Skip to main content
Cross Validated

Return to Question

added 78 characters in body
Source Link
legon
legon
  • 1
  • 1

I am reading A.J. Lee's 1990 book "U-statistics: Theory and Practice". There is an equation on page 6 that I cannot explain why it holds, and I hope somebody could help me. Here is the detail.

Let $X_1,...,X_k$ be iid random variables with distribution F. A statistic $T(X_1,...,X_k)$ is complete with respect to a family of distributions $\mathcal{F}$ if $$ \int h(T(x_1,...,x_k)) dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k) = 0 $$
for all $F\in\mathcal{F}$ implies $h=0$. Then it is said that in case $T(x_1,...,x_k)=(x_{(1)},...,x_{(k)})$ is the order statistics then $$ \int h(T(x_1,...,x_k)) dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k) = \int h^{[n]}(x_1,...,x_k)dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k). $$ I don't understand why this equality is true. It seemsAs a side note, it appears there is a typo here(even after the typo is corrected, I still don't see why the equality holds): $h^{[n]}(x_1,...,x_k)$ should be $h^{[k]}(x_1,...,x_k)$, which is defined as $$ h^{[k]}(x_1,...,x_k) = \frac{1}{k!}\sum h(x_{i_1},...,x_{i_k}), $$ where the sum is over all permutations $(x_{i_1},...,x_{i_k})$ of $\{1,2,...,k\}$. Using this equality, it is concluded that the completeness of the order statistics relative to $\mathcal{F}$ is exactly equivalent to the uniqueness of symmetric unbiased estimators for all $F\in\mathcal{F}$.

I am reading A.J. Lee's 1990 book "U-statistics: Theory and Practice". There is an equation on page 6 that I cannot explain why it holds, and I hope somebody could help me. Here is the detail.

Let $X_1,...,X_k$ be iid random variables with distribution F. A statistic $T(X_1,...,X_k)$ is complete with respect to a family of distributions $\mathcal{F}$ if $$ \int h(T(x_1,...,x_k)) dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k) = 0 $$
for all $F\in\mathcal{F}$ implies $h=0$. Then it is said that in case $T(x_1,...,x_k)=(x_{(1)},...,x_{(k)})$ is the order statistics then $$ \int h(T(x_1,...,x_k)) dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k) = \int h^{[n]}(x_1,...,x_k)dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k). $$ I don't understand why this equality is true. It seems there is a typo here: $h^{[n]}(x_1,...,x_k)$ should be $h^{[k]}(x_1,...,x_k)$, which is defined as $$ h^{[k]}(x_1,...,x_k) = \frac{1}{k!}\sum h(x_{i_1},...,x_{i_k}), $$ where the sum is over all permutations $(x_{i_1},...,x_{i_k})$ of $\{1,2,...,k\}$. Using this equality, it is concluded that the completeness of the order statistics relative to $\mathcal{F}$ is exactly equivalent to the uniqueness of symmetric unbiased estimators for all $F\in\mathcal{F}$.

I am reading A.J. Lee's 1990 book "U-statistics: Theory and Practice". There is an equation on page 6 that I cannot explain why it holds, and I hope somebody could help me. Here is the detail.

Let $X_1,...,X_k$ be iid random variables with distribution F. A statistic $T(X_1,...,X_k)$ is complete with respect to a family of distributions $\mathcal{F}$ if $$ \int h(T(x_1,...,x_k)) dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k) = 0 $$
for all $F\in\mathcal{F}$ implies $h=0$. Then it is said that in case $T(x_1,...,x_k)=(x_{(1)},...,x_{(k)})$ is the order statistics then $$ \int h(T(x_1,...,x_k)) dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k) = \int h^{[n]}(x_1,...,x_k)dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k). $$ I don't understand why this equality is true. As a side note, it appears there is a typo (even after the typo is corrected, I still don't see why the equality holds): $h^{[n]}(x_1,...,x_k)$ should be $h^{[k]}(x_1,...,x_k)$, which is defined as $$ h^{[k]}(x_1,...,x_k) = \frac{1}{k!}\sum h(x_{i_1},...,x_{i_k}), $$ where the sum is over all permutations $(x_{i_1},...,x_{i_k})$ of $\{1,2,...,k\}$. Using this equality, it is concluded that the completeness of the order statistics relative to $\mathcal{F}$ is exactly equivalent to the uniqueness of symmetric unbiased estimators for all $F\in\mathcal{F}$.

edited title
Link
legon
legon
  • 1
  • 1

Equivalence betweenof the completeness of the order statistics and the uniqueness of symmetric unbiased estimators

Source Link
legon
legon
  • 1
  • 1

Equivalence between the completeness of the order statistics and the uniqueness of symmetric unbiased estimators

I am reading A.J. Lee's 1990 book "U-statistics: Theory and Practice". There is an equation on page 6 that I cannot explain why it holds, and I hope somebody could help me. Here is the detail.

Let $X_1,...,X_k$ be iid random variables with distribution F. A statistic $T(X_1,...,X_k)$ is complete with respect to a family of distributions $\mathcal{F}$ if $$ \int h(T(x_1,...,x_k)) dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k) = 0 $$
for all $F\in\mathcal{F}$ implies $h=0$. Then it is said that in case $T(x_1,...,x_k)=(x_{(1)},...,x_{(k)})$ is the order statistics then $$ \int h(T(x_1,...,x_k)) dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k) = \int h^{[n]}(x_1,...,x_k)dF(x_1)\cdots dF(x_k). $$ I don't understand why this equality is true. It seems there is a typo here: $h^{[n]}(x_1,...,x_k)$ should be $h^{[k]}(x_1,...,x_k)$, which is defined as $$ h^{[k]}(x_1,...,x_k) = \frac{1}{k!}\sum h(x_{i_1},...,x_{i_k}), $$ where the sum is over all permutations $(x_{i_1},...,x_{i_k})$ of $\{1,2,...,k\}$. Using this equality, it is concluded that the completeness of the order statistics relative to $\mathcal{F}$ is exactly equivalent to the uniqueness of symmetric unbiased estimators for all $F\in\mathcal{F}$.