Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-xlmdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-09T20:48:45.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Maximum likelihood estimation for spinal-structured trees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2024

Romain Azaïs*
Affiliation:
Inria team MOSAIC
Benoît Henry*
Affiliation:
IMT Nord Europe
*
*Postal address: ÉNS de Lyon, 46 Allée d’Italie, 69 007 Lyon, France. Email address: [email protected]
**Postal address: Institut Mines-Télécom, Univ. Lille, 59 000 Lille, France. Email address: [email protected]

Abstract

We investigate some aspects of the problem of the estimation of birth distributions (BDs) in multi-type Galton–Watson trees (MGWs) with unobserved types. More precisely, we consider two-type MGWs called spinal-structured trees. This kind of tree is characterized by a spine of special individuals whose BD $\nu$ is different from the other individuals in the tree (called normal, and whose BD is denoted by $\mu$). In this work, we show that even in such a very structured two-type population, our ability to distinguish the two types and estimate $\mu$ and $\nu$ is constrained by a trade-off between the growth-rate of the population and the similarity of $\mu$ and $\nu$. Indeed, if the growth-rate is too large, large deviation events are likely to be observed in the sampling of the normal individuals, preventing us from distinguishing them from special ones. Roughly speaking, our approach succeeds if $r\lt \mathfrak{D}(\mu,\nu)$, where r is the exponential growth-rate of the population and $\mathfrak{D}$ is a divergence measuring the dissimilarity between $\mu$ and $\nu$.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Applied Probability Trust

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abraham, R. and Delmas, J.-F. (2014). Local limits of conditioned Galton–Watson trees: the infinite spine case. Electron. J. Prob. 19, 56.Google Scholar
Athreya, K. B. and Ney, P. E. (2004). Branching Processes. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY. Reprint of the 1972 original.Google Scholar
Azaïs, R., Cerutti, G., Gemmerlé, D. and Ingels, F. (2019). treex: a Python package for manipulating rooted trees. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhat, B. R. and Adke, S. R. (1981). Maximum likelihood estimation for branching processes with immigration. Adv. Appl. Prob. 13, 498509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, M. L. (1997). A joint estimator for the eigenvalues of the reproduction mean matrix of a multitype Galton–Watson process. Linear Algebra Appl. 264, 189203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloez, B., Daufresne, T., Kerioui, M. and Fontez, B. (2019). Galton–Watson process and Bayesian inference: a turnkey method for the viability study of small populations. Available at arXiv:1901.09562.Google Scholar
Devroye, L. (2012). Simulating size-constrained Galton–Watson trees. SIAM J. Comput. 41, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiacco, A. V. and Ishizuka, Y. (1990). Sensitivity and stability analysis for nonlinear programming. Ann. Operat. Res. 27, 215235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, M., Martín, J., Martínez, R. and Mota, M. (2008). Non-parametric Bayesian estimation for multitype branching processes through simulation-based methods. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 52, 12811291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesten, H. (1986). Subdiffusive behavior of random walk on a random cluster. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Prob. Statist. 22, 425487.Google Scholar
Khaįrullin, R. (1992). On estimating parameters of a multitype Galton–Watson process by φ-branching processes. Siberian Math. J. 33, 703713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, R., Pemantle, R. and Peres, Y. (1995). Conceptual proofs of L log L criteria for mean behavior of branching processes. Ann. Prob. 23, 11251138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maaouia, F., Touati, A., et al. (2005). Identification of multitype branching processes. Ann. Statist. 33, 26552694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakes, A. G. (1972). Further results on the critical Galton–Watson process with immigration. J. Austral. Math. Soc. 13, 277290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, J., Wang, J. and Sun, K. (2017). Efficient estimation of component interactions for cascading failure analysis by EM algorithm. IEEE Trans. Power Systems 33, 31533161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staneva, A. and Stoimenova, V. (2020). EM algorithm for statistical estimation of two-type branching processes: a focus on the multinomial offspring distribution. AIP Conference Proceedings 2302, 030003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar