Maximum Likelihood Estimation for the BGEV Distribution

This vignette documents how bgev_mle() estimates the bimodal generalized extreme value (BGEV) distribution: the likelihood and a singularity that forces a restriction on delta, the starting-value strategy, a grouped likelihood for discrete data, the diagnostics returned with every fit, and a Monte Carlo study validating the estimator.

The parametrization follows the revised BGEV of Otiniano, Lisboa & Ribeiro (2025), which adds a location parameter. With shape xi, location mu, scale sigma > 0 and bimodality parameter delta > -1, the CDF is $F(x;\xi,\mu,\sigma,\delta) = F_{\mathrm{GEV}}(T(x);\xi,0,\sigma)$ with the transform $T(x) = (x-\mu)\,|x-\mu|^{\delta}$ and derivative $T'(x) = (\delta+1)\,|x-\mu|^{\delta}$ .

1. The likelihood and its singularity at `x = mu`

The density is $f(x) = f_{\mathrm{GEV}}(T(x);\xi,0,\sigma)\,T'(x)$ . The factor $T'(x) = (\delta+1)|x-\mu|^{\delta}$ behaves very differently with the sign of delta:

for $\delta > 0$ , $T'(x) \to 0$ as $x \to \mu$ (the bimodality dip);
for $\delta < 0$ , $T'(x) \to +\infty$ as $x \to \mu$ — the density diverges at $x = \mu$ .

near_mu <- 10^-(1:4)
rbind(
  `delta<0` = sapply(near_mu, function(e) dbgev(2 + e, mu = 2, sigma = 1, xi = -0.3, delta = -0.3)),
  `delta>0` = sapply(near_mu, function(e) dbgev(2 + e, mu = 2, sigma = 1, xi = -0.3, delta =  0.5))
)
#>              [,1]       [,2]       [,3]        [,4]
#> delta<0 0.5358177 1.03675932 2.05034061 4.083283699
#> delta>0 0.1760839 0.05519845 0.01745022 0.005518193

When delta < 0 the likelihood is therefore unbounded: driving mu onto an observation sends the log-likelihood to $+\infty$ . This is the classic unbounded-likelihood phenomenon — the same mechanism as the normal model with $\sigma \to 0$ on a single point (Pawitan, 2001, §4.8). With continuous data it has probability zero, but with tied or integer data the global maximizer parks mu on a data atom, a spurious spike rather than a better fit.

Consequence for estimation. bgev_mle() restricts estimation to delta > 0. This matches the revised reference, whose own estimation routine uses delta >= 0, and it loses nothing of interest: bimodality occurs only for delta > 0 (delta = 0 is the ordinary GEV). The distribution functions (dbgev(), pbgev(), …) still accept the full delta > -1; only the estimator is restricted. Internally the search is reparametrized as $(\mu, \log\sigma, \log\delta)$ , so sigma > 0 and delta > 0 hold by construction and no penalty cliff is needed for the parameter box.

2. Starting values: quantiles for the aim, a box for diversity

The optimizer is a multistart local search (Nelder–Mead, 1965). Two complementary kinds of starting point feed it:

One quantile-matching start (bgev_start_using_quantiles), the aimed guess: it finds parameters whose model quantiles match the empirical quantiles at $p = (0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9)$ by solving the four equations with a Newton-type solver.
Several box starts (bgev_start_box, bgev_sample_starts), the diversity: points drawn uniformly from a loose, data-driven box. They are deliberately scattered to probe for competing local maxima.

bgev_mle() runs a full local optimization from every start and keeps the best admissible result (Section 4). The aimed start usually wins; the box starts guard against multimodality.

This local-multistart design is cheaper than a global optimizer such as differential evolution (DEoptim). The accepted pattern is to find the basin with cheap starts and then polish locally (the global-to-local strategy; Nocedal & Wright, 2006; Nash, 2014): the revised reference fits with plain Nelder–Mead, and the Monte Carlo study below reaches the maximum in 93–100% of replications, so a full global search is unnecessary for the regular regime. A global fallback is reserved for cases where the starts disagree.

Closed-form quantile estimators

The BGEV quantile function yields exact estimators at special probabilities. Writing $Q(p)$ for the quantile function, at $p = e^{-1}$ we have $-\log p = 1$ , so the shape term $[(-\log p)^{-\xi}-1]/\xi$ vanishes and

$Q(e^{-1}) = \mu \qquad \text{for all } \sigma, \xi, \delta.$

x <- rbgev(2e5, mu = 5, sigma = 3, xi = -0.4, delta = 0.3)
c(closed_form = unname(quantile(x, exp(-1))), truth = 5)
#> closed_form       truth 
#>    5.010103    5.000000

So quantile(x, exp(-1)) is an exact, parameter-free estimator of mu. For the Gumbel-type case xi = 0, closed forms exist for the other two parameters as well. Writing $\hat\mu = Q(e^{-1})$ and forming the centered quantiles $q_k = Q(e^{-e^{k}}) - \hat\mu$ for $k = 1, 2$ ,

$\delta = \frac{1}{\log_2(q_1/q_2)} - 1, \qquad \sigma = (-q_2)^{\delta+1}.$

(Centering by $\hat\mu$ is essential: $q_k = -(\sigma k)^{1/(\delta+1)}$ only after the location is removed.)

These are documented for completeness. They are not used as the estimator: the general xi case has no such closed form, and experiments showed that seeding mu with $Q(e^{-1})$ did not improve convergence or recovery over the joint quantile solve — starts were not the bottleneck.

3. Discrete data: the grouped likelihood

BGEV is continuous, so a fit to rounded or integer data via the density is a model mismatch (and, were delta < 0 allowed, exactly where the atom spike bites). The correct model records each value x to resolution h as the interval probability

$P\big(X \in [x - h/2,\ x + h/2]\big) = F(x + h/2) - F(x - h/2),$

which is bounded by one and cannot blow up (Pawitan, 2001, §4.8). Select it with the likelihood argument. To see that it does the right thing, we draw continuous BGEV data, record it to the nearest integer (resolution $h = 1$ ), and recover the generating parameters:

set.seed(1)
x_cont  <- rbgev(1000, mu = 0, sigma = 8, xi = 0.2, delta = 0.3)
x_obs   <- round(x_cont)                                  # rounded to nearest unit
fit_grp <- bgev_mle(x_obs, likelihood = "grouped_likelihood", h = 1)

rbind(truth    = c(mu = 0, sigma = 8, xi = 0.2, delta = 0.3),
      estimate = round(fit_grp$par, 2))
#>             mu sigma   xi delta
#> truth     0.00  8.00 0.20  0.30
#> estimate -0.11  7.34 0.23  0.27

The grouped fit stays close to the truth despite the rounding. On continuous data the grouped likelihood with a small h reproduces the continuous MLE; on discrete data it is the appropriate choice and suppresses the tied-data warning that the continuous density would raise.

4. Diagnostics returned with every fit

x   <- rbgev(300, mu = 0, sigma = 1, xi = 0.2, delta = 1)
fit <- bgev_mle(x)
round(fit$par, 3)
#>     mu  sigma     xi  delta 
#> -0.012  0.971  0.128  0.918
round(fit$se, 3)
#>    mu sigma    xi delta 
#> 0.019 0.046 0.058 0.103
c(loglik = fit$loglik, convergence = fit$convergence,
  admissible = fit$admissible, agree = fit$agree)
#>      loglik convergence  admissible       agree 
#>   -361.2188      0.0000      1.0000      0.0000

se — standard errors from the inverse observed-information Hessian (which is the Hessian of the negative log-likelihood at the estimate). They are returned only for an admissible optimum; near the parameter-dependent support boundary the regularity conditions fail, so se is NA there.
convergence — the optim code (0 = success).
agree — TRUE if several independent starts reached the same maximum (good evidence the optimum is global); FALSE if only one did (a weaker signal — the maximum may be local, worth inspecting a profile).
admissible — whether the returned optimum is a regular interior maximum: a positive-definite Hessian with eigenvalue ratio above 1e-6. The multistart keeps the best admissible optimum and rejects spurious / singular ones; admissible = FALSE warns that inference is not trustworthy there.
boundary — proximity of the data to the parameter-dependent support endpoint, where the usual regularity conditions fail.
optimum — gradient norm, Hessian positive-definiteness and eigenvalue ratio at the estimate.

bgev_profile_likelihood() complements these with a profile curve for any parameter.

5. Monte Carlo validation

A study of 13,500 fits (45 cells, 300 replications) simulated from known parameters and refit, with mu = 0, sigma = 1, xi in {−0.4, −0.2, 0, 0.2, 0.4}, delta in {0.25, 1, 3} and n in {100, 250, 500}. The script is benchmarks/mc_study.R. Convergence was 93–100% in every cell (maximum failure rate 6%). The results below summarize the two decision-relevant findings; they are static, taken from that run.

The estimator is consistent and well-calibrated in the regular regime (xi >= -0.2): bias → 0, RMSE falls like 1/sqrt(n), and Wald coverage from the observed-information Hessian is near the nominal 0.95.

Wald 95% coverage of xi (delta = 1). Target 0.95.
xi	n=100	n=250	n=500
-0.4	0.84	0.39	0.08
-0.2	0.98	0.97	0.97
0.0	0.92	0.94	0.95
0.2	0.91	0.94	0.93
0.4	0.91	0.93	0.94

At the boundary (xi = -0.4) the model is non-regular: the parameter-dependent support makes the MLE non-normal, so Wald coverage collapses and worsens with n (0.84 → 0.39 → 0.08) and RMSE does not shrink. The package flags this itself through the admissibility gate, which rejects most such fits:

Admissible rate (positive-definite-Hessian gate), n = 500.
xi	delta=0.25	delta=1	delta=3
-0.4	0.46	0.12	0.10
-0.2	0.98	0.92	0.89
0.0	1.00	1.00	1.00
0.2	1.00	1.00	1.00
0.4	1.00	1.00	1.00

Where Wald coverage holds the gate accepts ~100% of fits; where it fails it rejects 88–90%. A user who checks fit$admissible is steered away from exactly the fits whose Hessian-based standard errors cannot be trusted — and in that regime bgev_mle() returns se = NA rather than an unreliable number.

References

Otiniano, C. E. G., Lisboa, M. N. S., & Ribeiro, T. K. A. (2025). A Revised Bimodal Generalized Extreme Value Distribution: Theory and Climate Data Application. Entropy, 27(7), 749. doi:10.3390/e27070749
Otiniano, C. E. G., et al. (2023). A bimodal model for extremes data. Environmental and Ecological Statistics. doi:10.1007/s10651-023-00566-7
Pawitan, Y. (2001). In All Likelihood: Statistical Modelling and Inference Using Likelihood. Oxford University Press. (§4.8, unbounded likelihood and the finite-precision / grouped likelihood.)
Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R. (1965). A simplex method for function minimization. The Computer Journal, 7(4), 308–313.
Nash, J. C. (2014). Nonlinear Parameter Optimization Using R Tools. Wiley.
Nocedal, J., & Wright, S. J. (2006). Numerical Optimization (2nd ed.). Springer.