logo

Sufficient Statistics and Maximum Likelihood Estimates of the Location Family 📂Mathematical Statistics

Sufficient Statistics and Maximum Likelihood Estimates of the Location Family

Theorem

Given a random sample X1,,XnXX_{1} , \cdots , X_{n} \sim X obtained from a location family with the probability density function fX(x;θ)=fX(xθ)f_{X} \left( x ; \theta \right) = f_{X} \left( x - \theta \right), the sufficient statistic and maximum likelihood estimator depend on

  • if the support of XX is upper bounded, then maxXk\max X_{k}
  • if the support of XX is lower bounded, then minXk\min X_{k}.

  • The support of a random variable refers to the set of points where the function value of the probability density function is greater than 00. SX:={xR:fX(x;θ)>0} S_{X} := \left\{ x \in \mathbb{R} : f_{X} (x ; \theta) > 0 \right\}
  • A bounded set refers to a set for which there exists an element that is greater than or equal to every element of the given set.

Explanation

For example, if data 0.70.80.10.20.10.9 0.7 \\ 0.8 \\ 0.1 \\ 0.2 \\ 0.1 \\ 0.9 were obtained from a uniform distribution U(0,θ)U \left( 0, \theta \right), then the sufficient statistic and maximum likelihood estimator for θ\theta are naturally the largest value, 0.90.9. In cases where the support itself is dependent on the location parameter θ\theta, one can simply think of minXk\min X_{k} without much consideration. The same applies to exponential distributions.

Proof

Let us only show the case where the support is lower bounded. That the support of XX is lower bounded is equivalent to the probability density function being represented as follows with respect to the indicator function II. fX(x;θ)=fX(x;θ)I[θ,)(x) f_{X} ( x ; \theta ) = f_{X} ( x ; \theta ) I_{[\theta, \infty)} (x)

Product of indicator functions: i=1nI[θ,)(xi)=I[θ,)(mini[n]xi) \prod_{i=1}^{n} I_{[\theta,\infty)} \left( x_{i} \right) = I_{[\theta,\infty)} \left( \min_{i \in [n]} x_{i} \right)

It might be perplexing that II is not a differentiable function, but if one thinks based on its definition, there is nothing difficult. The likelihood function LL is L(θ;x)=k=1nf(xk;θ)I[θ,)(xk)=I[θ,)(mink[n]xk)k=1nf(xk;θ) L \left( \theta ; \mathbf{x} \right) = \prod_{k=1}^{n} f \left( x_{k} ; \theta \right) I_{[\theta, \infty)} \left( x_{k} \right) = I_{[\theta,\infty)} \left( \min_{{k} \in [n]} x_{k} \right) \prod_{k=1}^{n} f \left( x_{k} ; \theta \right) thus, if minxk\min x_{k} is less than the estimate of θ\theta, θ^\hat{\theta}, then 00 inevitably gets multiplied. Therefore, the maximum likelihood estimator must depend on minXk\min X_{k}, and since LL has the same form as the joint probability density function of X1,,XnX_{1} , \cdots , X_{n}, according to the Neyman factorization theorem, the sufficient statistic also must appear as a function of minXk\min X_{k}.