compute the value of 
𝐵
̂
0
 for this model. Given this information:

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

We start by restating the setup in our own words to ensure clarity: we have iid lifetimes X1,...,X5 from an exponential distribution with rate parameter lambda, so the density is p_lambda(x) = lambda * e^{-lambda x} for x >= 0. The sample given is 4, 8, 6, 10, 7 (in months). The standardized log-likelihood for a sample with n observations is l_bar(lambda) = (1/n) * sum_i [ log(lambda) - lambda * x_i ] = log(lambda) - lambda * x_bar, where x_bar is the sample mean.

First, compute the sample mean: x_bar = (4 + 8 + 6 + 10 + 7) / 5 = 35 / 5 = 7. Thus l_bar(lambda) = log(lambda) - lambda * 7.

Next, identify the MLE for lambda in this exponential model. The standard (unstandardized) log-likelihood is l(lambda) = n log(lambda) - lambda * sum_i x_i. Its derivative is 0 at d/d lambda l = n / lambda - sum_i x_i = 0, giving lambda_hat = n / sum_i x_i = 5 / 35 = 1/7. This is the MLE for lambda; note that the MLE depends on the data through the sum or the mean, and here the result is lambda_hat = 1/7.

Now, consider the quantity B_hat0 that’s required for the standard errors. The usual Fisher information for a single observation in an exponential( lambda ) model is I(lambda) = 1 / lambda^2, so for n observations the information is n / lambda^2. When evaluating at the MLE lambda_hat, we get B_hat0 = n / (lambda_hat^2). If we plug in lambda_hat = 1/7, then lambda_hat^2 = (1/7)^2 = 1/49, and thus n / lambda_hat^2 = 5 / (1/49) = 5 * 49 = 245. None of the given answer choices matches 245, so there’s a discrepancy between the standard derivation and the options provided.

An alternative way some texts present B_hat0 is as the negative of the second derivative of the standardized log-likelihood evaluated at the MLE, i.e., B_hat0 = - d^2/d lambda^2 [ l_bar(lambda) ] |_{lambda = lambda_hat}. Since l_bar(lambda) = log(lambda) - lambda * x_bar, its second derivative is d^2/d lambda^2 l_bar(lambda) = -1 / lambda^2, which is independent of the data aside from lambda. Therefore, B_hat0 = -(-1 / lambda_hat^2) = 1 / lambda_hat^2. With lambda_hat = 1/7, this equals 1 / (1/7)^2 = 49. While this yields a clean constant 49, the options presented do not include 49; instead, they include negative values and simple fractions. The nearest match among the options, if one interprets B_hat0 with a sign convention that could yield a negative value in some formulations, is -49.

Now, evaluate each answer choice:
- There is not enough information to compute the estimate B_hat0. This claim is false because we can compute lambda_hat from the data as lambda_hat = 1/7, and with that we can, in principle, evaluate B_hat0 under standard definitions. So insufficient information is not the correct reasoning here.
- B_hat0 = -49. This aligns with the interpretation that B_hat0 equals 1 / lambda_hat^2 but with a sign convention or misalignment in the provided options that yields a negative value when evaluated in this context. Given lambda_hat = 1/7, 1 / lambda_hat^2 = 49, so a negative 49 would reflect a particular sign convention or an error in the option, but it is the closest to a computable quantity in their set.
- B_hat0 = -7. This would correspond to something like - lambda_hat^2 times a scaling, which does not match the standard Fisher information form for this model and does not use the data in a way that would give 7.
- B_hat0 = 1/7. This equals lambda_hat itself, not the information or its negative. It does not align with the standard second-derivative-based information calculation.
- B_hat0 = 1/49. This equals lambda_hat^2, which again does not match the common information expression n / lambda_hat^2 unless a particular tiny-sample scaling or different definition is used, which is not standard here.

In summary, the question asks for B_hat0 given the sample and model. The most consistent numerical value among the options, given the typical relationship involving lambda_hat = 1/7 and the common second-derivative-based information, would be the negative of 1 / lambda_hat^2 or a closely related quantity, which in the provided choices is -49. This matches the pattern where the computed 1 / lambda_hat^2 is 49 but the option presents as -49, suggesting a sign convention used in the question’s context.

Similar Questions

Which one statement is true?

Which one statement is true?

Which one statement is true?

Which one statement is true?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler